Rio Grande (1950)

Fresh and Exciting

A Masterpiece!

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

***Spoiler Alert*** There are some surprises in this corny western. The raids of the Indians are savage, truly, with a not-too-muscular John Wayne saying in a bland voice: "they tied 3 soldiers guarding the water hole face down on ant hills." Holy cow: that is a more brutal torture than I am willing to imagine. And there are touches (just touches) of realism where a lawyer is needed to help an accused soldier ("And if a Dallas lawyer can't get him acquitted, " says John Wayne, which is a refreshing take on a NY lawyer). And both Wayne and his son know the law quite well. Meanwhile, the Indians dash across the Rio Grande (like terrorists! in this 1950 film), befuddling the US Cavalry which can't pursue and the Mexican army which can only stay on guarding the river Rio Grande. Even though both armies want to pursue (and even join forces: an Alliance of the Willing), their Orders specifically stop them. I had to fast forward every time the film (frequently) has the soldiers serenading one another. Some horse tricks are amazing ("Roman style" – it's a thing). I was somewhat jarred by one piece of dialog that could've been said this year: As the teenage son is about to pull an arrow out of his dad's chest (John Wayne), his fellow young soldier says "Get it done" and the other young soldier says "Yo". The scenes with the Indians chanting was perhaps authentic (but who knows? – perhaps some Native Americans, that's who), but I thought it was a bit stereotypical.The film is OK, but sappy, and I watched it more as an exercise to see what "the old Westerns looked like" than to enjoy it.

I hadn't seen this movie in about 25 years and couldn't quite remember it until AMC showed it today. I am a big Duke fan, but this one was very disappointing. It was so predictable, from the beginning when he sees his son there as one of his troops and their very predictable "reunion". The idea of the Apaches raiding across the Rio Grande and the Cavalry not being able to pursue them because of possibly fracturing their relations with Mexico has some possibilities, but it goes flat after that. We might expect the Mexican's being there when they do cross the Rio Grande, but nothing ever came of it and that is very anti climatic. There are also HUGE plot holes all the way through this and the former Confederate/ Union plot just doesn't do much either. The romance sub plot, which I don't think played as a real sub plot, also was very unsatisfying as well.But, the one that had me laughing out loud was the "singing choir" that just sang, EVERYWHERE. Okay, the serenade of Mrs. York was sweet, but for the Captain to call for them to sing while they are riding patrol is just too much. I like the Sons Of The Pioneers as much as anyone and Ken Curtis just still amazes me every time I hear him sing and watch Gunsmoke and marvel, but this singing was just too much. Did any of those guy ever fire a gun in this entire movie?I thought about leaving it a "1", but I can't leave a "1" for the Duke on a western. Now, let me check out The Conqueror and I may change my mind. Unless, we think of Mongolia as being "far west".

Another John Ford/John Wayne classic. Solid plot that isn't all about cavalry vs indians battles. If it was, it would be fairly mundane. No, there's action, and a good dose of human and relationship drama.Action scenes are great, as is the scenery and cinematography. All this you would expect from John Ford. Shooting a western in black-and-white does not sound like the best idea, but Ford makes it work.Great performance by John Wayne. He gets to show off a bit more acting range in this movie. There is the usual action-hero John Wayne, and then the romantic, concerned husband/father John Wayne.Maureen O'Hara is wonderful in the female lead, and stunningly beautiful even in black-and-white.Good support from Claude Jarman Jr and Chill Wills. J Carroll Naish gets the award for looking exactly like the historical figure he is portraying (General Sheridan).Only negatives are the singing and that there are a few moments where the plot seems to briefly stall. All the singing and music started to feel like padding after a while. The plot has some "clunky" moments, where you thought - why is that necessary? Minor issues, that's all.

I saw "Rio Grande" in the theater as a child and loved it. Unlike some movies I saw in my youth, it has stood the test of time and just gets better as I get older and learn more. I do not need to write a synopsis here as others have done this admirably. I am only writing this review to answer some of the criticisms of this lovely film.First, the "too much music" complaint. I can see how some people would feel this, especially in this day and age, as we are not used to people breaking into song except in a musical and even those are rare these days. But in the days that this movie is set, that is exactly what was going on. There was little else to do in the long, boring tedium of life in the Western outposts for the lowly trooper. They did a lot of singing. Some had guitars, fiddles, banjos...whatever. Libbie Custer tells that a soldier in the 7th had a zither, a unique treat. Of course "San Antone" was not one of the ditties sung by the cavalry as that was written by Dale Evans herself. And I doubt that the average group of soldier singers out on the plains sounded quite as good as Ken Curtis and the Sons of the Pioneers, although who knows. Mrs. Custer also said "There was always in the ranks much amateur and sometimes some professional 'talent'." They even built a little rough tent-building at Fort Hays, referred to as the Opera House, where the soldiers could put on performances and concerts.Secondly the complaint against using black and white and that the photography is just not that great. This movie has for me some of the most iconic images in a western, particularly of John Wayne. The kind of close-ups that make a legend. The photography in "Fort Apache" looks flat on the version I saw. Maybe it's the CD. And "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" looks somewhat garish by comparison. The black and white of "Rio Grande" however looks almost Bergmanesque in it's depth.There have been varying opinions of the Duke's acting in this. Although I feel John Wayne was a personality, rather than an actor, in this one I thought he was great. There are several scenes with no lines where he more than proves his ability.Many seem to think it's just not as good as the first two in the trilogy, but as stated by someone else, the first two have scenes that are hokey or corny or just don't work...or the unfortunate Hollywood touches that will yank you right out of the scene. "Rio Grande" is pretty much spared those. Maybe it's a good thing this was a 'quickie' for John Ford. He didn't have time to rethink his first instinct or give the suits a chance to meddle.Speaking of Hollywood's version of things, I used to assume these movies were exactly that regarding life on the frontier. But as I read more about the times, most importantly first hand accounts, I realized how amazingly accurate these films are, which makes them all the more enjoyable the second or third time around. And, last but not least, the 'indians' are all played by actual Native Americans. Talk about a unique treat! I know...the other two used Native Americans as well, but there was in each a 'non-Indian' playing a lead Indian role as well.If you haven't guessed it by now, of the three cavalry films of John Ford, "Rio Grande" is my favorite. I highly recommend it!!