For fans of the Daniel Day Lewis version of this story this will seem like a rough draft of that film.
It's obvious that the makers of the later version relied on this as a springboard and to be fair to this one it's limited by both budgetary and film making techniques of the time. The addition of color, location filming and advanced techniques lend a kinetic edge to the newer version that this one can't match.
On it's own it's got some pleasures but many of the performances are stiff, especially Randolph Scott who seems flat particularly when held up against Day Lewis's work. That may be an unfair comparison since few are as skillful as he and Scott was hardly the most naturalistic actor.
It's not a bad blueprint but the Michael Mann remake is superior in every way.
It's obvious that the makers of the later version relied on this as a springboard and to be fair to this one it's limited by both budgetary and film making techniques of the time. The addition of color, location filming and advanced techniques lend a kinetic edge to the newer version that this one can't match.
On it's own it's got some pleasures but many of the performances are stiff, especially Randolph Scott who seems flat particularly when held up against Day Lewis's work. That may be an unfair comparison since few are as skillful as he and Scott was hardly the most naturalistic actor.
It's not a bad blueprint but the Michael Mann remake is superior in every way.