Drango (1957)

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Its worth a watch because it is a decent Western with all the right mix except this one takes place right after the Civil War and shows you quite effectively the hatred the South had for the rest of the country. I found this depiction rather accurate right down to the prejudice, murders and realism as this really happened. Remember, people were so opposed to this war that they went to war to make their point. We got whiskey drinking, fighting, horses, love interest, lynchings, farms and a good look at things back then. The plot is a good one and it cost many people their life (in the move and out) to make the point of stopping what doesn't work and doing what does. Killing always starts with a reason and ends with a reason to stop as well. I had a hard time with the name of this movie i.e. "Drango". It makes no sense, doesn't capture a personality or point and leaves you with a sense of unfinished business even though it is the name of the main character. Obviously whoever named this movie wanted to get it over with or had an appointment elsewhere. Even when I accepted the name, hearing others say it took effort. It just doesn't have the Western flavor and in fact detracts. Pay close attention how people lived with the seasons as you needed a crop in one season to make it through the next one. Miss an opportunity and it can cost you your life and your farm in other words everything. Nice little portrait of an orphan family whose mom & dad were killed. They had shelter but lacked food and clothing. This is as real as it gets as well as the solution given. I like to eat during movie watching. This one is a sandwich or even some beef jerky with a tasty drink. Confederate or rebel, ride into this, dismount and sit a spell

John Lupton was a Union Captain not Confederate: I agree that no Blacks seemed odd in a story taking place in Georgia during reconstruction. Considering the movie was made in 1957, it did bring home some valid points. Bitterness and hatred exist to this very day...Black and white photography is excellent, but the film should have been made in Color. It looks too much like the hundreds of westerns that were on TV in 1957. Anyway it was a noble attempt and although it fails to arouse much excitement, it did in it's own quiet way show how the reconstructed period was very difficult. Anyway the movie should be reviewed as an interesting and erstwhile failure

Either previous reviewers are confused as to exactly who John Lupton is or they're not watching the same movie I am. Previous reviewers state that Lupton's character Capt. Banning is out for revenge against the south-Incorrect! Banning is Major Drango's adjutant. His role in the film is more of a "spear carrier" than anything else. "Capt. escort the lady home"-"Capt. Go get the Doctor"- He expresses almost no opinion through out the film except on Christmas day when he tells the Major he needs to take a day off.Another reviewer has confused the characters completely and has Capt. Banning as the son of the Judge when in actually it is Ronald Howard, the Confedrete Villin...On the whole I thought this was a good plot but to squeezed into a short film to explore the subject properly. I like Jeff Chandler, but he overacts way to much in this one.

A rather dour Reconstruction Western that's probably too earnest for its own good. Writer Hall Bartlett's heart is in the right place—reconciling North and South following the Civil War. Union Major Drango (Chandler) wants to unite rebellious Confederate town around a regime of humane occupation, despite widespread resistance. The supporting cast is familiar from about every popular TV series of the day—Stone, Phillips, Sande, Ankrum, Baer. Too bad the powerful Donald Crisp is largely wasted in a circumscribed role, and why Julie London's presence other than to build box-office appeal is unclear to me. In fact, her romantic subplot with Lupton sprawls the story without strengthening it. Also, reviewer Lorenellroy is right—Chandler's major comes across as too stiff and unappealing for a central character. His besieged Major should be serious, but the seriousness is finally carried to a deadening degree. Bartlett was interesting as a producer, especially with Navajo and Unchained. Here, however, I'm afraid he tries to do too much with a screenplay that ends up in too many talky subplots. Then too, direction should have been left to a better stylist since the core material had potential. In passing—note that no reference to slavery or appearance of a black person occurs anywhere in the movie, a rather startling omission for a film dealing with the post-Civil War South. My guess is that the producers, like others of the period, didn't want to risk dealing with a sensitive subject at a time when Jim Crow laws still prevailed below the Mason-Dixon Line. Anyway, considering the number of Westerns on TV and in theatres in 1957, it's probably not surprising that despite good intentions and a fine performance from Joanne Dru this dour little oddity has remained lost in the mix.