Out of the several hundred Westerns in my DVD collection, this one has to be the very worst. Totally incompetent. Hittleman must have been a better salesman than a movie maker to have even managed to raise what little money would have been needed to make this awful mess. It's devoid of even the campy charm that Ed Wood might have put into it. Wills, Downs, Holloway, & Cagney must have been hurting for money to have agreed to appear in something this bad. Released in 1956, the same year as George Stevens' Giant, Chill Wills must have been been rather amazed to find himself in two such different movie productions in the same year. I only wish that I could get back the time I wasted watching this trash.
Reviews
4 Reviews
Phantom Rancher
(1940)
How did Ken Maynard ever get to be a cowboy lead?
29 December 2005
I've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.
Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a "young fella," where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.
And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.
Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a "young fella," where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.
And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.
Phantom Thunderbolt
(1933)
Worst "B" western I've ever seen - don't waste your time
20 October 2005
I believe in comparing apples to apples, and not to oranges. So with that in mind, I want to point out that I am a fan of old westerns, including old "B" westerns, of which Phantom Thunderbolt is one. So my comments and this grade are made in comparison with other low-budget "B" westerns of the early 1930s, and not compared to what we all expect in a contemporary movie.
This movie is absolutely awful. It has to be the worst film of its kind that I've ever seen, and I've seen quite a few. An average grade school student could write a more intelligent script. The acting of the entire cast is atrocious. Even that of the star, Ken Maynard. About all that can be said for him is that he can ride a horse pretty well. Clearly the director had absolutely no sense of how to entice a believable performance from any of the actors.
Don't waste your time. There are many more old "B" westerns available in the public domain that are much more worthy.
This movie is absolutely awful. It has to be the worst film of its kind that I've ever seen, and I've seen quite a few. An average grade school student could write a more intelligent script. The acting of the entire cast is atrocious. Even that of the star, Ken Maynard. About all that can be said for him is that he can ride a horse pretty well. Clearly the director had absolutely no sense of how to entice a believable performance from any of the actors.
Don't waste your time. There are many more old "B" westerns available in the public domain that are much more worthy.
Feeling Minnesota
(1996)
The absolute worst film I've ever seen**
19 December 2004
During a lifetime of seeing and enjoying thousands of films, Feeling Minnesota is absolutely the worst (**major film with A-list stars) that I have ever seen. Bar none. This movie totally fails on every level. It's poorly photographed and edited. There's uninspired acting, the kind where the actors appear bored out of their minds. Just collecting paychecks, perhaps? And worst of all, the sludgy script appears to have been written under the influence of some unpleasant substance found only in sewers. I can't even begin to comprehend how the writer/director could ever have found anyone to finance this project, let alone attract any of the stars that it did. I truly wish I could get back the time that I wasted watching this piece of garbage. If possible, I would have given this film a grade of zero. Better yet, a negative number.
Tell Your Friends