Duel at Diablo (1966)

Thanks for the memories!

Sick Product of a Sick System

Admirable film.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Mrs Grange is a distant relative of Christa,the heroine of Nelson's "soldier blue" ;both lived among an Indian tribe ,Mrs Grange had even a child from an Indian man:it's not surprising that the character who welcomes the baby of mixed race with warmth and tenderness is Sidney Poitier's.Besides,both Bibi Anderson and Candice Bergen are blond;it's all the more bewildering to see Anderson in a western since she is primarily an intellectual actress, famous for her roles in Bergman's works.That said ,one can prefer the way John Ford told us about the fate of the white "squaws".In spite of this minor quibble,"duel at Diablo" is an exciting western ,with a lot of subplots and even an unexpected twist (which makes sense),notably concerning Garner's late wife ;violence and cruelty (Indian tortures) are present and predict the final slaughter in the 1971 effort.A great scene shows Garner giving his revolver to a suffering dying man so as to he can finish HIMSELF off.Many interesting supporting parts.

For western fans who enjoy plenty of shootouts against eye-filling western locations, DUEL AT DIABLO fills the bill. It's got several strands of sub-plots going but spends most of its time featuring some action packed shootouts that don't leave much time for character development among the cast.JAMES GARNER is a scout who saves a young woman who is being pursued by Indians. That's how the story starts, against brilliantly used Utah location shots. As the plot deepens, we find that she'd been captured by the Indians and was making her escape when he came to her aid. Meanwhile, back at Fort Creel, her husband (DENNIS WEAVER) is upset about her dalliance with Indians and the fact that she has a baby fathered by an Indian.A hardly recognizable JOHN HOYT (in full Indian make-up) is Chatah, the Apache chief with the full-sized army of fighters who wants the woman and the baby back. Another story thread has JAMES GARNER seeking revenge for the man who killed his Indian wife. With all of these sub-plots merging, there's even more story element tying in SIDNEY POITIER and BILL TRAVERS, both of whom look out of place in this western saga.If it's action you want, you get plenty of it here. Along with scenes of almost graphic torture and lots of arrows hitting their mark along with bullets and falling horses. It's not for the squeamish.Too bad the film really never builds up enough tension to sustain its running time, even with a new battle breaking out every fifteen minutes or so. By the time the final skirmish is reached, the viewer will feel almost as exhausted as the players must have been.Gritty all the way with a natural performance by Garner and good support from the others. Last but not least, a good score by Neal Hefti rises to the occasion with some nice flourishes.

What we have here is a b western whose messages are probably of more value than the film. This is not shot well, with a script that does not stand out and the action set pieces are obviously cheap, but well ahead of it's time we have no real good and evil here with flaws in both sides and it is here that the film excels. James Garner is the anti hero who is only persuaded to come along on the quest to see his ex-army colleagues through territory filled with hostile Apache because he is looking for revenge on the man who killed his Indian wife. Sidney Poiter is in the unusual position of an empowered black man who despite his statements has loyalty to his ex-army colleagues. In fact all the characters are multi faceted and I feel this movie could actually be remade extremely easily to great effect. Not a great film that I would not really go out of my way to view again but well ahead of it's time in terms of message.

The problem with this picture is that so many of the costumes are over the top, and they change from scene to scene. I saw Sydney Portier's character wearing two different hats in the same battle scene (one brown and one whitish-gray). Gaudy things. Way too gaudy to be authentic. Plus, the flat characters are all exceptionally flat. It seemed like a very canned enterprise from the word go. I am in favor of the older westerns that are more realistic to the period. This one was not. This one was a metaphor for how westerns turn me off. The scenes were way too stagey. The players too clean and bright. During many of the fight scenes (for instance) all of the hats stay on even though they are infighting in intense battle. Plausibility is on the wane in this movie. Sorry, 4 stars (out of 10).