VividSimon Simply Perfect

SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

ShangLuda Admirable film.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 18 May 1966 by Martin Rackin Productions. Released through 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at local theaters: 15 June 1966. U.S. release: May 1966. U.K. release: 16 May 1966. Australian release: May 1966. Sydney opening at the Regent (ran two weeks). 10,249 feet. 114 minutes.SYNOPSIS: As a stagecoach bound for Cheyenne, Wyoming, is about to leave the small town of Dryfork, a troop of cavalry rides up. Their leader tells the driver (Slim Pickens) that they will accompany the stagecoach part of the way to protect the passengers from Indian war parties. NOTES: Based on the short story, "Stage to Lordsburg", by Ernest Haycox (originally published in Collier's Magazine on 10 April 1937), Stagecoach was filmed by John Ford in 1939.Locations filmed in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Thanks for co- operation to the Caribou Country Club Ranch (Nederland, Colorado) and the Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department. Bing Crosby's final credited theatrical motion picture role. And America's famed illustrator Norman Rockwell has his first and only film role as one of the townsmen gambling with Michael Connors in the movie's second sequence.COMMENT: It seems foolhardy to re-make a classic. No matter how skilfully or indeed brilliantly the new film may be re-interpreted script-wise, acting-wise, directing-wise and production-wise, the critics are all going to hate it. And they're all going to make comparisons. Why let yourself in for this grief? (Actually Variety and The New York Times went out of their way to try to be nice to the new movie, but everyone else really gave it the thumbs down. And I'm with them. I mean the plot as you see from the Synopsis is basically exactly the same. So what's the point of seeing the same story enacted by an inferior cast, and directed by a Hollywood hack instead of a master? Especially when the original movie is so easily accessible).

hdp37 I don't know what to say about the taste of those who like the 1939 version of this movie. The original version just flat SUCKS. The acting of Wayne sucks, and everyone but Andy Devine as Buck stunk it up (even John Carradine as McCoy, Mike Connors showed him how it's done in the 1966 version). There is nothing, I mean nothing, even remotely worth watching in the original, once was all I could stomach of it. The ending was gawd-awful; the Luke Plummer character was a sniveling coward. Keenan Wynn's Luke Plummer was sensational, and the ending in the 1966 version was light-years ahead of the 1939 version. All the actors and acting is infinitely better in this version. With the possible exceptions of McClintock, The Conqueror and The Green Berets, Stagecoach is hands-down the worst movie John Wayne ever made. Even the 1986 version is better than the 1939 one, and it sucks too.

rose61348 I would have to say that this version of "Stagecoach"is by far the very best.Excellent acting by Ann Margaret and the all star cast.Ann Margeret's portrayal of "Dallas" was superb. I also think that there was more"Meat"to this version.I recommend that everyone see it,buy the video or CD version.It held me captive throughout the entire movie. Everyone's role was more fully expanded and scenes were portrayed better.I've loved Ann Margaret's performances in all the movies she has starred in.I think that she is an top of the line actress.I compare her acting with Elizabeth Taylor and Katherine Hepburn.She is vivacious,beautiful,and would look good even in a gunnysack.Sincerely,rose61348@gwtc.net

moonspinner55 Poorly-written remake of the 1939 John Wayne chestnut has stagecoach full of disparate people encountering personal strife and drama on the treacherous route to Cheyenne. Since the characters are such an obvious lot (what with a prostitute, a pregnant woman, a bank robber, a wily alcoholic, an outlaw, etc.) and are written and portrayed as caricatures, there's nobody here to care about. Newcomer Alex Cord broods mightily as the outlaw, but this actorly process of cool non-projection is a snooze by now; Ann-Margret, as the saloon girl with the shady life, is only comfortable in her carefully-posed close-ups, her line readings rendered false by a peculiarly twangy accent and no conviction in her behavior (she reverts too easily on being 'lewd' without giving the character any other dimensions). The direction is sloppy, the pacing leaden, and even the Colorado scenery fails to enliven the proceedings. *1/2 from ****