I got fooled into watching this because I'm a Richard Widmark fan and it was featured on Turner Classic Movies. My expectations were raised by the fact that TCM's host, Robert Osborne, even gave it a brief introduction. Apparently it was so honored because it was directed by John Sturges, who made some pretty good Westerns.
"The Law and Jake Wade" isn't one of them.
The main problem with the movie is that the basic motivations of the central character, the reformed outlaw turned sheriff, Robert Taylor, don't make any sense.
It's hard to believe Taylor would go to a town just a few days ride from his own town, brazenly walk into the jail house in broad daylight (unmasked!), and break out Widmark, a ruthless killer from whom he stole $20,000 seven years earlier.
The movie tries to explain that Taylor is motivated by a deep sense of honor. Widmark had broken Taylor out of jail once himself and Taylor feels obligated to "square" accounts with him.
We're supposed to like this guy right? Isn't honor supposed to defend some higher purpose? He's freeing someone he knows to be a ruthless killer. In the great balance of honor going on in Taylor's psyche, where does the dishonor of betraying his obligation to uphold the law fit in?
His actions are virtually suicidal also. If Widmark hadn't shot two of the law officers, Taylor would have been caught and exposed. Not only would this have deeply hurt and humiliated his fiancé, he surely would have been hung for trying to break Widmark out of jail or for his previous crimes.
OK, Taylor is willing to sacrifice his own life to stay true to his warped sense of honor. Why put his fellow lawmen in a neighboring town at risk? Two are shot by Widmark during the escape. Where's the honor in that? Come on, this isn't close to believable.
Also, how isn't he recognized by the neighboring townsfolk and law officers? The town is fairly close by to his own. When he returns, the news of Widmark's escape is the talk of his own town.
Next is the matter of the $20,000 he and Widmark stole from a bank. Taylor made off with the loot when he went "straight" and buried it in a secret location. Why? Apparently his honor would not allow him to spend it. Then why didn't he throw it away or anonymously return it to the bank he stole it from? Give it away to charity maybe? Nope, he buries it.
Even worse, for some unknown reason he tells Widmark that he buried the money and knows where he can get his hands on it. Why? How stupid is this guy? Is it his honor? Can't tell a lie? Then why has he been lying to this fiancé and the town he sheriffs for the last five years?
I don't think it's asking too much of a movie for the basic plot to be credible.
This movie had very few bright spots:
A couple of good shots from some high ridges in the Mojave desert.
Widmark desperately tries to save the movie by playing a charismatic outlaw. Nice effort, but he doesn't have much to work with and he is overwhelmed by the mediocrity of the plot and script.
DeForrest Kelly, "Bones" from Star Trek, is cast in the role of a heavy.
If you feel a burning desire to watch a reformed outlaw get kidnapped by his old gang, watch "Man of the West", which incredibly came out the same year. They churned out so many Westerns in the late '50's, here were two major productions released simultaneously with almost identical plots.
"Man of the West"'s plot also has some issues, but makes more basic sense. And the acting is much better, with Gary Cooper and Lee J. Cobb in the roles of Taylor and Widmark. Interestingly, it has its own supporting actor who would go on to '60's TV fame: Jack Lord playing the exact same gang hothead that Henry Silva plays in "Jake and Lawman", but doing a much better job of it.
"The Law and Jake Wade" isn't one of them.
The main problem with the movie is that the basic motivations of the central character, the reformed outlaw turned sheriff, Robert Taylor, don't make any sense.
It's hard to believe Taylor would go to a town just a few days ride from his own town, brazenly walk into the jail house in broad daylight (unmasked!), and break out Widmark, a ruthless killer from whom he stole $20,000 seven years earlier.
The movie tries to explain that Taylor is motivated by a deep sense of honor. Widmark had broken Taylor out of jail once himself and Taylor feels obligated to "square" accounts with him.
We're supposed to like this guy right? Isn't honor supposed to defend some higher purpose? He's freeing someone he knows to be a ruthless killer. In the great balance of honor going on in Taylor's psyche, where does the dishonor of betraying his obligation to uphold the law fit in?
His actions are virtually suicidal also. If Widmark hadn't shot two of the law officers, Taylor would have been caught and exposed. Not only would this have deeply hurt and humiliated his fiancé, he surely would have been hung for trying to break Widmark out of jail or for his previous crimes.
OK, Taylor is willing to sacrifice his own life to stay true to his warped sense of honor. Why put his fellow lawmen in a neighboring town at risk? Two are shot by Widmark during the escape. Where's the honor in that? Come on, this isn't close to believable.
Also, how isn't he recognized by the neighboring townsfolk and law officers? The town is fairly close by to his own. When he returns, the news of Widmark's escape is the talk of his own town.
Next is the matter of the $20,000 he and Widmark stole from a bank. Taylor made off with the loot when he went "straight" and buried it in a secret location. Why? Apparently his honor would not allow him to spend it. Then why didn't he throw it away or anonymously return it to the bank he stole it from? Give it away to charity maybe? Nope, he buries it.
Even worse, for some unknown reason he tells Widmark that he buried the money and knows where he can get his hands on it. Why? How stupid is this guy? Is it his honor? Can't tell a lie? Then why has he been lying to this fiancé and the town he sheriffs for the last five years?
I don't think it's asking too much of a movie for the basic plot to be credible.
This movie had very few bright spots:
A couple of good shots from some high ridges in the Mojave desert.
Widmark desperately tries to save the movie by playing a charismatic outlaw. Nice effort, but he doesn't have much to work with and he is overwhelmed by the mediocrity of the plot and script.
DeForrest Kelly, "Bones" from Star Trek, is cast in the role of a heavy.
If you feel a burning desire to watch a reformed outlaw get kidnapped by his old gang, watch "Man of the West", which incredibly came out the same year. They churned out so many Westerns in the late '50's, here were two major productions released simultaneously with almost identical plots.
"Man of the West"'s plot also has some issues, but makes more basic sense. And the acting is much better, with Gary Cooper and Lee J. Cobb in the roles of Taylor and Widmark. Interestingly, it has its own supporting actor who would go on to '60's TV fame: Jack Lord playing the exact same gang hothead that Henry Silva plays in "Jake and Lawman", but doing a much better job of it.