classicsoncall Wow, keep the feminists and National Alliance of Women away from this one! I couldn't believe the premise laid out in the opening minutes (actually I can believe it, but it's really over the top) when it was stated that the law, such as it was in 1842 Oregon, held that women were for the taking by the strongest man who could affect his will on her and claim her for his own. After that, she became his property until he died.Talk about a dysfunctional family, I'm still thinking about how Tarp Penny (Neville Brand) shot his Pa (Emile Meyer) in the back! over the old Montgomery Doctrine stated above. George Montgomery (Herbert Rudley) was king of the hill in this story, with his wife Hannah (Yvonne De Carlo) the top prize. Funny, but I didn't get much of a sense that Hannah objected to being his wife for the most part until things got intense with the unjust hanging of Dan Kirby (John Gavin). Otherwise it didn't appear that she was much opposed to this particular law of the Oregon jungle.I'll say this for Dan Kirby's widow Paca (Mara Corday), she sure pulled a neat double cross on Montgomery to save hero Tex Kirby (Rory Calhoun) the trouble. He had his own hands full dealing with the Penny's, Tarp and his Pa. If you think about it, Tarp never had to atone for the problem that opened the story, the attack on Hannah Montgomery. But that issue was settled when he went up against Tex for the final showdown. I thought it a bit too coincidental that Tex and Tarp ran out of bullets at the same time, at which point Tarp found himself on the horns of a dilemma.Nor did it seem very realistic that Hannah would simply run off with Tex to close out the story, but that's how a lot of these Westerns ended for lack of something more creative. It's too bad we never got to see what ever happened to Sile Doty (Robert Wilke). Left to my own imagination, I'd like to think that Paca got her Yakima revenge on his butt too.

alexandre michel liberman (tmwest) No doubt thinking he had made a wise decision, Gerald Montgomery (Herbert Rudley) creates a law by which any woman without a man will be the property of the first man who finds her. Well, this trashy but fun western shows how this will have the opposite effect . Quoting Pauline Kael about trashy movies:"What gives this trash a lift, what makes it entertaining is clearly that some of those involved, knowing of course that they were working on a silly shallow script and a movie that wasn't about anything of consequence, used the chance to have a good time with it." Writers Harry Essex (Creature from the Black Lagoon) and Robert Hill (The Private Lives of Adam and Eve) knew for sure what trash was about. There is a big flaw in the script already mentioned in another comment, in how could Montgomery being responsible for the death of Paca's (Mara Corday) husband, allowed her to go to her tribe, without predicting she would turn against him. Apart from this, "Raw Edge" is a good western, violent for its time, entertaining and with Yvonne de Carlo sexier than at any other film she made.

CelluloidDog I read the reviews here and wonder if anyone has a different interpretation. This movie is about the dark side of human nature where everyone is for themselves. I'm not sure if that message will catch but it will in another light if you consider more recent films such as the Dark Knight movies or the Man With No Name trilogy. In many movies, there are no real heroes. So even the women in this movie don't have emotional reaction when something tragic happens to a close person. The hero Tex Kirby comes back for revenge of his brother, or is it? Paca who loses her husband finds an cold unexpected way to get revenge. The Indian maids who leave Hannah (Yvonne De Carlo) and the ranch are neutral characters but still, they do what's best in their interest. So at the end, it is easy for Hannah to have no love lost and be willing to leave with the hero.The wild west was an arena where you had to watch your back. The setting was a wild 1842 Oregon where there are no rules. It was lawless and you defended yourself. Even those you think you can trust, can you really trust them? The rancher who makes the rules, Gerald Montgomery makes very harsh rules. Take a woman like she is property if she has no husband. One evil character shoots his father in the back. No one cries in this movie. Violence, lawlessness and war dull the emotions. We know that where even young children exposed to war get emotionally insensitive to death. It is unusually violent for a movie in the mid-50s depicting rape, murder (of relatives), treachery and lawlessness. It seems really that the Yakima Indians are the only ones with a code, law or ethics.A question is what degrees of evil and selfishness are there?If you watch the movie with this in mind, you can see the message. But most people won't see it that way, but will get confused by the mindless violence and unemotional characters. In this way, it's an unusual minor masterpiece.The evil characters are definitely fun. Overall, supporting roles are well-acted but the leads are very average. The script does not lead to a clearer message and a viewer could get lost in its meaninglessness. Other than the message and supporting actors, the movie is fairly average. So an average rating might be 5-6 for me, but the supporting actors and dark message are fascinating and bump it to a 7 even 7.5. If you don't understand it, it's a 5 or 6.

rc223 This edgy and off-beat western has plenty of seething resentment amongst its characters (and there are lots of them: vengeful gunslinger, baddie, baddie's dumb henchmen, local gambler, baddie's wife, baddies girlfriend...) but isn't too believable. Some good action scenes but only average over all. (5