dougdoepke Ace oater, moody, atmospheric, with an ambivalent "hero", a charming villain, and unsteady alliances. Actually, the movie's about as close to a noir western as I've seen. Most scenes are etched in shadow, and even the picturesque Sedona shots are beautifully framed in deep b&w. Then too, Mitchum's Jim Garry is a rather mysterious figure riding onto the scene. Is he a gunslinger or not. It seems neither he nor the script can make up its mind, which is well and good since the ambiguity fits right into the murky background. And check out that great noirish opening around the rancher's campground that richly foreshadows what's to come.So is Garry going to partner up with the likable crook Tate Riling (Preston) or not. On one side, they've been buddies in the past; on the other, are the ranchers who stand to lose their grazing land if Tate's scheme works. Course, it doesn't hurt that rancher Lufton (Tully) has a comely daughter (Bel Geddes) to balance the scales. So probably you can figure the outcome, but you may need a scorecard since there are a lot of characters moving in and out of the story. My only complaint is how quickly the knife wounded Garry goes from bed to able- bodied gunman. Looks like both director Wise and actor Mitchum forgot to mimic at least some effects of a serious knife wound. Oh well, it is Hollywood, after all.Anyway, the movie remains an ace western from RKO during its late 40's peak, when noir looks like it crept into everything the studio shot.

Simon Don't let the whims of men fool yaThrough the opening credits Jim Garry (Robert Mitchum) arrives; a plains drifting stranger who we are immediately as unsure of as the other characters - this uncertainly of intent remains for the majority of the picture. Garry, hired by friend Riling, is invited to cheat the Lufton ranch of their cattle by forcing them to remain on government land, pressuring the Lufton's to sell cheap or lose everything. When the plot turns deadly Garry is forced to confront his friend's real intentions.Garry's independence is the focus of Blood on the Moon's reputation as a noir-ish western: Mitchum's character is not a traditional black or white, good or bad guy. He is a recognisable isolated cowboy freelancer, a hired gun willing to double-cross if it serves him well. But he is not amoral. Mitchum's laconic, too cool for you, persona is at full strength. In a couple of scenes he almost completely drifts into himself. Garry's motivation and alliance is ambiguous throughout, but is eventually tied up a little too neatly which detracts from the overall atmosphere, "you always had a conscious breathing down your neck".Aside from Mitchum's Jim Garry (and writer Luke Short), the 'noir' in Blood on the Moon comes courtesy of director Robert Wise and cinematographer Nicholas Musuraca (fresh from Out of the Past the previous year). Night shots with moon light tearing through the tree leaves, and in particular the barroom high-key lighting during an important fight scene are very reminiscent of film noir and serve this film very well.A dirty 'psychological western' where heroism and sacrifice are replaced by mistrust and revenge. The ending is fairly abrupt, disappointing the ambiguity wasn't carried through until the close. One review from 1949 makes reference to the original Saturday Evening Post serial, on which the story is derived, and the relative 'ordinariness' of the Hollywood- adapted film.Odeon Entertainment (UK) have released a good quality DVD edition, taken from a good US source. The picture does suffer from format conversion (some softness), certainly not enough to detract from the film. The only real damage is a mighty tear which only last a couple of seconds.Well, I'll drift...

MartinHafer Robert Mitchum wanders into the middle of a feud between two sides in the old west. All he wants to do is visit with an old friend (Robert Preston), but keeps getting pushed to enter the action--though he has no idea who is in the right and who is not. Instead, he just tries to be a decent person and stay out--but unfortunately, no one else will allow this.As for Preston, he wants Mitchum to join with him in beating Tom Tully and his friends. But, the more Mitchum digs, the more Preston seems to be in the wrong...and just plain evil. Obviously, the years have changed Preston for the worst (a role he often played during this era). Eventually, Mitchum realizes he must stand up to his old friend and do what is right.In general, this is a very good and adult sort of western. Robert Mitchum was very nice in the lead--very understated and not the macho hero you might usually find in such films. The script and direction are also quite good. About the only thing I didn't like in the film was Barbara Bel Geddes' character. At first, she's insanely hot-headed and pretty annoying. Later, she's level-headed and head over heels in love with Mitchum! It's like she's playing a Jekyll and Hyde sort of character--and always at such extremes.

chaos-rampant You can see the film noir lurking behind the western in this western noir in the first plot twist. Behind the facade of a typical western conflict between cattle owners and homesteaders lies a distinctly noirish crime setup, "the big con", and yet it's exactly that kind of inconistency that prevents BLOOD ON THE MOON from reaching the greatness parts of it faintly suggest. Because the conflict foreshadowed in the first act between cattle baron (usually the bad guy in a western) and the conniving leader of the homesteaders is abandoned in the third act so Robert Mitchum's drifter character can hole up in Walter Brennan's shack and exchange shots with the hired guns of his former employer. Because the perenial world-weariness of Mitchum's droopy face is undercut by a Hollywood ending where everything is tied up neatly with a ribbon on top. We're still in good guys/bad guys territory and director Robert Wise opens his cards about who's what way too early, so that the rest of the film and the promise of the good first 30 minutes is squandered in people running hither and thither, to do this or that or prevent those from happening. Gorgeously photographed and watchable throughout, but more of a missed chance than the bonafide western noir classic it should have been.