Two Rode Together (1961) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
78 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Stewart and Widmark ride together
bkoganbing16 February 2005
I saw this film first in 1961 at the Riviera Theatre in Rochester, New York with my cousins and I loved it. I found out later that John Ford in his cantankerous dotage dismissed all of the work he did after Wings of Eagles as junk.

Well second rate John Ford is far better than first rate from 90% of directors. The film hasn't lost any charm for me even after 44 years.

Army Lieutenant Richard Widmark takes a patrol into Tascosa to fetch Marshal James Stewart back to the fort where Commandant John McIntire has an assignment for Stewart. It's to negotiate with Comanche Chief Quannah Parker for the return of white captives taken during the Indian wars. The rest of the film is what happens to both our leads during that mission and after.

To watch the chemistry between Stewart and Widmark is something to behold. There is a scene at the beginning of the film during the ride back to the fort where Stewart and Widmark sit on the bank of a stream while the horses are being watered. Ford has them engage in some bantering dialog where the characters are established. In the hands of these two consummate professional actors, the scene almost takes on a sublime quality. It's my favorite scene in the film.

As usual Ford rounds out his cast with a lot of his stock company. I have to single out Willis Bouchey. He plays Henry J. Wringle in this film who is along on this trip very reluctantly. He has the second best scene in the film with Stewart as he makes Stewart an offer that he'll pay him a thousand dollars to bring back any white captive around the age of his wife's son by her first husband. This is so he can get back to his business. Stewart's reactions to this offer are also something to behold. Willis Bouchey did so well in so many of Ford's later films, but here and in The Horse Soldiers I think his career peaked.

Second rate Ford is still good enough for me.
50 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Rather good John Ford Western
zetes4 February 2002
Warning: Spoilers
It's no classic, but it is quite a good film. Jimmy Stewart plays a gruff, old, drunken sheriff who can speak Comanche and Richard Widmark plays a cavalryman assigned to accompany him on a mission to buy white captives away from the Comanches. The first half of the film can be called Searchers-lite. They buy back two captives, a young white man stolen in his youth and a Mexican woman stolen five years earlier. Other non-Comanches they find are unsalvageable. Now, The Searchers ends ambiguously. We're not sure what is going to happen with Natalie Wood's character. Two Rode Together goes into that part of the story a bit more. Stewart falls in love with the Mexican girl, but she cannot take the way other white people treat her. The boy is so far gone that he is entirely violent to everyone around him. The second half of the film is actually quite great, and the film has an extremely powerful climax. Jimmy Stewart is beyond excellent in the film. Could you ever imagine a bad performance from this man? It's rare that he plays such a cheating b**tard, but he's no villain, either. The actress who plays the Mexican girl is very good, too. The rest of the cast is more than adequate. There's a funny scene where Ford regulars Andy Devine and Ken Curtis fight in a slapstick fashion. Ford's direction is rather flat. The story goes that he did this only as a favor, not by any real choice. Frank Nugent's script is quite good, especially in the second half. The score is excellent. The photography is weak, but good sets and costumes make the visual aspect of the film decent if not great. 8/10.
48 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Marvelously shot Ford film with a lively look at the complex reintegration of captives
ma-cortes16 June 2011
Desperate relatives spend years searching for their loved beings abducted by Indians in this lengthy Western . The US Army is under pressure from the families of white captives of the Comanches . A Texas marshal, Guthrie McCabe (James Stewart), is persuaded by an army lieutenant (Richard Widmark) and a Major (John McIntire) to negotiate with the Comanches to secure their rescue and for the return of captives . But the expedition results to be a flop. However, just two prisoners are released ; their reintegration into community proves to be highly difficult , and complications , problems ensue .

This nice Western contains interesting characters , full of wide open space and dramatic moments . Outdoors are pretty good and well photographed by Charles Lawton Jr , story first-rate and powerful told too. Good Western with James Stewart sort playing himself as corrupt and cynical marshal who takes a percentage on his works . Entertaining film thanks to James Stewart for his cynical character and ironic point of sight . Also Widmark is excellent , while a great featured-role acting by veteran John McIntire . Solid support cast leads some eye-catching performances which include Andy Devine ,Jeanette Nolan ,John Qualen, Ken Curtis , Woody Strode, Henry Brandon as Quanah Parker and many others . ¨Two rode together¨ has a similar plot to ¨The searchers¨ though the Ford's vision about West is pretty cynical and less idealist. This classic picture ranks as one of the main of John Ford's works . It contains Ford's usual themes as familiar feeling , a little bit enjoyable humor, friendship and sense of comradeship but also lots of cynicism . Thought-provoking screenplay portraying in depth characters and brooding events with interesting issues running beneath script surface is written by Frank S. Nugent based on a novel by Will Cook , titled ¨Comanche captives . This may not be Ford or Stewart's best Western , as many would claim , but it's still head ad shoulders above most big-scale movies . You'll find the final terrible or over-melodramatic according to your tastes , though it's lovingly composed by John Ford who really picks up the drama towards the ending . Rating : Better than average .
24 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Leisurely John Ford Western doesn't have much action, but the pleasant story makes up for it.
Slim-45 December 1999
This is not your typical John Ford Western. The usual cast of Ford characters is on hand. Henry Brandon reprises his role as the Comanche chief Scar, which he played so well in the "Searchers". This time he plays a more sympathetic role as the real life Comanche chief Quanah Parker. The evil Clegg clan from "Wagonmaster" is also on hand. They are not quite as evil this time around. The Comanches are played by the usual Navajos recruited for countless Ford Westerns. The awesome arid scenery of Monument Valley has been appropriately replaced by rolling grass covered plains country.

The two protagonists in the film are played by James Stewart and Richard Widmark. Stewart plays a gunfighter serving as sheriff of the Texas town of Tascosa. Widmark is the cavalry officer who summons him to Fort Grant to rescue Comanche captives. They ride together on this mission, which is relegated to a small part in the plot. Although they are friends, their partnership is uneasy from the start. Stewart is going on the mission for money. Widmark is ordered by the colonel (played by John McIntyre) to go. The tension between the two leads at one point to Stewart drawing, but not firing, his gun.

This film contains elements of "The Searchers". Like the other film the theme is captivity by the Indians. Just as in "The Searchers" captivity is viewed as degrading. Linda Cristal plays the captive in this film. "I am not worth fighting for", she says. Ford goes one step further here. Captivity by the Indians is depicted as extremely arduous. The protagonists find few living captives to rescue. The captives they do find are shown as prematurely old and savage. Cristal is an exception. Although she has been a wife to the Comanche chief Stone Calf for five years, she retains something of her aristocratic Mexican upbringing. Perhaps her strong Catholic faith enabled her to avoid the complete degradation typical of captives. Like Debbie in "The Searchers", she has the prospect for redemption. In "The Searchers" it is the strength of the family which provides redemption. Here it is a stagecoach to a new life in California.

The pace in this film differs from many Ford films. There is only one action scene. Much of the film is spent in quiet moments. In the opening scene McCabe (Stewart) is relaxing on the porch of the saloon. It is obvious that he has his law enforcement duties well in hand. In another scene he and Lieutenant Gary (Widmark) are resting on the banks of a river. There is also a significant interlude as the wagon train camps at Oak Creek. There is also a dance at the fort. At the end of the film McCabe returns to Tascosa to find someone else relaxing in his place.

McCabe is an interesting character. His ethics are questionable. He owns 10% of everything in Tascosa, he says. He'll do almost anything for money. He makes it clear to the colonel that he figures that each captive he brings back is worth $500. He then makes a deal with Henry J. Wringle (played by Willis Bouchey) to bring back a boy, any boy, for $1000. Wringle wants to get on with his business and can't afford to waste more time looking for his wife's son. McCabe is more than happy to oblige him, bringing back a boy whose savagery is unquestioned.

In the end there is redemption for both Stewart and Cristal. Both of their characters are interesting and well acted. It is a pity that so many other characters in this movie are wasted. Woody Strode's part as Stone Calf is particularly disappointing. The script gives him very little to say and do. He is around only long enough to go against Stewart in the film's only action sequence. Andy Devine provides much of the film's humor, but is not really credible as what McCabe calls "that hippopotamus of a sergeant".

I wish the film had spent more time focusing on Stewart and Widmark's mission to the Comanche camp as the film's title suggests. Unfortunately, it's only a footnote. Despite the flaws, the leisurely pace and Stewart's portrayal of the amoral McCabe make this film a treat.
30 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Just how much do you think human lives are worth, McCabe?
hitchcockthelegend15 April 2012
Two Rode Together is directed by John Ford and adapted to screenplay by Frank Nugent from the novel Comanche Captives written by Will Cook. It stars James Stewart, Richard Widmark, Shirley Jones, Linda Cristal and Andy Devine. Music is scored by George Duning and Eastman Color cinematography is by Charles Lawton Junior.

The US Army is under pressure to negotiate the release of Comanche captives and send in a party to ransom for their release. Heading the party are cynical hard drinking Marshal Guthrie McCabe (Stewart) and his pal First Lt. Jim Gary (Widmark). The two men are at odds in how to go about dealing with the problem to hand, but bigger issues are just around the corner.....

The Searchers lite it is for sure, Two Rode Together is a mixed bag that hasn't been helped by the quotes attributed by its director. It's well documented that John Ford only did the film out of kindness and a love of money, the great man going on record to say he hated the film, the source and etc. The shoot was far from being a happy one, with the director pitching his two stars against each other whilst grumpily putting his film crew through the mangler. The end result shows the film to be psychitzophrenic in tone and structure, where airy comedy tries to sit alongside some serious themes and fails miserably. When the moral implications of the picture are to be born out, Ford, in his half-hearted approach to the production, comes off as being either clueless, sarcastically mean or going through the motions since he had already made this film as The Searchers. Well clueless is not something you can comfortably say in relation to this particular director....

However, film has strengths, not least with Stewart's over the top portrayal of McCabe. The actor is really giving it the full treatment, no doubt prompted by his director, this is a shallow man, motivated by ale and cash. This is non heroic stuff, he calls it as he sees it, he thinks nothing off telling the longing relatives of the missing that their loved ones are now alien to them. It's a clinical thread in the piece, deftly setting the film up for its telling last quarter as the moral questions are raised and the bitter irony leaves its sour taste. It's a mixed bag indeed, but hardly a disaster, though, and in spite of Ford's irreverence towards it, there's a worthy viewpoint in amongst all the causticism. It's just a shame that all the great individual aspects don't make a complete and rewarding whole, the blend of comedy and drama, this time, not making for a great John Ford picture. 6.5/10
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Solid James Stewart Western
Tweekums17 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Marshal Guthrie McCabe had a cushy life in western town; getting a hundred dollars a month plus ten percent of the town's business; that is until his old friend 1st Lt. Jim Gary of the United States Army rides into town 'requesting' that he accompany him to a Fort forty miles away to undertake an unspecified task. When he gets there he learns that they want him to go into Comanche territory to bargain for the return of white prisoners, who were captured many years before; many of whom were young children at the time. Guthrie says that it is a fool's errand; any child will have grown up to live as a Comanche a will have forgotten their old life. The people are desperate though and eventually he agrees; if the price is right. Once in the Comanche camp he and Jim talk to the chief and he agrees to take one unwilling boy and a woman, Elena, back. He does not take an old woman who asked to be left and another young girl who had had children there; knowing their families will not welcome them back when they see how they have changed. Elena is a Mexican who had only been with then for five years and was married to a hot-headed brave. Once back at the camp things do not go well; the people treat Elena with contempt and things go even worse for the boy. There is also a romantic subplot involving Jim and Marty, a girl who is hoping to find her lost brother.

I hadn't heard of this film until I saw it advertised but seeing as it stared the usually reliable James Stewart I thought I'd give it a go. I am glad that I did as it was pretty good; not as good as 'The Searcher', which covers similar themes, but still worth watching. James Stewart was good and surprisingly amusing as Marshal McCabe and Richard Widmark put in a solid performance as Jim Gary. The story was pretty decent and it was a relief that the Comanches weren't depicted as being any worse than the 'civilised' white people back at camp; although it was unfortunate that native actors weren't used; I know that is how things were done back then but it still seems a bit off. Coming from director John Ford I'd expected stunning vistas but the settings weren't that spectacular; the film still looked good enough in the countryside where it was set. Overall I'd say this wasn't a must see film but if you like westerns or the films of Jim Stewart it is certainly worth watching.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lesser Ford
dougdoepke9 January 2014
No wonder director Ford considered the movie "crap". That may be a little too strong, but the results are definitely sub-par for the legendary filmmaker. If The Searchers (1956) dealt with whites kidnapped by Indians, the plot here is a reversal: Whites raised as Comanches are ransomed back into the white world, and in the process of reintegration, settler bigotry is exposed. That's a good thoughtful premise but the screenplay can't seem to provide a focus on anything. As a result, the story meanders from event to event in generally unfocused fashion. For whatever reason, writer Nugent can't seem to organize the elements into a coherent, effective narrative.

Then there's the miscasting, especially Widmark as a 45-year old West Point lieutenant, who's supposed to romance a 26-year old Shirley Jones, who looks and acts like she just stepped out of a malt shop. And shouldn't forget poor 55-year old Andy Devine, a very un-cavalrylike cavalry sergeant. Somehow, his grossly over-weight figure is just not that funny. On the other hand, Stewart's not miscast, but this may be the only movie where his usual low-key style gives way to some serious over-acting, which unfortunately overshadows his low-key co-star Widmark. His character is, however, surprisingly dark and combative, an interesting feature.

At the same time, for a western, there's little action, mostly just palaver and clumsy stabs at humor. However, the lynching scene is well staged and a real grabber. Anyway, it's pretty clear that director Ford's heart wasn't really in the production for whatever reason. Unfortunately, the end result is one of the least of his many fine Westerns.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
'The Searchers' Played for Laughs
richardchatten12 March 2021
John Ford's last conventional western was his first with Jimmy Stewart; with Stewart first appearing balancing on a chair like Henry Fonda in 'My Darling Clementine' and several of Ford's repertory company still present (including a very eccentric cameo by Mae Marsh).

At first the tone recalls Stewart's later farcical Dodge City interlude in 'Cheyenne Autumn'. But despite the title there's far more talk than riding, and despite a superficial resemblance to 'The Searchers' (from which Henry Brandon returns as a very saturnine Indian chief), Ford wasn't really interested, and the film - as Allan Eyles later wrote - lacks "any real sense of urgency or purpose".

As attractively shot by Charles Lawton in Eastman Color it looks good, however, and it's always good to see either Stewart or Richard Widmark.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
like a dark-comic sequel to the Searchers: less about the search than those brought home
Quinoa198424 January 2010
I'm not sure why John Ford had such a problem with Two Rode Together as he did (according to the trivia page Ford considered the film "crap" even after his favorite writer came in to make it more like a Ford picture). It brings many of his favorite, or just preferred, themes to come back to: male camaraderie, the very fragile divide between whites and Indians in the late 19th century, and a sense of balance between leisure pace and high dramatic tension and stakes. Maybe he thought he was repeating himself, or had other ideas that didn't make the final cut of the script or lost them in the direction. There's a lot of meat on the bones of Two Rode Together, even if if it does shy away from real greatness. It takes its story seriously, and also leaves some time for some unexpected human comedy between its two leads (or just mostly James Stewart).

It's premise is a little like a re-working or quasi-sequel to the Searchers. In that film Wayne was on a dogged search for his niece after she'd been captured by the Comanches and spends years tracking them down, only to find her totally changed (he still brings her home anyway). In Two Rode Together, a Marshall, about as tough and gruff and cruelly sarcastic as Wayne in that film, and a Major (Richard Widmark, the more level-headed and honorable of the two, if not quite as interesting), are put to task by the army to go to Comanche territory and bring back a few people that had been taken away years ago. Their families are desperate to see them again, and the Marshall is way more reluctant than the Major as he's had more experience with the Comanches (that, and the lack of pay, very shrewd and greedy he is). But they go ahead to the Comanche territory, track down a couple of them, and bring them back. This is halfway through the movie.

The rest of Two Rode Together sees the dire straits of this assimilation, how one of them, a rowdy boy who doesn't speak a lick of English, isn't even thought to be the right son of the desperate mother, and the other, a Mexican, is pushed aside and made to feel an outcast right away. How Ford and his writer presents this isn't very insightful (I'm sure other films have explored the American-Comanche relationship with more depth or subtlety), but it's still entertaining and full of some compelling scenes. And while Ford keeps the drama moving at a nice clip- sometimes leisurely, sometimes with more force like at the dance later in the film- he lets his two stars do a lot of lifting that makes the movie very worthwhile.

Stewart has been this cranky before, but rarely have I found this kind of grumpy but moral Marhsall so well-rounded. We laugh at some of his drunken outbursts because Stewart gives it some irony and sincerity. And there's some real tension brought out between the two characters; when he pulls out a gun he means to use it, even if he doesn't, and it's this uncertainty about him that makes it so interesting (he's not like 'Duke', for example, who you'd expect this kind of behavior). And Widmark is well-cast in this nicer-but-firm role, as a decent man who has to put up with a lot as a friend-partner-watcher of the Marshall, while also putting on a good face to his possible fiancé.

The action is far from heavy here- only one scene with a gun firing at someone, oddly enough it's a pretty weak scene and not well directed by Ford- so it's mostly a character study, more about the decisions they make, the bit players and their words to say in scenes, and what these two men in uniform will do when they complete their mission. By the end their is some redemption and catharsis, and it's not all happy all-around, and its 'issues' it deals with about racial harmony and acceptance is never too heavy-handed. Ford cares about these people, even if he says he's like his Marshall character, just doing it for the money.
24 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"From now on, we ride together..."
classicsoncall8 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Five years earlier, director John Ford filmed his Western masterpiece "The Searchers". After repeated requests to helm "Two Rode Together" he did it as a favor to Columbia Pictures' Harry Cohn. With the words "OK, I'll do the damn thing", he might have given some indication as to the quality of the finished product.

I do have to say though, that most of the scenes involving the principals, Jimmy Stewart and Richard Widmark are simply great. Their first conversation on the trail together is classic, and done as nonchalantly as two best friends just shooting the breeze.

But then there's Marshal McCabe's (Stewart) introductory 'How!' to Chief Quanah Parker (Henry Brandon), and the film's credibility is immediately taken down a notch. And holy cow!, but what Comanche gym did Stone Calf go to for his work outs, I never realized Woody Strode had such a magnificent physique. But can you imagine an Indian with that kind of body?

The other thing that doesn't really work in the story are the scenes intended for comic relief, usually involving Andy Devine as Lt. Gary's (Widmark) second, Sgt. Posey. Geez, was he wearing padding for this role?; I've never seen him more rotund. Director Ford's use of humor in other movies was more appropriately placed (Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon); here amid the generally more grim reality of the events taking place, I didn't feel that it helped advance the story.

But if you're paying attention, the movie's underlying message comes through loud and clear, and ably presented by the character of Elena (Linda Cristal). Her speech at the dance to the curious onlookers affirmed her dignity, even after enduring her own ordeal as a captive of the Comanches and the woman of Stone Calf. Unlikely as it was that she should pair with McCabe at the end of the film, it does provide the film with it's proverbial ride into the sunset.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Nonsensical
davidmvining6 February 2022
John Ford made this film under duress, almost. He hated the script he was given, brought in his regular writing partner Frank Nugent to help, and threw up his hands because he felt it was unsalvageable. He still made the movie out of a sense of loyalty to the Columbia executive Harry Cohn, who had died a few years earlier. It does cover some of the same ground as his masterpiece The Searchers, but it's really no more than a surface level plot resemblance. The end result feels like a script pulled in several different directions to give it some kind of distinctive flavor, but it's a combination of flavors that clash more than they compliment each other, all while swirling around without much of a story to drag them along.

The story begins with Marshal Guthrie McCabe (Jimmy Stewart), sleepily waking up on his porch in the morning, receiving a beer from the owner of the local tavern, and then scarring off a pair of tough looking visitors by simply dropping his name. This sort of nasty reputation is one of a dozen ideas that feel half-formed and poorly implemented. In walks Lieutenant Jim Gary (Richard Widmark), sent from the army fort forty miles away to being McCabe by any means necessary. They go, and it turns out that a group of settlers have camped outside of the fort, looking to McCabe as some kind of savior to bring back some lost children that the Comanche had stolen from them about a decade ago. Here is the similarity to The Searchers, and it's curious from the start. Neither McCabe nor Gary have any personal connection to the missing children, the children have already been gone for years, and it takes forever just to get McCabe and Gary out on the trail.

Really, it takes about an hour for McCabe and Gary to actually start on what essentially ends up being the plot, and that hour is taken up with the mechanics of getting McCabe to the fort, McCabe haggling with Major Frazer (John McIntire) over the price of McCabe's services (he could sit and be corrupt back home for more money), the reason McCabe is necessary (he's had dealings with the Comanche chief Quanah (Henry Brandon) before), and a bunch of little interactions with the settlers. Now, why these settlers are still wandering around without having settled anywhere about a decade after the local Comanche tribe stole their children never gets explained, but they are still living out of wagons and having small spats about which bachelor will catch the eye of the pretty girl Mary (Shirley Jones) whose brother was one of those taken by the Comanche when she was thirteen (making her twenty-one now). The problem I have here is that so little of it ends up mattering, mostly around Ole Knudsen (John Qualen) who seems to have the focus on who should be rescued (his daughter). It doesn't help that Gray begins some kind of romance with Marty that carries no weight, neither emotional nor narrative.

After all of this, the pair finally leave and immediately find Quanah as well as four of the missing people. There's some internal politics about the Comanche tribe with Quanah needing to deal with the rising power of Stone Calf (Woody Strode), none of which really matters. They eventually get two of the captives, a young man and a young woman. The young man, Running Wolf (David Kent), is determined to stay behind, having completely forgotten his white upbringing and seeing himself as Comanche first and foremost. The young woman, Elene (Linda Cristal), is a Mexican woman who also doesn't really want to go back, but neither Gray nor McCabe force her to go. McCabe and Elene end up falling in love because, of course, when Gray decides to go ahead instead of camping for the night, taking Running Wolf with him. The explosion of personalities here is supposed to be the culmination of a long-term conflict, but so little time has been dedicated to them that it feels random rather than something that the film had been building towards.

And then, more than halfway through the film, I think we get to our point. It's sort of taking up the story of little Debbie Edwards in The Searchers by having an exploration of what it would mean to suddenly find oneself back in a white society after having been stolen and forced to live as a Comanche against one's own wishes. Running Wolf reacts badly to it, killing the woman who tries to claim him as her long lost son. Elene tries to reintegrate with McCabe on her arm, but the whispers and impolite questions grate on her until she tries to leave with McCabe shaming everyone before he follows her.

This movie is a mess of ideas. The central point, well what I think is the central point, doesn't really come up until there's only about 30 minutes left in the film. Everything up to that point has been an uncomfortable combination of comedy and drama that never gels while dealing with an assortment of different subplots and ideas that never come together. There's some light entertainment to be had, especially from side characters like Andy Devine's Sergeant Posey, but while Jimmy Stewart does his best with an underwritten character like McCabe, snarling half the time, I've never been able to warm to Richard Widmark as a leading man. I prefer him as a character actor in things like Judgment at Nuremburg instead of the all around good leading man here.

All in all, this really does feel like the kind of movie Ford made out of obligation. He seems to have tried to save it, but that effort might have simply made things worse. The proximity to The Searchers isn't the issue, though. It's that what could have served as a continuation of the earlier film (in the similar way that Rio Grande is a sort of continuation of Fort Apache) gets lost in a bunch of other stuff that never comes together.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Civilized and Uncivilized Societies
claudio_carvalho25 November 2011
The cynical and corrupt Marshal Guthrie McCabe (James Stewart) has a comfortable life in Tascosa, receiving percentages of deals. His lover Belle Aragon (Annelle Hayes) owns a saloon with a brothel and has just proposed to marry him. However, Guthrie is summoned by the US Army Major Frazer (John McIntire) that sends a troop commanded by his friend First Lt. Jim Gary (Richard Widmark) to bring him to the Fort Grant.

When Guthrie meets Major Frazer, he explains that the relatives of prisoners of the Comanche tribe are pressing the army to bring them back home, but the soldiers can not trespass the Indian lands due to a treat with the Comanche. The mercenary Guthrie demands a large amount to negotiate with Chief Quanah Parker (Henry Brandon) the freedom of the white captives. Guthrie travels with Lt. Jim Gary and they rescue the two last captives, a teenager that has been raised by the Comanche and a young woman, Elena de la Madriaga (Linda Cristal), who has been the woman of the leader of the Buffalo Shields Stone Calf (Woody Strode) for five years. Once in the white society, they are outcast by the "civilized" white society and their reintegration is almost impossible.

"Two Rode Together" is another great western by John Ford, with a different story about the difficulty of reintegration of captives of Indians into the civilized society of the white man. The plot entwines comical and dramatic situations with powerful dialogs. James Stewart is fantastic, as usual, performing an unethical greedy man that changes his behavior after meeting Elena, performed by the gorgeous Linda Cristal. Both characters find redemption in the end. Richard Widmark shows a magnificent chemistry with James Stewart and Shirley Jones. In the end, it is hard to point out the civilized and uncivilized societies. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Terra Bruta" ("Raw Land")
22 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A good movie, but too sad for a western
pzanardo19 April 2000
"Two rode together" has a beautiful, poetic title, it shows the usual John Ford's art, it avails of Stewart's and Widmark's perfect acting, but it is too sad, too depressing to be really loved. There is no patent hate or war between whites and Indians, nevertheless there is no hope for anybody: to escape violence, to have back their beloved relatives, to overcome prejudice, even to find love. And to see Ford's supporting actors, we are so fond of, involved in a beastly lynch-law, this is really tough to bear; however, we respect the will of the artist. In all this sadness, let me remark a little delightful erotic touch. At the beginning of the movie they say that the pretty saloon-keeper is a tough girl, alleged to take a knife in her garter. At the end, to prevent an impending brawl, she quickly raises her skirt and draws the knife... after all it was true that she had a knife in her garter! With this little present the master John Ford improves a bit our mood.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
begins well but runs out of steam
rupie27 July 2022
This is basically "The Searchers" redux, with Jimmy Stewart standing in for John Wayne, and - like him - a flawed hero. But the film is nowhere near as good as its predecessor, except for the technical aspects of the color production values. Dramatically this flick is a comedown from most of of Ford's better earlier movies, even some of the b&w ones.

The interaction between Jimmy Stewart - in his only appearance in a John Ford production - and Richard Widmark's character is first rate and probably the highlight of the movie. Also worth mentioning is John McIntire's fine performance; he was one of the greatest character actors of his day.

The movie begins strongly, with a good premise - the rescue of some white settler children kidnapped long ago by the Cherokee. However the movie loses steam in the second half, as narrative threads begin to drift around. Ford throws in his obligatory social dance scene, which does nothing to advance the action. The ending is not really satisfactory.

It is good to see so many of the John Ford veteran acting team here, although sad to remember that both Ward Bond and Victor McLaglen (who was Scottish, not Irish, by the way) were dead by the time of the movie's release. Andy Devine's role was clearly meant for McLaglen.

Not Ford's greatest work, but worth seeing by fans of the great director.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An interesting subject but not delivered in a particularly good film
bob the moo9 November 2004
Enjoying just one more of a steady stream of easy days in his small town, Marshal Gutherie McCabe is visited by US 1st Lt Jim Gary, an old friend. Gary has orders to bring McCabe back to his base for an unknown assignment. Arriving back at the base, McCabe is asked to go into Indian territory so that he might barter for the children (now adults) who were captured by the Comanche many years ago. Despite the chances of actually collecting recognisable (or even civilised) adults from these children, McCabe accepts the job in return for considerable financial recompense. Gary is assigned to accompany him but both men are aware that their mission is only one that will fuel the despair that many already feel.

The only things I knew about this film when I sat to watch this film were that it was a western, starred James Stewart and had been pretty much dismissed it as one he made as a favour for the boss of Columbia Pictures. With this final fact in mind I wasn't too hopeful for the film to really be much cop. True to my expectations the film was average at best, but it started out better than this and offered interesting material at the same time. The film opened with such a relaxed bonhomie that it was a surprise 25 minutes in to see it become more and more edgy, dark and mean. This change in tone comes in with the hurt and anger felt by the townsfolk who hope for something that can never be (the return of their children); in a way this offers potential because the plot cuts both ways and offers a lot of raw emotion if the script can harness it. Sadly the film never really gets to grips with any of this potential and produces a fairly bland and uninvolving story with emotions too simply spelt out in characters that are mainly too basic. The only character that I really felt was semi-realistic was Gutherie who drifts between his good side and more mercenary character; outside of him nothing was done well enough to cover the many problems.

The cast are also part of this potential but few of them really manage to do anything with what little they are given. Stewart does well to turn his usual character into something a bit darker and gives an interesting performance. Widmark is always watchable but he doesn't fit into the story well enough for me. Of the support cast, most are poor or average. Cristal and Jones are painted too clean and don't give good performances, while Kent goes too far the other way with a poor 'savage' performance. However my biggest 'sighs' were saved for the Ford staple comic relief character – in this case Posey who is written with a lack of humour and originally that is only matched by Devine's performance.

Overall this film opened with a nice comic tone that became darker and had me interested due to the change and the potential for the story. However the simple characters, basic emotions and uninspiring acting all combine to miss the mark and produce a rather average western albeit one whose dark tone and subject matter causes it to have some aspects that are interesting and thought-provoking.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Excellent under watched John Ford Western
doug-balch6 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film has a reputation as a mediocre John Ford film. This is in part due to the story that Ford only made the movie for money and later made disparaging remarks about the film. Assuming this is true, consider two things: one, artists aren't always the best judges of their own work and two, Ford was always a cantankerous old cuss who blew a lot of smoke at the media.

I thought this was a very, very good movie, although it is not without serious flaws.

Here are some positives:

  • Two great performances by James Stewart and Richard Widmark, who play "frenemies". The extended comedic banter between the two reminded me of the interplay between John Wayne and Kirk Douglas in "The War Wagon". There something comforting about watching two old pros at the top of their game. The famous extended "two shot" by the riverbank deserves its reputation.


  • The comic relief in the movie is so pronounced that at times during the first half you start to wonder if it isn't an outright comedy. Andy Devine does the heavy lifting, but with solid contributions from Stewart, Widmark and the other supporting cast members.


  • Stewart's character, Guthrie McCabe, is well drawn. He's a stereotyped "super scout" on the one hand, but a cynical, greedy, drunk on the other.


  • The romantic lead, Shirley Jones, is a fully developed character, not just a gratuitous babe. She has a haunted past, due to her guilt over her kidnapped brother, and the plot resolves her conflict.


  • I love John Ford because he rarely neglects my three favorite Western themes of Civil War, Mexican and Indian references. Nice extra touch here having a non-stereotyped Mexican character, Elena de la Madriaga, who is an aristocrat turned Indian captive.


  • Always nice to see the familiar members of the Ford troupe, including Harry Carey Jr. and his mother, Ken Curtis and others. One of my favorite supporting actors, John McEntire, also puts in an appearance.


  • Setting of the story moves nicely from place to place.


  • Relatively little violence, with only one death by gunshot and a pretty horrific lynching.


There are a number of negative aspects to this movie that kept it from being better:

  • The first third of the movie is great, as the characters of Gery and McCabe are introduced and they travel together to Fort Grant. It begins to go downhill when they reach the fort and it is revealed that the movie will be about the retrieval of white captives from the Commanches. It makes the movie feel like a retread of "The Searchers", especially since it seems like half the cast of that movie is in this one.


  • Things get worse when they reach the Commanche camp, when we discover Henry Brandon virtually reprising his role of Scar in "The Searchers". If that's not bad enough, the plot becomes infested with holes and implausibilities, which I expect in an Anthony Mann movie, not a John Ford movie. I've listed a few of them at the end of the review.


  • As it concludes, it degenerates into an uninspired and preachy"Civil Rights" Western, complete with an actual lynching.


  • There are serious age differences in the romantic interests. Widmark's 45 years old and Shirley Jone's character is barely out of high school. I'm not sure Stewart's girl Elena is that much older, but at least she's been broken in by Stone Calf.


  • Disappointing location shooting. I don't recall seeing so many sound stage scenes in a Ford Western. And when they go on location, little effort is made to have panoramic Western backdrops.


  • Lack of a well defined, prominent heavy hurts the movie dramatically. Woody Strode's Stone Calf is under characterized.


Plot holes: Why don't they bring back the old woman and the young girl hostages from the Commanche camp? The father said he didn't mind if she had Indian children. I know she doesn't want to go, but neither did the teenage boy and they took him. Why does McCabe stay behind to confront Stone Calf? Why doesn't Stone Calf bring some warriors with him to retrieve his wife? We were told that Stone Calf believes that magic protects him from bullets, but couldn't he have made a more credible charge into into McCabe's camp? His wife grieves for Stone Calf's death enough to conduct an Indian burial ceremony, but two days later wants to marry the guy who killed him. I could go on.......
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Cynicism and noble sentimentality
valadas2 December 2006
This is not the best movie made by John Ford but a good movie anyway, dealing with the usual themes so dear to this great movie director who made the best westerns in the history of cinema: honour, loyalty, freedom, honesty, solidarity and courage. His characters are sometimes a bit stereotyped which is perhaps his main fault: the good and honourable on one side and the bad guys on the other. This movie however shows us the figure of the apparently cynical sheriff (excellently played by James Stewart) whose cynicism conceals very noble sentiments after all. The story is simple but is told in a charming atmosphere and nice sceneries of good old west. And a certain dose of fordian humour is also present to season the viewers' perception. However the movie have some extremely dramatic scenes but whose pathos is not much striking in visual terms. A very balanced movie therefore.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Typical (yawn) John Ford
hhfarm-14 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
It's big, loud, blowsy, breezy, glib, heartening and heartrending, larger than life, colorful, fulsome, winsome, .... all the schmaltz and schlock and superficial sentimentality that Hollywood loves to throw at you.

James Stewart plays James Stewart. He's corrupt, heartless, cynical, cold; he drinks, he smokes, he offers to buy and sell people .... but, wait, we know, don't we, that he's the guy who opened the doors to the bank ... It's an act, isn't it? James won't let us, and America, down.

Widmark, sadly underrated throughout his career, does an amazing job but he's the only bright spot. Ford's stock actors play the stock characters they always play. Ken Curtis plays that there hillbilly rebel guy who aw-shuckses and darns-its you to death.

John Ford became the Norman Rockwell of movies after doing some harder stuff. Real shame. This should probably be rated a 2-3 given Ford's reputation.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fordv Recycles old Material!
bsmith555219 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
"Two Rode Together" is considered by many to be one of John Ford's lesser westerns (including Ford himself). It's basically a vehicle for the film's two stars James Stewart and Richard Widmark.

The basic plot has army lieutenant Jim Gary tricking town marshal Guthrie (that's right) McCabe (Stewart) into returning with him to his fort where he is cajoled into embarking on a search for white captives of the Commanches in order to return them to their families who are waiting nearby as part of a wagon train. Gary and McCabe then proceed into the camp of Commanche chief Quanah Parker (Henry Brandon). They return with two captives, Elena de la Madriaga (Linda Cristal), the wife of Commanche rebel Stone Calf (Woody Strode) and a teenage warrior Running Wolf (David Kent). Tragic events follow.

Ford borrows ideas from many of his previous westerns. The opening scene for example, shows Stewart sitting back in his chair with his feet up on the railing much like Henry Fonda in "My Darling Clementine" (1946). The whole premise of "Two Rode Together" is the search for white captives not unlike the plot of "The Searchers" (1956) even to the extent of casting Henry Brandon in much the same role he played in the earlier film. The Cleggs (Ford Rainey, Harry Carey Jr., Ken Curtis) are similar to the point of using the same surname as characters in "Wagonmaster" (1950). There is even a commanding officer's ball much like that in "Fort Apache" (1948).

The film is light on action....hardly a shot is fired. Except for individual clashes there are no major incidents between the cavalry and the Indians. There is but one fistfight, and that is played for laughs.

There are however, some memorable moments in this film as there are in every John Ford picture. One involves a lengthy scene on a riverbank between Stewart and Widmark where they trade humorous remarks. The meeting in the Indian camp of the captive mother of the Clegg boys (played by silent star Mae Marsh) is very moving. The plea of John Qualen for the return of his daughter is also very touching.

As in most Ford westerns, there is a large cast. The female lead is a miscast Shirley Jones complete with braided pig tails who is seeking her captured brother, the husband/wife team of John McIntire as the crusty Major Frazer and Jeanette Nolan as a slightly mad Mrs. McCandles, Andy Devine, along for comedy relief as Sgt. Posy and Willis Bouchey as Mr. Wringle who tries to buy his son, any son's return. Also in the cast are Ford Regulars Anna Lee and Jack Pennick and look for a very young Ted Knight as Lt. Upton.

Not his best western, but any John Ford western is worth a look if only to see what parts he assigned to his so-called stock company.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Fascinating and schizophrenic
trpdean3 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'd never seen this until tonight on television. This is one of the strangest movies I've ever seen - its tone keeps shifting every scene - much of the time something like the story, "The Lottery" (deeply dark and cynical about human nature) yet sometimes sentimental, sometimes slapstick comedy, sometimes adventure story, sometimes very much a 1950s social issues movie like Stanley Kramer's. It's fascinating - and weird - and compelling.

**** SPOILERS **** The movie has such mixed feelings about those who hope to find family members who've been captured by Commanchee Indians. At times it's deeply sympathetic - showing their pain (particularly Shirley Jones playing that music box). At other times the movie finds those who hold such forlorn hopes must be bizarre (in our very first sight of the mother of the missing son, we are meant to believe that she's not mentally sound on the issue). At other times, there's cynicism about them (e.g., the man who says any captive will do - he has to get back to his business, or those who are disgusted at the returned male former captive being so Indian).

The movie is schizophrenic in showing on the one hand, the utterly unsentimental Stewart as he calmly kills the Indian whose wife he's just captured (and saying "shut up" to his keening wife) yet showing him deeply disturbed by the mere fact that the cavalrymen won't dance with her.

The movie is schizophrenic in the way it shows the bar owner, Belle, whom we're meant to think is a sort of comic man-hungry woman through most of the movie - but who then issues the harshest racist comment backed up by a dagger at the end. HUH?

The movie is schizophrenic in the way it shows one captive on his return acting like a wild animal who knows only how to kill whites -- yet the movie wants us to think there is no such danger whatever (and we're to be outraged at the mere thought) from the other captive on her return. If we're meant to believe that one former captive would kill whites at the drop of a hat, why wouldn't she? Because she's a woman? Not according to the way Belle is shown at the end.

The movie is schizophrenic in the way it treats Richard Widmark's character -- he completely shares Stewart's astonished fear that any discussion could take place regarding "matrimony" -- yet we see no change of heart when he ups and proposes to Shirley Jones.

The movie is schizophrenic in the way it regards John McIntyre's character - are we to think he shares the bigotry of the others at the dance when he demands an apology from Widmark? Or are we to think he's the only decent man at the post?

The movie is schizophrenic in the way it regards the former female captive - given how swiftly she accommodated herself to life as a squaw after her husband was killed - and then immediately wants Stewart the moment her Indian husband was killed - and her repeated statements that she regards herself as dirt and not worth anyone fighting over - are we to think there is something deeply wrong with her? That she cannot live without a man for a single day - and will take anyone who'll have her?

The movie is schizophrenic in the importance it gives to Shirley Jones' character - at times she seems to be one of the central characters - yet at the end when we see Stewart and Widmark and Cristal together - WHERE IS SHE?

What are we to think of the lynching scene? I was sure that someone was going to stop the lynching - but no! And there are no consequences.

**** SPOILERS END ****

I kept thinking as I watched, that this must be a political allegory of some kind - like The Crucible or High Noon - but I can't think of any kind of politics that it would resemble. (At times, I thought of the civil rights movement going on at the time - but that doesn't at all fit with the movie's view of Commanchees as abominable).

This movie is truly bizarre - from Andy Devine bouncing people into the lake with his stomach to raw accounts of rape.

You have to see this to believe it - yet so many wonderful scenes - including the famous and absolutely winning and delightful one of Widmark and Stewart sitting on that tree log by the lake or river.
28 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Gone Comanche
Davido-28 September 2006
Two Rode Together is not a sophisticated movie but it explores the relationship between kidnapped and captor which, in our more sophisticated times would be referred to as Stockholm syndrome.

A Comanche tribe has been capturing "whites". After a campaign lasting many years the relatives convince the government to try and free these captives. Because a peace treaty has been signed with the Comanche it is decided this is best handled by negotiation… a deal… enter Jimmie Stewart's wheeler-dealing Marshall. As the start of the film we see Stewart sending some mean looking gamblers packing from his town so we know he is not to be messed with.

Of course, after so long many of the captives have either been sold to other tribes or are dead – from battles or exhaustion after being used as slaves. The remainder have more or less developed an attachment for their captors. The reintegration into society is not going to be easy as we will see.

The recent release of an Austrian girl after 8 years in captivity (Natascha Kampusch) puts this movie into some kind of relief. The anguished parents never knowing the fate of their loved ones then the return and questions – surely the hostages must have been complicit and then there are the mixed loyalties of the hostages. Two Rode Together explores these themes but spends too much time lingering on subplots and distractions while not really getting to grips fully with its core subject. Still a surprising theme for a Western.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Personally,I think Mr Ford merely had a bad day at the office
ianlouisiana2 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Marshall McCabe(Mr J.Stewart) combines his duties as a law man with the rather less onerous task of being a pimp/entrepreneur and go - to guy.When he says "This is my town" he really means it. He is persuaded by an old friend,now a rather elderly Cavalry lieutenant (Mr R.Widmark) to assist negotiations with the Comanche for the release of prisoners captured some years earlier. He has had dealings with Chief Quannah Parker before and apparently speaks the language although all we hear is him talking in pidgin English to the chief whose vocabulary and grammar seems better than his own. A boy and a girl are returned to the settlers.The boy has totally absorbed the Comanche culture and is treated as little more than a wild animal. He stabs to death a woman who wants to believe he is her son and,despite a plot "twist" that any cinema - goer over the age of eight could have foreseen,is promptly lynched. The girl,a Mexican aristocrat,has retained her identity despite being married to warrior for five years. When her husband comes to rescue her,McCabe promptly shoots him dead,broaching an argument regarding what constitutes "rescue" and what constitutes "kidnap". McCabe has no such sensitivities. "Two rode together"is sometimes seen by critics as an apologia for the racism and misogyny they see in Mr Ford's earlier masterpiece on the same theme. Others that he rushed through it in order to start "The man who shot Liberty Vallance" where Mr Stewart seems much more at home. Personally,I think Mr Ford merely had a bad day a the office.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Poignant Character Study with raw emotions
rollo_tomaso17 April 2001
James Stewart plays an amoral whore-mongering marshal who is co-opted by the cavalry to find a group of settler children who had been taken captive and raised by the Commanches. Every supporting role is perfectly cast and the emotions strike deep to the core. Stewart is surprisingly comfortable playing an archly cynical contemptible mercenary with contempt for nearly everybody and everyone. Linda Cristal is excellent as the Mexican woman who was forced to be the Chief's wife for years. All aspects of captivity and dehumanization are carefully and sincerely explored here, and the twist ending is perfection itself. This is an overlooked classic.
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not best Ford movie
mikavir10 May 2022
John Ford's Two Rode Together is a Western movie from 1961. Main actors are James Stewart and Richard Widmark. This wasn't a financial success movie and movie critics didn't give good grades.

A corrupt and cynical Marshal Guthrie McCabe (Stewart) and his army friend Lt. Jim Gary (Widmark) go to get white captives taken by Comanches. The U. S. Army and the relatives of the captives give them ransom for living captives. The Comanche Chief agree to give them a couple of captives. Some captives doesn't want to leave after being many years with Comanches. McCabe and Gary take two captives with them: a boy named Running Wolf who hates white people and a Mexican woman named Elena who is the wife of Stone Calf. Stone Calf doens't give his wife away easily. After McCabe and Gary bring the captives back to the white society, Running Wolf and Elena are ostracized by other people. This atmosphere becomes hostile and especially Running Wolf's destiny isn't nice to watch.

I would have expected more from John Ford movie. This isn't as good as The Searchers that is quite same kind of movie. Actors aren't bad. The script just isn't excellent enough. Lack of excitement reduces the grade of the movie. Though James Stewart is as good as usually, Two Rode Together is only quite good Western. 7/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Had they ridden separately this may have been better
helpless_dancer8 July 2002
This may have been the worst of Stewart's and Widmark's westerns. Part comedy, part drama, it never went all the way in any direction leaving the viewer awash in a horse trough of boring silliness. This was just another in a long line of indian hostage retrieval pictures. Who cast Strode as an injun anyway?
11 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed