User Reviews

This might not have been a bad western if it could have figured out where it was going, what it was doing when it got there, and where they buried the plot under the prairie.

The main character is a guy named Duke, who apparently decided that robbery wasn't paying(at least not the way he did it, anyway), and so took a job at a local ranch run by a really annoying old guy who fancies himself a learned medical man, his huge goofy sidekick who walks around in an apron a lot, and the old guy's clichéd tomboy granddaughter, who immediately takes a liking to the 'hero'.

The main hinge on which the thin plot revolves is the fact that many of the local ranchers are rounding up wild horses to breed and tame, to the point where there might not be any wild ones left. The worst of the offenders is another old guy, this one in a wheelchair(probably because he let the other old guy treat him for something). His daughter also takes a shine to Duke, although I figure they were both bound to be disappointed, since Duke showed little interest in either and was probably gay.

The wheelchair old guy makes a pact with the other ranchers not to round up any more wild horses for awhile, but the straight out of prison ranch foreman has other ideas. He intends to get himself deputized, along with his thugs, so he can kill and steal land with impunity. Since the only person who can stand against him is Duke, he stand a pretty good chance of succeeding. He even manages to frame Duke for murder, so that he has to flee town as a fugitive, hide out, and get shot by the wheelchair guy's daughter. As a hero, Duke is pretty ineffective.

Actually, it's the medical old guy who figures out the scheme, using a conveniently dropped letter. There are several conveniently dropped bits of evidence, which is a cheap way to advance a plot. The bad guy shoots the old guy, but only manages to give him a scratch in spite of the fact that he was no more than fifty yards away and the old guy was going really, really slow because he was in the middle of a river. Okay, so he can't shoot. But he's pretty efficient about everything else, so we can forgive him that.

Duke and the local sheriff(who finally grew a spine) arrest the evil foreman, and the movie peters out to its slow end. Nothing is really resolved, and the effeminate hero ignores both of the attractive and drooling women(probably in favor of the big, apron wearing sidekick). The horses were by far the best actors, which is fairly sad.

OK, I admit I saw the MST3K version of this movie instead of the "straight" theatrical release, but as a longtime MST3K vet I know how to disengage the wisecracks from the "front row" and judge the movie on its own merits, whatever they may be. (And even in the lineup of movies covered by MST3K, LOTWH is one of the more competent efforts.)

In the movie's favor: Pretty good scenery, sets and costumes - the viewer really does get a sense of vast countryside, rugged men of action, and wild horses abounding. Although the robots make fun of Albert Glasser's score, it really is one of his best efforts and does its job nicely. No one in the cast really sucks - everyone seems to know what their part requires and the actors inhabit their characters quite comfortably. Also, a nice rousing fight scene during the opening credits gets things off to a reasonably exciting start.

Against? Well, the plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and certain events require a whole lot of suspension of disbelief. You've never seen so many coincidental meetings and dropping/finding of critical plot MacGuffins - brandings irons, bandanna, letters, envelopes - in your life. The chief bad guy's machinations wouldn't get him elected to 9th grade class president in real life and they only work here because the plot requires it.

And aside from a couple of chases and shootouts, the movie just mosies along for most of its length, which would be OK if it had a John Wayne or a Gary Cooper to carry it...but what it's got is a bunch of competent actors who were born to play spear carriers.

I'm not a big fan of Westerns, although I've got "Rio Bravo", "Rough Night In Jericho", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valace" and "Silverado" in my DVD collection. But there's at least 100 Western movies I can think of that I'd watch before I'd watch "Last Of The Wild Horses" again. And I seriously doubt anyone will ever see this movie for its own sake ever again...it's simply forgettable and run of the mill.

But it's not "bad" the way a truly incompetent movie is "bad".

There are a handful of generally unknown actors that I enjoy seeing in just about anything. One of those people is Douglass Dumbrille. From A Day at the Races with the Marx Brothers to Castle in the Desert with Charlie Chan, I always look forward to Dumbrille's performances. In Last of the Wild Horses, he plays the wheelchair-bound owner of the Double C ranch. His performance is by far the best thing this movie has going for it. Now that I think about it, Douglass Dumbrille is probably the only thing Last of the Wild Horses has going for it. The movie is one of those utterly dull, white-bread kind of Westerns where no one gets dirty and the good guys always win. It's the kind of Western that always seemed to feature an annoying comic relief character that you just wanted to see someone put a bullet through. All it lacks is a cowboy with a guitar to make my stomach really turn.

But the most unforgivable part of Last of the Wild Horses is the way director Robert Lippert continually cheats to keep the plot moving. On three different occasions, people conveniently drop evidence that is later found and used to advance the story. From a branding iron to a letter to a bandana – Last of the Wild Horses would have us believe that the cowboys of the Old West were a bunch of butterfingers.