If a viewer were to sit down and watch this one as I just did, the best comparison to another film is to compare it with it's mirror image- Valkyrie starring Tom Cruise. That is because Cruise is a big star in this era much like Randolph Scott was in the era this was made. Cruise's film takes actual history and makes it boring and distorted. This movie takes a fictional story and gives it real life drama. Barbara Hale really does not get a good role/script in this movie and her actions with Scott are pretty shallow. I blame that on the writer here though this writer did better making up a story than the writer of Valkyrie did rewriting history.
Randolph Scott is excellent in this movie. It is not the typical Scott film except for the physical action fight scenes which have the usual contrived action from 1950's era film. Still for a low budget film, it is better shot and better directed than Cruise's film.
Anyone who knows history knows there is no fact to the story. Still the film tells a story. The last half of Cruises film basically has Cruise wringing his hands and mugging in front of a camera. So for once the fiction is better than reality.
In Memory Roger Ebert - 2013
Randolph Scott is excellent in this movie. It is not the typical Scott film except for the physical action fight scenes which have the usual contrived action from 1950's era film. Still for a low budget film, it is better shot and better directed than Cruise's film.
Anyone who knows history knows there is no fact to the story. Still the film tells a story. The last half of Cruises film basically has Cruise wringing his hands and mugging in front of a camera. So for once the fiction is better than reality.
In Memory Roger Ebert - 2013