Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings1.1K
AAdaSC's rating
Reviews1.1K
AAdaSC's rating
John McIntire (Roy) has a plan. It is 1851 and he has created a town in California. There is just one problem. There are no women. So, he heads to Chicago with Robert Taylor (Buck) to sign up 150 women to make the dangerous journey back to his new town where 100 men eagerly await the new arrivals. There is one rule - they must all be "good" women. Ha ha. What sexist nonsense. This is the story of the journey across the mountains and desert that those women take. Who survives?
I wonder if this actually happened - I assume it must have. So, it is a refreshing topic for a Western. Unfortunately, as with films about women, we get the rather annoying obligatory pregnancy, a blasted kid and its loving mother and there always seems to be a screamer thrown in. However, outside of these stereotypical crass portrayals, the film keeps your interest. Cast-wise, I liked Hope Emerson (Patience) and didn't like Denise Darcel (Fifi).
Why is that Japanese guy so small?
I wonder if this actually happened - I assume it must have. So, it is a refreshing topic for a Western. Unfortunately, as with films about women, we get the rather annoying obligatory pregnancy, a blasted kid and its loving mother and there always seems to be a screamer thrown in. However, outside of these stereotypical crass portrayals, the film keeps your interest. Cast-wise, I liked Hope Emerson (Patience) and didn't like Denise Darcel (Fifi).
Why is that Japanese guy so small?
Well, I didn't expect that!
The film is set during the 1700s and concerns aristocratic highwayman Phillip Friend (Jeremy) and his story about holding people up and robbing them and his love life and the enemies that want to capture him.
Unfortunately, the film has so much that is wrong with it. The beginning bogs you down with an awful narration alongside what you eventually realize is poetry. This is because it is delivered so badly you don't immediately tune in to the rhymes that are being recited. Mainly, the film is just boring and it progresses slowly. Friend is terribly wooden in the lead role and he pronounces everything in that awful plummy manner. The film isn't the best quality. We also get comical dramatic music thrown in at random moments and terrible editing that suddenly cuts away from one scene and lands you somewhere completely different. As the film develops like this, you laugh at how bad it is and the audience will expect Sid James and Kenneth Williams to appear in the tradition of the "Carry On" films.
However, it is filmed in Cinecolour and this is a plus point as you can see vibrant reds and greens. You are basically watching for the costumes. As the film continued, it struck me that maybe I should be watching it with 3-D glasses. One scene with a fire led me to this thought. It isn't filmed in 3-D but it looks like it might be so to entertain myself I watched the rest of the film with my 3-D glasses on. I think it improved things.
Anyway, I had to fast forward this total nonsense and the end contains a romantic ghostly touch. I usually enjoy these types of endings. Unfortunately, there is also some more poetry delivered appallingly.
The film is set during the 1700s and concerns aristocratic highwayman Phillip Friend (Jeremy) and his story about holding people up and robbing them and his love life and the enemies that want to capture him.
Unfortunately, the film has so much that is wrong with it. The beginning bogs you down with an awful narration alongside what you eventually realize is poetry. This is because it is delivered so badly you don't immediately tune in to the rhymes that are being recited. Mainly, the film is just boring and it progresses slowly. Friend is terribly wooden in the lead role and he pronounces everything in that awful plummy manner. The film isn't the best quality. We also get comical dramatic music thrown in at random moments and terrible editing that suddenly cuts away from one scene and lands you somewhere completely different. As the film develops like this, you laugh at how bad it is and the audience will expect Sid James and Kenneth Williams to appear in the tradition of the "Carry On" films.
However, it is filmed in Cinecolour and this is a plus point as you can see vibrant reds and greens. You are basically watching for the costumes. As the film continued, it struck me that maybe I should be watching it with 3-D glasses. One scene with a fire led me to this thought. It isn't filmed in 3-D but it looks like it might be so to entertain myself I watched the rest of the film with my 3-D glasses on. I think it improved things.
Anyway, I had to fast forward this total nonsense and the end contains a romantic ghostly touch. I usually enjoy these types of endings. Unfortunately, there is also some more poetry delivered appallingly.
Lawyer Ginger Rogers (Abigail) turns up at the house of movie star Jack Carson (Ben) in order to resolve a matter on his behalf concerning a $60,000.00 debt. They fly to Las Vegas together where Rogers comes good in her professional capacity. However, her personal capacity is also hijacked in terms of a marriage to Carson. Is this marriage a planned stunt by Carson to get rid of his troubles? Or is this true love?
Well, what a shame. This film is terrible. It's unfunny and boring. Jack Carson looks like Benny Hill.
One funny moment has Ginger Rogers naming one of superstar Carson's films as "Deadwood Dick". Yep, that sums up Carson perfectly in this film.
Well, what a shame. This film is terrible. It's unfunny and boring. Jack Carson looks like Benny Hill.
One funny moment has Ginger Rogers naming one of superstar Carson's films as "Deadwood Dick". Yep, that sums up Carson perfectly in this film.