grybar This is a refreshing western saga with well-defined performances of some unique characters. Adding to the overall quality, there is a strong current of authenticity in the staging, with both the gritty desert west (the scene is 1860's Tucson) and the settlers of that land making a strong showing. William Holden plays against type as an aw-shucks, boyish adventurer who is smitten with a bold, outspoken pioneer businesswoman played with gusto by Jean Arthur. Both characters have clearly-defined development arcs. While the plot is generally typical western fare, the narrative tends to bounce out of those well-worn ruts, including being mostly true to the period depicted and in the motivations of characters and groups. The video I watched was crystal-clear black & white. This is a western tale with a rich flavor.

dougdoepke Those opening scenes of a bustling Arizona frontier town are evocative as heck. Old Hollywood seldom came up with staging as realistic as this—the squalid shacks, the unwashed crowds, the pall mall front street. All provide a riveting sense of laying down roots of some kind, which, of course, is the premise of the movie. In fact, staging is a real pillar of the production (catch the crude little boardwalk over a rainy runoff that passes by quickly but shows the attention to detail).The story amounts to a Jean Arthur showcase as she moves from hard-driving businesswoman to cattle ranch housewife in the pre-feminist style of the day. Still, she brings off the aggressive, dynamic side in convincing style. It's a demanding role and I came away with a newly found respect for her talents. It's a pretty good story, mainly about freight haulers out-maneuvering one another to get in at the bottom of a new territory. Holden helps Arthur, while the slippery Warren William operates behind the scenes against them. He's a delicious top-hatted villain; however, the movie loses impact by finessing the showdown off-screen. It's a bold move focusing on Arthur instead of the boys shooting it out. But that way we lose the satisfaction of seeing the oily William get his just deserts.All in all, it's an enjoyable A-western, generally underrated, but oddly lacking in memorable impact.

sadenoo If you are a Lover of Cowboy movies as I am, you find this to be one of the best! When watching these kind of movies, you will find it more interesting if you look at the little things. The costuming is outstanding. The revolvers are right for the period. You can see that the money spent on sets was well worth it. This is not the Gene Autry 'soapy' kind of western. The characters have holes in their shirts; their clothes are worn; the hats are beat up. Had this film had a stronger male lead, like a Randolph Scott, or Errol Flynn rather than a very young William Holden, and been in color... In color you could then feel the heat and smell the sage brush, it would have been one of the most watched westerns ever. Jean Arthur is wonderful as she usually is in her movies. Edgar Buchanan is very funny. The casting is really great. William Holden does do a very nice job, but having him try to sing, must have been something expected at that time. No Sex, No bad language, amazing that today they make up for a weak script and acting with those two items. My thought is that it is too short at 121 minutes. I would like to have it go on for ever. A remake of this movie would be a treat.

Neil Doyle "Well done, but seems to go on forever," was Leonard Maltin's verdict. Same here. It's a feminist's western, with JEAN ARTHUR strutting around like she thinks she's still playing Calamity Jane and striking an occasional male pose while discussing her business plans with good man WILLIAM HOLDEN and bad guy WARREN WILLIAM. It serves the role well enough but doesn't seem completely natural.Her particular talents were better served by good comedy roles, in my opinion. What's more, she seems too mature to be a plausible leading lady for a 22 year-old--and very youthful looking--Holden. I recall reading that she didn't want Holden to be her leading man, and I can understand why. Gary Cooper wasn't available, according to Robert Osborne and Arthur finally consented to Holden's selection.Arthur plays a pioneer woman with a lot of backbone, ordering men around, making plans that include a hubby and a good piece of ranch land and a future--always spunky and up to the challenge, whether it's a petty thief or a downright criminal trying to take over her business.She never quite convinced me that she was completely at home on the range, while WILLIAM HOLDEN is very engaging in one of his less cynical roles and is refreshingly natural in a western role.***** POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD *****WARREN WILLIAM, too, is expert as a con man posing as a helpful friend to Arthur while in reality leading a gang of swindlers, and not above shooting his partners in the back.It's a well mounted western with plenty of shooting and riding, lots of Indian extras and cattle herds--but some draggy spots before a climactic showdown between hero and villain, after which our hero and heroine head for the proverbial sunset as a married couple.Fans of Jean Arthur and William Holden should enjoy this one.