vincentlynch-moonoi Same old story: one powerful man wants to own the whole valley and will do anything to dispatch other landowners. So why watch this version? Well, this is not (as one of our reviewers said) a "B" picture. It's well done and has an outstanding cast. And, the one little twist that makes it work better is that the man fighting back has a military background.Let's start with the cast. To a large extent, Glen Ford has not been remembered to the extent he should be. He was very versatile, and was very adept at Westerns. He's excellent here as a military trained man who prefers a life of peace, until...Barbara Stanwyck is the evil wife of the main landowner of the valley. Good role, fairly good acting, although only one or two really good scenes. I guess with age Barbara had to get used to sometimes playing the heavy.Brian Keith is the real heavy here. I wasn't overly impressed, but I guess he was "okay".The real ringer here was the actress who played Edward G. Robinson's daughter -- Dianne Foster. Way overacted on her part, to the point of being distracting.And then there's Edward G. Robinson. A fine performance, though not his best. Still good to see him.The scenery is top notch, the photography good.The script does not overdo it into excess, but -- and this is just my opinion -- it is a great depiction of what a range war must have been like. Quite impressive in that regard.This is not a unique Western, but it is extremely well done. So, I give it a very strong "7".

Martin Bradley Despite a terrific cast and some excellent location work Rudolph Mate's "The Violent Men" isn't much of a western. It's another range-war picture with all the inevitable clichés. It's partly redeemed, as so many films were, by the performances of Edward G as a greedy cattle-baron and Barbara Stanwyck as his scheming wife. Glenn Ford is the hero and he adds a few much needed shades of gray to the part. The two credited DoP's were Burnett Guffey and W. Howard Greene. Perhaps if someone other than Mate had directed it might have felt fresher; maybe it needed someone like Delmer Daves. It's not a total failure, though; this kind of western is basically critic-proof, building as it does to a suitably operatic climax with some decent action scenes along the way.

MartinHafer In many ways, this is a very typical sort of western. One of the most common themes in films, if not THE most common, was the idea of a boss who wanted to use his bully-boy tactics to drive out all the ranchers. Here in "The Violent Men" we have such an amoral and ambitious man (Edward G. Robinson). What makes it a little different is that one of the local ranchers (Glenn Ford) has a fiancée and her family who are strongly encouraging him not to fight this injustice but to sell out cheaply and move back East. What also makes this different is the strange love triangle going on in the household of the boss-man. Together, these subplots manage to breath some life into a very, very tired and overused plot.Although Ford is quite willing to walk away from this fight and take a very poor offer from the boss-man, eventually he is just pushed too far. When one of his own men is killed, Ford reluctantly goes to war with this band of cut-throats.The chief punk working for Robinson is Matlock (Richard Jaeckel). Jaeckel played this sort of gun-crazy punk in approximately 46923 films (give or take 6). What would have been surprising would have been if Jaeckel had played a level-headed nice guy! Eventually, it all culminates in an all-out war--with some interesting twists. Still, despite this, it really is just a well made version of the same old thing you've probably seen dozens of times before...and will see dozens of times again.By the way, as far as the casting goes, this is an odd film. You don't expect to see Robinson out West nor can you really picture Barbara Stanwyck playing his wife. And, oddly, it's very hard to picture Brian Keith as Robinson's brother. As for Ford, he's pretty adept at such a film role.

disdressed12 as far as western go,this one is pretty decent once you get past the half way point.until then,it's a bit slow,with not much happening.after that,things pick up and the story gets interesting.it follows the formula of many western of the day.corrupt landowner wants all the neighboring land around him and has the law in his pocket,so to speak.but of course there's always someone who won't be forced off his land.a feud of sorts erupts,and people on both sides die.i was surprised at the ending.it wasn't how i expected things to end.and there's also a little bit of a twist,if you can call it that,that was interesting.given the title,i expected the movie to be more violent.in fact,the violence is minimal and tame,even by the standards of the day.for me,The Violent men is a 5/10