bsmith5552 Unless I'm wrong, "Firecreek" was the first time that James Stewart and Henry Fonda appeared on screen together. It was also the first time, I believe, that Fonda played a villain.A gang of gunfighters led by Larkin (Fonda) and including Earl (Gary Lockwood), Drew (James Best), Norman (Jack Elam) and Willard (Morgan Woodward), ride into the small town of Firecreek to buy supplies. When they see how timid the townspeople are, they decide to stay over night.A farmer, Johnny Cobb (Stewart) and his wife (Jacqueline Scott) are about to have their third child. Cobb takes their two boys and a neighbor's sexy teen-age daughter Leah (Brooke Bundy) to town where he encounters Larkin and his gang. Cobb you see, is the town sheriff who is paid two dollars a month and wears a homemade tin badge. He breaks up a tussle between Drew and Earl with the young simple minded Arthur (Robert Porter) looking on.Larkin who has been shot goes to the local hotel run by Mr. Pittman (Jay C. Flippen) and his granddaughter Evelyn (Inger Stevens) for rest. Evelyn is a bitter unsmiling woman who at first does not take to Larkin.Meanwhile the gang is left to drink and carouse. Drew spots a young Indian woman Moli (Barbara Luna) and slips away to assault her. Arthur catches him in the act and in the ensuing confusion, accidently kills Drew with his own gun. It's at this point that Cobb is summoned back to his farm to be with his wife. But it turns out to be a false alarm.Cobb returns to town only to discover that the gang, led by Larkin have lynched young Arthur. Cobb loses it and goes to storekeeper Whittier (Dean Jagger) to obtain a gun and.................................................................Stewart and Fonda play well off of each other with the final showdown a highlight. A great supporting cast adds to the enjoyment of this film. Gary Lockwood as the trigger happy Earl stands out with James Best not far behind. Inger Stevens, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't crack a smile throughout the ordeal. Dean Jagger and John Qualen also stand out as town losers.Fonda and Stewart would re-unite in 1970's "The Cheyenne Social Club". more of a comedy than anything else.

Ziglet_mir 'Firecreek' was a film I stumbled over late one night after watching another movie trying to fill my quota for the day. I was in the mood for Jimmy Stewart and I found myself watching this.When one thinks of westerns or 'The Western' one would likely not mention 'Firecreek,' mostly because it seems to not be well known, but if it were to be known, it very well could be one of the greats. Full disclaimer up front; the film is flawed in ways during the final gunfight but nothing that ultimately takes away from the message it tries to give and the character study that it punctuates. 'Firecreek' begins slow, trickling really... setting up the super low-key vibe of the town and its people in a way that makes you think the movie deserves to be lesser known when in reality it is setting you up for the ultimate truth in THE best scene of the film, before the final gunfight. Now, let me quickly note here how Jimmy Stewart is one of the amazing few who have had moments of acting that have sent chills down my spine, or left me quiet and dumbfounded by the power or the passion in which they say their lines. One example that comes to mind is his monologue in the alleyway in Harvey (LEGENDARY moment), and the same thing happens in 'Firecreek.' Not another monologue in an alleyway and especially not one about an imaginary rabbit, but one that screams the message of the film and could very well catch you off guard. The scene is between Stewart and the shopkeeper played sublimely by Dean Jagger, who in a moment of reflection brings to light what Stewart's character was ignoring all along.And you can begin to tell that THIS is what this film was building up to; this moment that has Stewart's character drowning in his own too-polite, too-nice sentimentality's that have cost him too much. It is now he realizes that what has happened to 'Firecreek' has gone on long enough, and even if there's a chance of dying, dammit, he's gonna do it anyway all in the name of pride and dignity because he was always proud of his beloved town.And Fonda... playing almost the same character as Stewart but as the leader of an outlaw gang. I didn't notice it at first, but then, like the revelation Stewart's character goes through, I realized that Fonda is subdued as well. He has a change of heart (possibly looking for romance) and wants to change his lifestyle but is tied to the antics of the gang as its leader and allows it (Stewart is tied to the town as its $2 salary SHERAF while his wife is about to give birth to a child). The parallel is interesting and makes the character study even more entertaining.Kinda got a little carried away there, but you get the point. 'Firecreek' is an under- appreciated film that holds way more weight than has been mentioned about it. The cast as a whole is fantastic, and Stewart's riveting passion at the end wouldn't be justified without mentioning the instigators of his town's temporary hell played by blue-eyed devil Fonda, Lockwood, Elam, Best, and Woodward. Inger Stevens does a wonderful job as a spinster who takes care of Fonda briefly and takes part in entertaining him reluctantly with little conversation as he recovers from a wound he received prior to his gang's antics in 'Firecreek.' Stevens' greatest moment also comes at the end, making a powerful and emotional statement albeit as brief as it is. Another blonde-haired, blue-eyed beauty in Brooke Bundy is worth mentioning as she steals some moments as wonderful eye-candy.'Firecreek' is an excellent example of Stewart and Fonda doing what they were always good at, especially Stewart who once again shines in moments of ultimate humanity and humility as the guy we all know as not a 'John Wayne' or 'Clint Eastwood', but as the Jimmy Stewart, the aw-shucks anti-hero who did it better then anyone else.

vincentlynch-moonoi I wonder if anyone has ever figured out how many Western movies have been made over the years. Thousands? And they all boil down to a half-a-dozen basic plots. You could probably take 90% of the Westerns ever made and dump them in a vat of hydrochloric acid, and not many people would ever notice. You'd still have hundreds left.So the question is, what makes a Western worth watching now that we are well over the 1950s mania for Westerns. Well, somewhat unique plots get extra points (perhaps along the lines of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence"). Star power is another factor (such as in "Rio Bravo"). Or the unique ability of a particular director who can weave something special out of very common cloth (such as John Ford)."Firecreek" is certainly not one of the GREAT Westerns. But I wouldn't dump it in that vat of HCL acid, either. It's saving grace are the performances of the 2 primary stars -- Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda. And, the director (whom you probably never heard of) does a nice job (though not award winning level) of telling the story. That story is simple -- the bad guys ride into town (in this case they appear to be ex-Confederates), and it's up to the honorary sheriff (Stewart) to solve the problem. There is a twist -- the chief of the bad guys is none other than Henry Fonda. Of course, Stewart has a family, including a wife who is about to deliver a baby.There's a problem here, and one that I rarely am concerned with. Jimmy Stewart was 60 years old when he made this film, and yet he's going to be a father again. Not impossible, but this was out of his age range. I much preferred him in "Bandolero" (with Dean Martin), made the same year, where he pretty much acted his age. So, to enjoy "Firecreek", you're going to just have to get over the age issue. I was thinking that they could have solved the issue by having the wife of Stewart's son, who was away for some reason, and Stewart acting as the father/grandfather. That would have worked. I've always felt, also, that Stewart sometimes overacted PHYSICALLY in some action scenes, and he does here; perhaps it's just because of him being so lean and lanky. But it's still a really fine performance.I'm a little surprised that Henry Fonda accepted this role. In it, he plays a totally pathetic character. He has far fewer good scenes than Jimmy Steward, although a few are really good.Another problem with this film is that most of the film is a growing menace, and it takes a very long time for the real action to start. When it does, I am reminded of Gary Cooper in "High Noon". Although it's hardly the same story, once again it is one man against the bad guys.One of the best scenes in the film belongs to Dean Jagger.The film has some of the best supporting actors around at the time. Inger Stevens An old Dean Jagger. An old Ed Begley. An old Jay C. Flippen. Jack Elam in one of his final films.This is not one of the great Westerns, but it is heads above your average Western. Recommended.

tingnting A sheriff of a small town has to defend his congregation from a gang of hired killers lead by Henry Fonda, who are determined to destroy the town, pillage, rape and plunder.The town comprises mostly of misfits, losers and people who do not fit into society. They are flawed human beings, as are the gang members. This is a running theme in the movie. The good guys are slightly short of bad and the bad guys are slightly short of good. Fonda's gang leader realises towards the end that he and the sheriff are the same, save for their choice of lifestyle. They fail to hate each other and this confuses the story line.The setting is bleak, even the scenes shot in the day-time are darkened to reflect dark end the awaits the whole town. The suspense builds as you know that eventually Stewarts character must make a stand, as he does in all his movies. The show down towards the end of the movie sees Stewart facing the gang alone. Bearing in mind that this movie was made in the 60's, the action is quite rewarding. However I cannot help but compare it to other westerns of the 60's such as Clint's spaghetti westerns or the Duke's pilgrim epics and by this account Firecreek just doesn't measure up. Stewart plays the same character in all his movies and this is no different. Consequently you know exactly what's going to happen and you know that he's going to win, because ultimately the good guy must win in all his films. In this sense, the movie has no surprises, no unexpected endings and no suspense. It is far from being a masterpiece such as many of Stewarts other films (Liberty Valance etc) Disappointing and not worth watching. 5/10