This is an very good Western. It may be a little underrated, because it is generally known as the "worst" of the three Mann/Stewart Westerns. I thought it was at least as good as "Winchester '73" and "Naked Spur".
Here are a list of positives:
Now here are the negatives:
The movies suffers from numerous fundamental plot/feasibility issues.
1) Lockhart is a U.S. Army calvary captain who has gone undercover posing as the leader of a supply wagon train (it's unsaid , but that's how they got through Apache country. They had an Army escort). However, he hardly acts like a spy, pretty much spilling his guts about his mission whenever given a chance. If he was smart enough to come up with the ruse of pretending to be a civilian, surely he could have been a little more clever in rooting out the bad guys. Like maybe pretend he wanted to buy some repeating rifles? Just sayin'.
2) More on Lockhart's preposterous ineptitude as a spy. When the town drunk (Jack Elam) offers to sell him any information he wants, Lockhart shoos him off. Real smart.
3) Why was he loading up his wagons with salt? Didn't he come to stay?
4) Some other user reviews felt that it was not explained in the movie why the drunk later tries to kill Lockhart. I thought it was made clear that the Indian paid the drunk to kill him, then the Indian killed the drunk in order to shut him up. The Indian was put up to this by either Vic and Dave or the Indian gun buyers themselves. Remember, Lockhart coughed up the reason for his "secret" mission to the Indian the minute he rode into town.
5) After being hired by Kate Canady, Lockhart immediately rides onto the property of the Waggoman ranch in order to cut out stray Half Moon Ranch stock. This doesn't sound like such a critical task that Lockhart should be taking that kind of risk considering that Dave Waggoman wants to kill him. Good idea to go alone, too, huh? Why not leave your gun behind and paint a bullseye on your back while you're at it?
6) It's difficult to understand the motivations of Vic and Dave in selling guns to the Indians. It's clearly not necessary, they already control most of the territory. We have to assume that this was crazy Dave's idea - an irrational attempt to emulate the former ruthlessness of his father. It's completely out of character for Vic to be complicit with Dave in this activity.
7) Once the guns are revealed, Vic'c character is handled irrationally for the rest of the movie. The logic of the script says that his actions are tragic and sympathetic i.e. he clearly does not intend to kill Dave and hurts the old man by accident. To this point in the story, Vic is a Job figure, a decent guy whose life has been destroyed by accidental external forces. Yet for the rest of the movie he is cast as a legitimate villain, justifiably killed by the Indians (thereby indirectly avenging the death of Lockhart's brother) and remembered by the old man forever as the dirty snake who killed his faultless son. This inexplicable about face in the script is grossly unfair to Vic.
8) And while we're on the subject, how can Lockhart be so darkly obsessed with avenging his brother's death and hold absolutely no malice toward the Apaches who actually killed him. It's ENTIRELY the fault of Vic, who was no doubt forced or coerced into selling the guns anyway by crazy Dave.
9) There was no way that wagon load of guns falling off the cliff damaged the majority of the rifles. The Indians surely could have collected them at the bottom of the hill.
10) The finale scene where Vic, Lockhart and the Indians all show up at the rifle scene at exactly the same time is a preposterous coincidence
11) And one last thing, just how did Lockhart get down from that cliff at the end of the movie without the Indians noticing?
In summary, "Man From Laramie" has good acting, good locations and a solid, interesting plot set up, but the conclusion is contrived. Plot elements and scenes are just slapped together to produce the climatic scenes Mann is looking for. The story has no integrity. The other parts of the movie aren't strong enough to compensate for the numerous glaring flaws.
Here are a list of positives:
- The acting is very good. Stewart is his usual fabulous presence. Arthur Kennedy is solid. There are also some other fine supporting performances. The only exception is Alex Nicol playing the heavy. This was overdone, both the character and the acting.
- The basic plot is pretty compelling, at least through the first half of the movie.
- It looks like it was filmed almost entirely on location.
- There was a very short, but excellent scene where a Mexican friar explains that the Pueblo Indians in the town of Coronado are traditionally peaceful cliff dwellers and fundamentally different in nature from the nomadic Apaches. Rare historically accurate and sophisticated insight from a Western of this era.
Now here are the negatives:
The movies suffers from numerous fundamental plot/feasibility issues.
1) Lockhart is a U.S. Army calvary captain who has gone undercover posing as the leader of a supply wagon train (it's unsaid , but that's how they got through Apache country. They had an Army escort). However, he hardly acts like a spy, pretty much spilling his guts about his mission whenever given a chance. If he was smart enough to come up with the ruse of pretending to be a civilian, surely he could have been a little more clever in rooting out the bad guys. Like maybe pretend he wanted to buy some repeating rifles? Just sayin'.
2) More on Lockhart's preposterous ineptitude as a spy. When the town drunk (Jack Elam) offers to sell him any information he wants, Lockhart shoos him off. Real smart.
3) Why was he loading up his wagons with salt? Didn't he come to stay?
4) Some other user reviews felt that it was not explained in the movie why the drunk later tries to kill Lockhart. I thought it was made clear that the Indian paid the drunk to kill him, then the Indian killed the drunk in order to shut him up. The Indian was put up to this by either Vic and Dave or the Indian gun buyers themselves. Remember, Lockhart coughed up the reason for his "secret" mission to the Indian the minute he rode into town.
5) After being hired by Kate Canady, Lockhart immediately rides onto the property of the Waggoman ranch in order to cut out stray Half Moon Ranch stock. This doesn't sound like such a critical task that Lockhart should be taking that kind of risk considering that Dave Waggoman wants to kill him. Good idea to go alone, too, huh? Why not leave your gun behind and paint a bullseye on your back while you're at it?
6) It's difficult to understand the motivations of Vic and Dave in selling guns to the Indians. It's clearly not necessary, they already control most of the territory. We have to assume that this was crazy Dave's idea - an irrational attempt to emulate the former ruthlessness of his father. It's completely out of character for Vic to be complicit with Dave in this activity.
7) Once the guns are revealed, Vic'c character is handled irrationally for the rest of the movie. The logic of the script says that his actions are tragic and sympathetic i.e. he clearly does not intend to kill Dave and hurts the old man by accident. To this point in the story, Vic is a Job figure, a decent guy whose life has been destroyed by accidental external forces. Yet for the rest of the movie he is cast as a legitimate villain, justifiably killed by the Indians (thereby indirectly avenging the death of Lockhart's brother) and remembered by the old man forever as the dirty snake who killed his faultless son. This inexplicable about face in the script is grossly unfair to Vic.
8) And while we're on the subject, how can Lockhart be so darkly obsessed with avenging his brother's death and hold absolutely no malice toward the Apaches who actually killed him. It's ENTIRELY the fault of Vic, who was no doubt forced or coerced into selling the guns anyway by crazy Dave.
9) There was no way that wagon load of guns falling off the cliff damaged the majority of the rifles. The Indians surely could have collected them at the bottom of the hill.
10) The finale scene where Vic, Lockhart and the Indians all show up at the rifle scene at exactly the same time is a preposterous coincidence
11) And one last thing, just how did Lockhart get down from that cliff at the end of the movie without the Indians noticing?
In summary, "Man From Laramie" has good acting, good locations and a solid, interesting plot set up, but the conclusion is contrived. Plot elements and scenes are just slapped together to produce the climatic scenes Mann is looking for. The story has no integrity. The other parts of the movie aren't strong enough to compensate for the numerous glaring flaws.