grahamchalk2008
in an age when black actors were confined to black roles, this film shows Poitier in a role that could easily have been played by a white actor-plus he's the coolest dude in the movie.Bill Travers doesn't have to do an American accent. this was from a time that people believed that there could be major characters with foreign accents in the USA who weren't villains. Of course the USA at this time, and at any time, had plenty of odd accents. Except in movies.The credits are waaaay more imaginative that you'd normally expect.The music is highly "different" The camera-work is very strange- all those overhead shots.I love this movie, and is a film I can watch again and again. It's very stylised-the lines are delivered like they were from a comic book.You know-the sort of thing Quentin T "discovered"
Robert J. Maxwell
Lots of conflict and shooting in this rather routine Western of US cavalry versus Apaches. Bibi Andersson, who practically glowed in Ingmar Bergman's movies, is only a subsidiary character and looks like just another Hollywood blond. James Garner could be a fine actor when the role was right and Sidney Poitier was one of the most skilled of his generation. I have no idea why they dressed him up in a cowboy hat, fancy vest, skin-tight trousers, and black boots,.But what can you do with a B script that's enlivened by a few unusual incidents. Here are two unusual incidents. The Apache are chasing a cook wagon. And what do they do? They SHOOT ONE OF THE HORSE and the wagon has to stop! Hallelujah! Finally, a move script allows the Indians to figure out that if you want to stop a wagon you don't necessarily have to pick off the guy driving it.Here's another incident. Dennis Weaver is a miscreant who finally sides with the good guys. It doesn't save him from being brutally tortured over a fire by the Apache, to the point at which he later begs the cavalry men to kill him. The Apache, by the way, weren't racists. They were indiscriminately brutal, as many other Western tribes were. Weaver may have been roasted alive, but others were de-boned, beginning with their fingertips.But these scenes can't redeem a B script that has a lonesome patrol fighting overwhelming odds and being picked off one by one until the final and inevitable rescue by the rest of the cavalry. Want to know what would have been REALLY innovative? They all die. But then who would have paid to see the movie?Very nice location shooting though, among bluffs that alternate gray strata with rust, and the horses for some reason look beautiful, not like just any old horse.
Neil Doyle
For western fans who enjoy plenty of shootouts against eye-filling western locations, DUEL AT DIABLO fills the bill. It's got several strands of sub-plots going but spends most of its time featuring some action packed shootouts that don't leave much time for character development among the cast.JAMES GARNER is a scout who saves a young woman who is being pursued by Indians. That's how the story starts, against brilliantly used Utah location shots. As the plot deepens, we find that she'd been captured by the Indians and was making her escape when he came to her aid. Meanwhile, back at Fort Creel, her husband (DENNIS WEAVER) is upset about her dalliance with Indians and the fact that she has a baby fathered by an Indian.A hardly recognizable JOHN HOYT (in full Indian make-up) is Chatah, the Apache chief with the full-sized army of fighters who wants the woman and the baby back. Another story thread has JAMES GARNER seeking revenge for the man who killed his Indian wife. With all of these sub-plots merging, there's even more story element tying in SIDNEY POITIER and BILL TRAVERS, both of whom look out of place in this western saga.If it's action you want, you get plenty of it here. Along with scenes of almost graphic torture and lots of arrows hitting their mark along with bullets and falling horses. It's not for the squeamish.Too bad the film really never builds up enough tension to sustain its running time, even with a new battle breaking out every fifteen minutes or so. By the time the final skirmish is reached, the viewer will feel almost as exhausted as the players must have been.Gritty all the way with a natural performance by Garner and good support from the others. Last but not least, a good score by Neal Hefti rises to the occasion with some nice flourishes.
emdragon
The problem with this picture is that so many of the costumes are over the top, and they change from scene to scene. I saw Sydney Portier's character wearing two different hats in the same battle scene (one brown and one whitish-gray). Gaudy things. Way too gaudy to be authentic. Plus, the flat characters are all exceptionally flat. It seemed like a very canned enterprise from the word go. I am in favor of the older westerns that are more realistic to the period. This one was not. This one was a metaphor for how westerns turn me off. The scenes were way too stagey. The players too clean and bright. During many of the fight scenes (for instance) all of the hats stay on even though they are infighting in intense battle. Plausibility is on the wane in this movie. Sorry, 4 stars (out of 10).
AD
