I recall seeing this film as a first run movie in 1978, when I was on a date if Forest Hills, New York. It starred Jane Fonda and Jason Robards and this was only a year or two after they appeared together in JULIA so I figured it had to be above average. It was.
First of all it was set in fairly modern times (the late 1940s), and it updated some of the stereotypes in westerns. This led to a bit of unevenness towards the end (more about that later) but it also made the story more interesting.
Robards is the big local ranch owner, but he is not in a good situation. First, he is pining for Fonda - they were married at one time, but she left him. She owns (through inheritance) a small neighboring ranch that Robards' family once owned. Her chief assistant on the ranch is Richard Farnsworth (whose performance in this film finally took that wonderful actor out of stunt work into speaking roles). Farnsworth is a wise old bird, and keeps Fonda together when everything seems to be collapsing about her - due to pressures from others. The second ranch is owned by World War II veteran James Caan. Naturally, much to Robards' chagrin, Fonda and Caan start a romance.
But the modernization of this plot (which could be the plot from some old 1930s film with Caan's equivalent being a Civil War veteran), was that Robards is land rich, but money poor. It is the constant problem of ranchers and farmers (and land developers) alike: Yes you can make a fortune in properly run, land - based businesses, but you have to maintain the quality of the property. This means you need cash to upgrade the property, and make sure it is not going down-hill. But (in the case of ranching) one or two or three years of bad returns on the sales of cattle, horses, or crops and you may be unable to keep the money coming in. Such is the situation with Robards, who owes money to the local banker (James Keach). Robards is oddly enough in the position of a small farmer seeking a loan extension (say like the Oakies in THE GRAPES OF WRATH), but he is finding Keach less than sympathetic. The reason is that Keach is working with George Grizzard, a very wealthy oilman. They both realize that Robards' ranch is in jeopardy due to his bank debt, and they might be able to foreclose on it. Similar problems are there for both Fonda and Caan.
Up to two thirds of the film this was a very good movie, but the unevenness was (as pointed out by the critics) that economic circumstances should have joined Robards, Fonda, and Caan as a front against Grizzard and Keach. Had they done that the film would have been quite original. The failure to do so made the film's conclusion rather ordinary - although still a good film. The deaths of two of the characters in particular (I won't mention which) were quite striking.
First of all it was set in fairly modern times (the late 1940s), and it updated some of the stereotypes in westerns. This led to a bit of unevenness towards the end (more about that later) but it also made the story more interesting.
Robards is the big local ranch owner, but he is not in a good situation. First, he is pining for Fonda - they were married at one time, but she left him. She owns (through inheritance) a small neighboring ranch that Robards' family once owned. Her chief assistant on the ranch is Richard Farnsworth (whose performance in this film finally took that wonderful actor out of stunt work into speaking roles). Farnsworth is a wise old bird, and keeps Fonda together when everything seems to be collapsing about her - due to pressures from others. The second ranch is owned by World War II veteran James Caan. Naturally, much to Robards' chagrin, Fonda and Caan start a romance.
But the modernization of this plot (which could be the plot from some old 1930s film with Caan's equivalent being a Civil War veteran), was that Robards is land rich, but money poor. It is the constant problem of ranchers and farmers (and land developers) alike: Yes you can make a fortune in properly run, land - based businesses, but you have to maintain the quality of the property. This means you need cash to upgrade the property, and make sure it is not going down-hill. But (in the case of ranching) one or two or three years of bad returns on the sales of cattle, horses, or crops and you may be unable to keep the money coming in. Such is the situation with Robards, who owes money to the local banker (James Keach). Robards is oddly enough in the position of a small farmer seeking a loan extension (say like the Oakies in THE GRAPES OF WRATH), but he is finding Keach less than sympathetic. The reason is that Keach is working with George Grizzard, a very wealthy oilman. They both realize that Robards' ranch is in jeopardy due to his bank debt, and they might be able to foreclose on it. Similar problems are there for both Fonda and Caan.
Up to two thirds of the film this was a very good movie, but the unevenness was (as pointed out by the critics) that economic circumstances should have joined Robards, Fonda, and Caan as a front against Grizzard and Keach. Had they done that the film would have been quite original. The failure to do so made the film's conclusion rather ordinary - although still a good film. The deaths of two of the characters in particular (I won't mention which) were quite striking.