I sometimes like to watch films that just don't work because it shows you why other films work so well. Ninety percent of a good film is due to casting. "The Stranger Wore a Gun" is badly miscast. Scott was a straight-forward actor and here he is asked to deal with complications that are beyond his range. Macready was a great villain but not a western villain. He was too silky in voice and manner. He was a gentleman villain whose evil was best expressed over a Chateaubriand and a fine red - not a whiskey. Alfonso Bedoya could act but here he is given the role of a stereotypical buffoon. In "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" he was a deadly dangerous buffoon but not a clown as in this film. The script is so poor that even fine actors like Earnest Borgnine and Lee Marvin are uninteresting. If they can't lend color to a script, then you know it is a stinker. The story is an odd one. This is not always death to a film but in this case it seems that no one really knew the point of telling the story. Was it supposed to be entertaining? Did it have some moral or human truths to tell? If so, they were lost on me.It seems incredible that the experienced cast and crew made such a film but it is indicative of the fact that films, no matter who makes them, have elements that are beyond the control of their makers. No wonder directors are often so worried about how their test audience will respond to their film. And if you go for art, you run the risk of making junk. If you go for a B grader, you at least get a watchable Saturday afternoon potboiler. I think "The Stranger" went for something more than a matinée western that was the stock in trade of Randolph Scott and finished up with something that was neither fish nor fowl.
Review of The Stranger Wore a Gun
