Review of How the West Was Won

This is an excellent movie. I gave it 7 out of 10 IMDb stars, which is a very high score for me. It did very well in my ranking system, accumulating 17 points. This places it comfortably inside my top 20 all time Westerns, although my project is far from complete.

Here's what I liked:

• I love multi-generational narratives i.e. stories that follow sets of families as they live and die through several decades. This is an extremely effective way to present historical fiction and was perfected by one of my favorite authors, James Michener. In 1974, Michener published his own excellent grand pioneer novel called "Centennial" . This was made into a pretty good TV mini-series in 1978.

• I like the epic sweep of the film historically and geographically, telling stories from the Erie Canal pioneers all the way to the "end of the West" lawmen.

• Many parts and scenes were very effective in terms of sentimentality, especially when George Peppard's character returns home from war and passes his mother's tombstone.

• Those who are familiar with my ranking system will understand how much I appreciated an entire section devoted to the Civil War. The movie also treated its Indian characters multi-dimensionally. Although it did contain an important Mexican character (played very well by Eli Wallach), it failed to allude effectively to the broad Hispanic culture of the region. In a longer mini-series format, I'm sure this would not have been neglected. This omission kept the movie from busting the maximum three point score in my Civil War/Indian/Mexico category.

• It's a great looking film, of course, with lots of big budget on location set pieces. It must have been quite an audio visual experience in the theater for 1962 audiences. Even on a home TV, the rapids scene, the buffalo stampede and the train wreck are quite harrowing.

• The music and soundtrack were well done, with many period folks songs and lots of sweeping orchestral music to match the many natural landscapes that were filmed.

• I thought the characters were well developed i.e. I was able to really care about a lot of them. The stories moved along nicely and there were only a few plot holes.

• Gratuitous romantic female roles are a common fault in Westerns. This movie had two strongly developed female characters, the sisters played by Debbie Reynolds and Carroll Baker. The more I watch Carroll Baker, the more I like her. She was great in "The Big Country" and "Cheyenne Autumn" as well.

Now here's what kept the movie from being better:

• This opinion might surprise some, but I thought the casting was a weakness in the movie. All star casts are awkward. It was kind of like watching a rock and roll Hall of Fame awards show, where Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page and Bruce Springsteen all get up on stage together and play a Beatles song. They all get in each other's way so much, no single musician has an opportunity to display his individual artistry. The result is usually an incomprehensible mess.

In movies, pairing so many superstars together doesn't present as big a problem as in music. These guys were all excellent in their cameos. I particularly enjoyed Henry Fonda as the "super scout". My point is simply that you're not getting the full benefit of having Henry Fonda in the movie when his role is so limited.

I'm also not against this type of ensemble casting. I had fun watching all these old pros, especially since they are the veterans of so many other Westerns. I just think it would have been a much stronger movie if they had turned over a primary role to Wayne or Fonda.

As it was, the real co-leads of the movie were Debbie Reynolds and George Peppard. Although they were both very good in this, the bottom line is that the weakest actors had the biggest parts

• Even with almost three hours of running time, they bit off more history than they could really chew. This needed a six hour TV mini- series format, and that might not have been enough. As a result, the movie suffers from being "a mile wide and an inch deep".