SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

elvircorhodzic BEND OF THE RIVER is a film that is based on the conflict between two strong characters that have the same past. However, they completely opposite think about the future. The director in this film, pay attention to the story, psychological analysis and demonstrated the sheer sense for psychology of personality. The former robber is scout who seeks a caravan of immigrants to bring in their new home in Oregon. The story shows how he joins with a man similar to the past, but due to different views on the future, the two become enemies. Well, partly because of the beautiful immigrant. I'll be sure to praise the picture and realism conflict between two characters.James Stewart as Glyn McLyntock He experienced wins space in the film. The gunman who tried to escape from the past and become a farmer and cattleman. However, his past catches up him with every step. Mr. Stewart is a pretty good deal with the challenges in this film. Arthur Kennedy as Emerson Cole on the robber that his past can not be hidden. He's too fast on the trigger. Character that has a strange sense of justice and friendship, as long as he at one point smells money.Adventure western that is worth seeing.

jackasstrange Despite having some impressive technical aspects for the time of it's release, 'Bend of The River' don't has that much of a coherent and catchy story. Still, it's pretty enjoyable, i've never seen a western with James Stewart before. I guess that he is a fine actor.The editing is a problem in this film: there is just too many things going on each minute, making the events very hard to follow. Some of the important dialogs are quickly cut, while pointless ones are given very carefully attention, such as the ones about how to take care of a shirt and stuff of that genre, while the essential dialog showing Cole being convinced by the 'bandits' just runs for about ten seconds or so. I mean, come on. The bit that is coherent still a bit enjoyable, but the ending is disappointing, it is not as powerful as i was expecting, and like many westerns in that time, too cheesy for his own sake.The cinematography is very good, and there is some 'perspective' games that i personally found interesting. Despite knowing that the scenarios were all painted, about 80% of them convinced me of the opposite, being one of the exceptions the obviously 'mountain' in the background of the settlement, which was blatantly fake.But what i really liked about this film and i honestly think that it was the best thing by far about it was the soundtrack. It's terrific, one of the best that i've heard in an American western so far.It is worth a watch. 6.0/10

SimonJack For its portrayal of the rough going of emigrant wagon train life, and its spectacular scenery in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon and the Columbia River Gorge, "Bend of the River" scores high marks. It also has a first rate cast, all of whom shine in their performances. And it is an engaging story that pulls together very well elements of several genres of film — Western, pioneer, adventure, historical and dramatic.Many Westerns have been made with wagon trains, but they were mostly action movies. Very few have shown the hardships of wagon train life. "Bend of the River" is an exception. It shows the difficulty of moving wagons across streams, up and down steep grades, and over rocks and uncleared trails and mountain passes. So, this film shows a little reality from what historians call the longest migration in human history.Now, for a closer look at some curious aspects that render the film's particular story implausible. Except for the license of Hollywood to alter facts, times and places to fit the fiction, this story just couldn't have happened as shown. That doesn't take away from the movie's entertainment value. But, for those who enjoy finding solutions to curiosities, I offer these few salient points about the film. First — No one in the film seemed to know the name of Mt. Hood that shows so prominently throughout the movie. They referred to it as that old mountain, or old baldy. This is interesting because Mt. Hood was named in 1792, and Lewis and Clark noted it during their expedition in 1804-1806. Soon thereafter, towns sprang up in Oregon – Astoria in 1811, Oregon City in 1829 and Portland in 1843. Everyone knew the name of Mt. Hood, and the maps of the Northwest would have clearly shown Mt. Hood. Indeed, the diaries of Oregon Trail pioneers mentioned landmarks such as Mt. Hood all the time. The time setting of the movie had to be after 1846. That's when the Barlow Road was completed around Mt. Hood, so wagons didn't have to raft down the Columbia from The Dalles. So, why would the filmmakers not use the name of Mt. Hood when it's shown so clearly for long periods of the film, and from three different directions? My guess is to support the rest of the fictional story and give the impression to viewers that there were many different mountains, and that the parties were traveling to more distant places. Otherwise, the rest of the storyline in the movie wouldn't make sense. Second — The Portland outfitter described the great lush land beyond the falls where they were headed. He was describing the Willamette Valley, which was the goal of most who rode the trail to Oregon to settle. And, about 10 miles upstream from Portland, Willamette Falls blocked river navigation upstream on the Willamette. The Willamette Valley would be an easy overland trek from Portland. But then, the movie would have had to eliminate the spectacular Columbia Gorge scenery and the squabble over gold. So, our movie group instead heads back up the Columbia River toward Celilo Falls. In real life, at 75 miles east of Portland, they would have been right back where they were when they came out, before starting their trek around Mt. Hood. But now Jimmy Stewart has the captain stop to let them off 20 miles below the falls. That would be about where Hood River is. They're going to look for a route across the mountain. That means they will cross the Barlow Trail to get to their settlement, which obviously doesn't make sense. But it is believable to think that they might have settled in the Hood River Valley. In the film, Harry Morgan drops a tree when he is loading the boat and Jeremy tells him that they are going to plant apple, pear and plum trees at the settlement. Today, Hood River is known for its pear, apple and cherry orchards. And, in 1858 the Post Office opened in Hood River. Third — The gold strikes and gold camps are the hardest part of the story to reconcile. Since they account for most of the action and drama, we know why they are there. But, in real life and times, it wasn't like the movie shows. Gold was first discovered in Oregon in 1852 at Jacksonville near the Siskiyou Mountains that border California. That's more than 200 miles south of Portland and way beyond the Willamette Valley. The second gold discovery in Oregon was in 1862 in the Blue Mountains. Again, more than 200 miles from Portland, east toward Idaho. Even if some prospectors bought provisions in Portland, they had no way to take the goods by river or boat. And they were far beyond any of the lands settled by people from the Oregon Trail. Yet the movie has the gold camp closer than the wagon settlement.Fourth — The Stewart and Kennedy characters had been raiders on the Missouri-Kansas border. That period began in 1861 and ended shortly after the Civil War ended. That would mean that the movie setting was much later – perhaps toward the end of the Oregon Trail in 1869. Fifth —In the early scenes, after Stewart has saved Kennedy from a hanging and the wagon train sets up camp, Kennedy asks Stewart how the wagon train got through the Black Hills and the Big Horn country. The Oregon Trail doesn't go near either place — it's more than 100 miles away. For the life of me, I can't imagine why they left this erroneous reference in the script.

tsd333 The movie holds audience attention throughout, and is more thoughtful than most large-scale full color westerns. It is well-paced, muscular, has Arthur Kennedy acting strongly as a counterbalance to James Stewart, and answers the prime question of whether a man with violent crime in his past can change for the good, and permanently. Or rather, in this instance, two men can both change... Achieving all this might seem a tall order for director Anthony Mann, but it doesn't mean he needs acting depth in a large cast in order to succeed. The thespian qualities on display are pretty much confined to Stewart and Kennedy. The other characters neither demand much ability in front of the camera nor are developed as the viewing moves on. Rock Hudson, as a professional gambler, is a case in point. It was, however, very early in his serviceable career. Julie Adams (appearing on posters as Julia), is the number one love interest, and contributes her wonderfully fresh prettiness and soft, clear voice. Lori Nelson is also engaging near the start of her career. This picture show is engaging and satisfying enough to rate well above average fare.