angelosdaughter I watched this for the first time this afternoon. It was certainly more complicated than most westerns of this period. There is no one who is really a hero All of the main characters have a dark side. It was interesting to see Richard Widmark who usually plays the good guy in the role of a man (Johnny Gannon) who is conflicted by his past with a band of rowdies of whom his brother is a member and his attempt to be on the side of law and order. I don't understand why many see the partnership between the high class gunslinger Blaisdell hired by the town, (Henry Fonda) accompanied by his lame self-appointed bodyguard/gambling enterprise partner played by Anthony Quinn, as in any way homoerotic, unlike the scene in 'Spartacus between Lawrence Olivier and Tony Curtis, instead of which it is co-dependent. I guess many who watched missed Morgan explaining his loyalty to Blaisdell (Fonda), saying, "He is the only man who never saw me as a cripple." As Blaisdell's sidekick/bodyguard, Morgan shares in his reputation and as well, Blaisdell's protection from being disregarded/pitied as a 'cripple'. Morgan has no other relationships in his life, and his dismay at Blaisdell's considering marrying Jessie and settling down is that of someone being abandoned. I think we have all heard of a close friend viewing a new relationship as a full or partial abandonment of the friendship and so displaying jealousy. I enjoyed DeForest Kelly as an agitator, albeit one who didn't really care to hurt anybody, in one of his pre-Star Trek 'Bones' McCoy roles. And it is only fitting that the new sheriff/reformed rowdy played by Widmark ends up in the arms of the former saloon girl played by Dorothy Malone.

MrAkimbo Warlock is a peculiar film. I admire the director's intention, and having not read the original novel, I cannot state whether the interpretation was faithful to the book or whether the director chose wild sweeps of dramatic license instead? When the film concludes I saw it as a failed film. Many of the reviews so far comment on the caliber of the performances. While I agree, I would use the metaphor, a poorly constructed car can still have an engine that runs fine.In its favour the film has a brooding quality to it, scenes are careful in its precision and placement as the casts are framed at different planes of the screen space. It makes you work hard to notice, hear the dialogue in its almost stage like presentation, and consider the underlying emotions. Indeed Fonda himself never the most outward of performers adds to the enigma of the film, and what its trying to achieve which some may declare as perfect casting for a fictional character beset with ambivalent emotions. As the film advances to the denouement, the imagery is rich, predetermined in its lavish design to illustrate the metaphor of long lasting friendship, yet still I found myself feeling cheated somewhat.Without giving too much away, the reason I believe and is somewhat endemic of the other reviewers who have hinted at the subtext of homosexuality contained in the film. The creative choices used by the director at times are awkward and incoherent. E.g. there are scenes where the character portrayed by Quinn, 'Morgan', although saying something his body language suggests something different - this could be seen as great direction - the point is the unspoken body language hint at homosexuality rather than anything else. At times he is framed in the back plane of the screen space, akin to the way soap operas will frame a nagging wife who complain to their husbands. Similarly, Fonda's character a much respected and feared gunman at one point disarms a rowdy character. He instructs the character to approach him and then clouts him with the butt of his revolver. This scene rang false to me. A feared gunslinger should never have to instruct anybody - they just act. The concept of repercussion means nothing when they are ingrained with toughness.This is why I find the film frustrating, and ultimately a failed but honourable film. Dmytryk took, no doubt a challenging novel, and attempted to realise it.I can't help but consider what John Ford would have done with the material, or any other notable Western luminary film director. Maybe he would have left it well alone believing it a mismatch of emotions and themes to portray?

mnkim Warlock represents one of those western timepieces when the sets, characters and colours had that certain shade to them and before the cynicism of the 60's. The classic situation where the town brings in a hired lawman to help them against an evil gang who are taking too much for granted and become too powerful.Clay has his standards albeit they are not those of normal townsfolk while his friend and to some extent mentor Tom Morgan (Quinn) has no such illusions. He is a hard faced yet likable killer probably the one man actually faster than Clay. He sets up his gambling and hostess den to earn as much money as quickly as possible and then moves on. No commitments. Quinns character could have been developed more but perhaps that might have detracted from the storyline. DeForrest Kelly is entertaining as the slightly friendly gang member while Richard Widmarks part while it follows a standard pattern of the time is sometimes corny perhaps even boring. Not a classic western in the best sense but definitely one you will find yourself looking At again and again it is simply enjoyable.

secondtake Warlock (1959)Director Edward Dmytryk is one of those dependable Golden Age mainstays who is pulling off tightly made movies even this late in the game. After many archetypal movies, often just short of greatness, he is still putting on a good game with first rate camera-work (Joe MacDonald) and top shelf actors (Henry Fonda, Anthony Quinn, and Richard Widmark, all in major roles). And so this is actually a strong, complex movie.It helps that the plot, even though apparently another retread of Western clichés, is complex and well balanced. That the bad guys are partly very good and vice versa is exactly what the genre needs, and it is filmed so gorgeously--the night and interior stuff especially--it has a feeling of total command. It's a strong if still conventional film, a true Western in the best Anthony Mann sense rather than John Ford. The plot is too complex to even analyze quickly, but a couple key elements play out. First, Fonda and Quinn play hired marshals who come into towns overwhelmed by some bad guys. They are hired for their ruthlessness because the town has no choice, but when they get to work, the town begins to doubt itself. And then there are all the secret past events that seem to converge here, almost too perfectly, but creating a layered and sometimes confusing backstory that gradually moves front and center.All three male actors are in top form--I'll assume it's because the whole lot of them were consummate professionals there to get a job done well. While this was made years after the official end of the old studio system, it still is made (on location) with the same general factory ethic--tight production standards, familiar genres, efficient entertainment. It works, and it works better than it should. Certainly not a classic like "High Noon" or "Stagecoach," but a solid entry even for people who think they don't like westerns.