LobotomousMonk I remain staggered when contemplating the inconsistency of William Castle's direction. My being boggled is seemingly rooted in Castle's implementation of two stylistic systems - malformed 'Twins' as it were. The Arnie isn't present in this outing. The "Devito" system is in full force with passive direction that features a tableau frontality dominant in the staging/blocking and camera positioning that succumbs to the idea that action should pass through it or track it in the most linear fashion. Like some of the Boston Blackie films, groups of characters are staged symmetrically creating an evenness like a Moe Howard bowl cut. Hackneyed quips and stilted performances abound. I believe the AFI archival notes on the film remark that the uniforms didn't fit historically. The stereotyping throughout Conquest of Cochise would fit adequately if you upped the action sequences in quantity and quality. The stereotyping could thus be rendered parodical cartoon or comic-strip homage, and vice-versa. The authorial voice of Castle is mute in this film and sequences are connected with sterile methodical execution. As such, the 4th Wall stands strong and the story is required to tell itself. The story itself is poor and the characterization does nothing to create spectator investment. Too much melodrama and not enough action renders a comic strip story into a tepid soap opera. Romantic subplots are developed as filler and not as focused torrid affairs. The talkiness is so overt that I have to wonder whether this churned out "B" historical Western was not produced solely to serve necking teens who needed a dark anonymous escape for a couple of hours. The ethnography of this film is bunk for a contemporary audience and perhaps outdated even at the time of its release. Were these Katzman-Castle history-drama productions simply gimmicks in service of a romantic subculture among audiences? I will admit that it would be easy to pay full attention to my lover's lips and blouse buttons with Conquest of Cochise playing - there would be no chance of a distraction.

Michael_Elliott Conquest of Cochise (1953)** (out of 4) Another Castle Western from Columbia certainly sticks to its "B" origins but there are a few interesting ideas that make it worth sitting through, although no one should expect a classic. Set in 1953 Arizona, Maj. Tom Burke (Robert Stack) wants to avoid a war between whites and Indians but a greedy Mexican wants both sides to fight and kill each other off. Indian Cochise (John Hodiak), on the other hand, wants peace but his people begin to pressure him into fighting this war. This film certainly doesn't have enough going for it to recommend to all people but I think those who enjoy "B" Westerns might find enough entertainment in its 70-minutes to make it worth watching. The film has way too much talk during the early parts but the final fifteen-minutes really pick up and end up packing a very strong punch. We start off when Cochise is sentenced to three tortures with one being bathed in hot steam and another impressive sequence where he's tied to a pole while the other Indians ride their horses up to him and slice him up with knives. This sequence doesn't contain anything too graphic but the editing and way it was directed makes it quite effective. We fall this up with a big battle scene that has the expected gunshots, bodies falling and of course the wild horse chases. Director Castle is best known for his horror films and most of them were in B&W but these early Westerns he did at Columbia gives you the chance to see him work in color and he certainly takes advantage of it. This movie looks like a coloring book because of all the vivid colors that are constantly on display. Whenever a set is on display it's got as many colors as they could possibly put in and this is a plus as there's always something to look at. Stack is pretty good in his role as I enjoyed the laid back approach he brought the character. It seems like the majority of the budget went to painting Hodiak red but he too is good in the role and gives it a certain passion that you can feel. The rest of the cast are pretty much what you'd expect in a film like this in terms of performances and character. Sam Katzman served as producer so that should pretty much tell you everything you'd need to know. Again, there's nothing overly special here but the final fifteen-minutes are well worth watching.

NewEnglandPat The Gadsden Purchase of Southern Arizona is the setting for this underrated western that has fine action, good photography and a nice music score. The plot involves the U.S. Government's attempt to forge a peace treaty between ancient enemies, the Apaches and Mexicans, the latter of whom the American troops are duty-bound to protect from Cochise's raiders. Indian-hating Mexicans and trouble-making Americans stand in the way of peace and inflame hostilities on both sides of the border. The Comanches, at war with both the Americans and the Mexicans, hope to enlist Cochise and his Apaches as allies in their war of extinction against their enemies. Robert Stack is the best-known name among a good cast of players who were veterans of many western films. John Hodiak is Cochise, and his mannered, formal bearing as the Apache chief is better than might be expected.

dinky-4 I saw this movie when it was new, back in 1953, and the only thing I remembered about it was the final reel in which Cochise (John Hodiak) is sentenced to suffer three tortures: (1) scalded by hot steam, (2) sliced with knife blades, and (3) burned by fire. Many years later I saw the movie again and, what do you know?, the only thing worth remembering about it is that final reel. Robert Stack makes a serviceable, though undistinguished, hero, and the color photography has that "brightness" so common in early 1950's movies.