In Memoriam 1942 – 2013 “Roger Ebert loved movies.”


Oasis: Supersonic

While Oasis: Supersonic is never boring, especially for fans, it’s also not quite deep enough to justify its narrow focus, especially at its overlong running…


Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

It’s a pity that Jack Reacher: Never Go Back fails to support Cruise and his costars, all of whom are acting as if their lives…

Other Reviews
Review Archives

Ballad of Narayama

"The Ballad of Narayama" is a Japanese film of great beauty and elegant artifice, telling a story of startling cruelty. What a space it opens…

Other Reviews
Great Movie Archives




The Jimmy Stewart hero usually isn't very happy with his job. He doesn't go around sticking his neck out. He's no John Wayne type. But finally he gets pushed beyond the breaking point and Wayne hath no fury like a Stewart scorned.


"Firecreek" presents the Stewart hero in a familiar disguise. This time, Jimmy is the part-time sheriff of a town populated with broken-down, defeated settlers. He gets two bucks a month and wears a "Sharaf" badge his kids have hammered out of tin. His wife is expecting another baby any minute now, and the last thing he wants is trouble.

But then a gang of bad guys rides into town. At first you don't realize they're bad guys, because they're led by Henry Fonda, who always plays good guys. He does this time, too. That is, he's not as bad as the guys in his gang. He's an essentially decent person on the wrong side, like Rommel in the desert.

But he's been wounded, and while he's being tended by a kindly landlady (Inger Stevens), his boys shoot up the town. Stewart, pushed beyond the proverbial breaking point, fights back. There's a shootdown in the great Western tradition, ending at last with the confrontation of reluctant heroism (Stewart) and reluctant evil (Fonda), both wear gray hats, appropriately.

"Firecreek" was obviously conceived with high aims. I have the feeling that the people involved thought they were making a pretty good movie. And they almost did. Several scenes, including one between Stewart and his pregnant wife (Jacqueline Scott), and another between Fonda and Miss Stevens, are filled with tenderness.

But somehow the parts don't quite come together. Despite the presence of character actors like the legendary Ed Begley, despite the effective dust-blown photography, despite Stewart and Fonda, something is missing.

The tension we need to draw us into the story isn't there; things move at too leisurely a pace, and the movie, like the Jimmy Stewart hero, has to be dragged into the excitement against its will.


Popular Blog Posts

Who do you read? Good Roger, or Bad Roger?

This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...

How 2016 Became the Year of Adventurous, Original Horror Films

2016 has been a very good year for horror movies.

No Longer an Inconceivable Future: The Vision of Alfonso Cuarón's "Children of Men"

FFC Seongyong Cho on watching 2006's dystopian thriller "Children of Men" ten years later.

Reveal Comments
comments powered by Disqus