Quantez (1957)

Too much of everything

Absolutely the worst movie.

Absolutely brilliant

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Copyright 1957 by Universal-International. New York opening at RKO neighborhood theaters as the lower half of a double bill with a second run of "Tammy and the Bachelor": 6 September 1957. U.S. release: 1 October 1957. U.K. release: 7 September 1958. Australian release: 5 July 1957 (sic). 80 minutes. Cut by Rank Film Distributors to 68 minutes in the U.K. for release on a double bills.SYNOPSIS: A gang on the run after a successful bank robbery hole up for the night in Quantez, a mysteriously empty frontier town.VIEWERS' GUIDE (all versions): Strictly adults.COMMENT: CinemaScope seems an odd choice for a "B" western that, aside from its opening action and solid climax, is largely set indoors. Mind you, it still offers well above average entertainment, though it says much for the general standard of acting that the best performance comes not from any of the big-name players, but from the little known (as far as most moviegoers were concerned) James Barton, who provides a wonderfully engaging interlude as a wandering minstrel. On the other hand, Fred MacMurray's playing seems a bit too off the cuff to be wholly convincing. You would think that he had just that moment memorized his lines, but had not been given any opportunity to practice them and get the feel of them. And, although no fault of her own, Dorothy Malone also betrays the obvious haste with which the movie was made, thanks to her glaringly obvious make-up.Even the sound recording is unusually rough by Hollywood's usually meticulous standards. OTHER VIEWS: This film sets out with half-hearted self-consciousness after a theme — that the man on the run is hunted down from within as much as by external forces; but it succeeds only in being an object lesson in ponderous time-wasting. — Monthly Film Bulletin (reviewing the 68-minute version).

Even though this film had a great set of actors and character development that was quite interesting, the pace of this story was so slow that it took away from the entire project.The movie begins as we see four bank robbers that was attempting to outrun a posse that was following them. Plus you throw-in a sexy looking female that was also along for the ride and you can see that this is a unique set of people. Anyway, they shake the cops and end up in an old abandon town. And now, nearly through the entire picture, the writer starts to show all the distinct personalities of each character. The only bad thing is that the introduction of the characters takes so long that viewers begin to lose interest in the movie.The first forty minutes of the movie is uneventful. You have pleasant conversation, people watering the horses and some wandering where they should go to split-up the money. The only hint of trouble comes when one of the characters stumbles on a Indian war stick that might just lead to some excitement.The last half of the movie was so much better. There were actually action on the screen to break the tedious dialog that viewers were suffering. And if viewers were still watching and not turned off by the dull first half, then you saw a story that was actually interesting. John Larch, Fred MacMurray, Dorothy Malone and Michael Ansara all did an outstanding job with their character. The problem is that it took so long developing the characters that it was easy to get bored and turn to another form of entertainment. This was a hard watch but the ending made the long tiresome viewing a bit more enjoyable.

I'm going to go against the positive few reviews so far posted here. I was very disappointed, and found it the poorest of "gang in a ghost town" Westerns that I've seen. Pity, because the cast was reasonably strong. About the only interesting thing in it was what I thought was John Larch's resemblance to Gary Cooper.None of the characters is at all likable and most of the could be a stage play, with so much action confined to one room. These aren't necessarily bad things for a film, but all the talking and no action was tedious, as were the white characters turning on each other and the inevitable interaction between Chaney and each of the four gangsters.I nearly turned off my recording of the film but struggled through to the ending, which was OK.

It's really a shame and a great pain for me to have this one in my library since so many years, and not be able to see it again and again...Why, you may ask...Well, it's because I have it in f...Pan and Scan. The guy who invented that would deserve to be hanged high. F...bastard.QUANTEZ is a real masterpiece, a great western, a flaming, blazing movie that must be discovered again. No one seems to have seen it. But if it is in f... outrageous Pan and Scan, it's really no worth while. Forget it. I hope that a TV broadcast will air it soon, and in LBX, of course. Or this film released in DVD.I wait for this since so long. There is something of WILD BUNCH in this movie. In its topic. Mac Murray plays here an outstanding character which reminds me the Holden one in Peckinpah's masterpiece. When I'll see it again, it will be the most beautiful day of my life.