MartinHafer "Arizona" probably marks the most unusual performance by Jean Arthur. Usually, this actress is known for comedies or romance but here she's in a western. This isn't that unusual, considering she's known for her performance in "Shane". However, here in "Arizona", she plays a completely different sort of role. She's a tough-as-nails broad--one who is the equal to any man....and don't you forget it!!The film begins in Tucson, Arizona about 1861. It's a wild town--and not even much of a town at that. The only non-Indian or Hispanic woman there is Phoebe (Arthur) and you are introduced to her when she enters the cantina and holds all of men working for Lazarus Ward (Porter Hall) at gunpoint! It seems some of them stole from her and she's going to blow their heads off unless they return the money! Watching all this is a newcomer, Peter (William Holden) and, bizarrely, he's smitten!! She soon falls for him, too. However, there's a glitch in their romance-- he's a wandering soul and is only stopping by on his way to California. When he eventually leaves town, it leaves Phoebe to deal not only with the skunk Ward but his secret partner, Jefferson Carteret (Warren William). The two weasels plan on ruining Phoebe's budding freight business and when that attempt fails, Carteret plans on something even more devious. When Peter returns from California, he sees right through Carteret and you know by the end of the film one of them will be pushing up daisies!This is a rather sprawling film with a little bit of everything in it. While the film isn't easy to believe, the acting is quite nice. I particularly liked William--who was magnificent in playing slimy rogues. And, here he's at his slimiest! Well worth seeing if a bit silly in places--it's the sort of western that's fun to watch but difficult to believe. Plus, too often the film relied on intertitle cards scattered throughout the film instead of actually SHOWING things they should have shown instead. Good but not great overall.

grybar This is a refreshing western saga with well-defined performances of some unique characters. Adding to the overall quality, there is a strong current of authenticity in the staging, with both the gritty desert west (the scene is 1860's Tucson) and the settlers of that land making a strong showing. William Holden plays against type as an aw-shucks, boyish adventurer who is smitten with a bold, outspoken pioneer businesswoman played with gusto by Jean Arthur. Both characters have clearly-defined development arcs. While the plot is generally typical western fare, the narrative tends to bounce out of those well-worn ruts, including being mostly true to the period depicted and in the motivations of characters and groups. The video I watched was crystal-clear black & white. This is a western tale with a rich flavor.

vincentlynch-moonoi By coincidence, just as this film came along on TCM, I happened to be planning a trip to Arizona. Surprisingly, there's a fair amount of decent history here...no, not so much in specific facts, but in terms of what was happening in the period. And, if you want to know what the earliest years of Tucson were really like, this may give you a pretty good idea. It was filmed just a few miles west of Tucson at "Old Tucson" where several famous westerns have been made, and at what is now Saguaro National Park (west unit). So this movie has the right look and feel to it.Knowing what the film was about in advance, I had a difficult time seeing Jean Arthur in the lead role. But, darn, she was very good here...although it's a very long way from films like "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and other comedies of hers in that era. Of course, she eventually did go on to star in "Shane". But this film is definitely against type for her.Her costar -- William Holden -- is so young here (only 22) that you may have difficulty recognizing him! But he does just fine also.Warren William is excellent as the bad guy you want to hate. The other character actors here do very well.This is an excellent film, although there is one bit of illogical action. Apparently horses belonging to White cattle drovers run faster than horses belonging to Indians, since the cattle drovers outrode the cattle, but the cattle stampeded the Indians. Ah well, it moved the plot along.Recommended.

sadenoo If you are a Lover of Cowboy movies as I am, you find this to be one of the best! When watching these kind of movies, you will find it more interesting if you look at the little things. The costuming is outstanding. The revolvers are right for the period. You can see that the money spent on sets was well worth it. This is not the Gene Autry 'soapy' kind of western. The characters have holes in their shirts; their clothes are worn; the hats are beat up. Had this film had a stronger male lead, like a Randolph Scott, or Errol Flynn rather than a very young William Holden, and been in color... In color you could then feel the heat and smell the sage brush, it would have been one of the most watched westerns ever. Jean Arthur is wonderful as she usually is in her movies. Edgar Buchanan is very funny. The casting is really great. William Holden does do a very nice job, but having him try to sing, must have been something expected at that time. No Sex, No bad language, amazing that today they make up for a weak script and acting with those two items. My thought is that it is too short at 121 minutes. I would like to have it go on for ever. A remake of this movie would be a treat.