Arizona (1940)

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Fun but overlong western with a dynamite turn by Jean Arthur as a feisty pioneer gal that's as rough and tumble as any man you'll meet. She fights corruption and villainy in the form of Porter Hall and Warren William. She also finds time for romance with handsome (and considerably younger) leading man William Holden.Arthur's the primary reason to see this. She dominates every scene. Also some good performances from Edgar Buchanan as a drunken judge and Warren William as a slimy crook. Holden's fine but he wasn't quite ready to be an A-lister yet. The romance element is one of the weaker parts of the film. Victor Young's Oscar-nominated score is excellent. It's an enjoyable western but, like I said, it goes on too long for such a simple story.

If you are a Lover of Cowboy movies as I am, you find this to be one of the best! When watching these kind of movies, you will find it more interesting if you look at the little things. The costuming is outstanding. The revolvers are right for the period. You can see that the money spent on sets was well worth it. This is not the Gene Autry 'soapy' kind of western. The characters have holes in their shirts; their clothes are worn; the hats are beat up. Had this film had a stronger male lead, like a Randolph Scott, or Errol Flynn rather than a very young William Holden, and been in color... In color you could then feel the heat and smell the sage brush, it would have been one of the most watched westerns ever. Jean Arthur is wonderful as she usually is in her movies. Edgar Buchanan is very funny. The casting is really great. William Holden does do a very nice job, but having him try to sing, must have been something expected at that time. No Sex, No bad language, amazing that today they make up for a weak script and acting with those two items. My thought is that it is too short at 121 minutes. I would like to have it go on for ever. A remake of this movie would be a treat.

The story line in this film is basically fictional, but real names of people who lived in Tucson, Arizona Territory, in the late nineteenth century are given to members of the cast, and the set that was created specifically for its production still exists just over the hill from the real Tucson of today. As someone who remembers visiting that set during filming in 1940, I am still impressed by the place and by this film. Jean Arthur's character was indeed a prototype of the independent frontierswoman . But even more important from the perspective of today as I stand among the remnants of the old set (still used, together with a sound stage on the property, to produce "Westerns") and look back sixty years just as the producers looked back sixty years for their story, I think of it as a story within a story. Anyone visiting Arizona today would do well to think of the film "Arizona" as a true picture of 1880 and, in another context, of 1940, and let their imaginations wander. The social attitudes and mores of both periods stand in great contrast to those of the 21st century.

This movie has every thing a western lover wants-shoot-out,cattle drive,Native American conflict,Calvarymen,strong leading lady character who is independent,but falls for the hero. and a hero who takes a supporting role,but grabs my attention every time he is on the screen. Different from most characters that William Holden plays, not cynical. The suspense at the end was so real; I could feel the same emotions as the character played by Jean Arthur.