ClassyWas Excellent, smart action film.

HottWwjdIam There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

weezeralfalfa At the end of the Civil War, after marching columns of uniformed Confederate soldiers had ceased to exist, there was general fear among Union leaders that a long period of guerilla warfare and civil disobedience might follow. Ex-General Lee, for one, made a speech discouraging this option. This film, in part, deals with this issue. It also deals with the problem in some areas of a lack of food, clothing, shelter and infrastructure, due to the depredations of Union forces. It further dramatizes the plight of Union Loyalists in Confederate territory, with the belated lynching of one. As others have abundantly pointed out, it does not deal with the attitudes and problems of former slaves. I'm sure this omission was intentional, as it would have diluted the emphasis on the perceived antagonistic relationships between many southern whites and their Union military overlords. The main point of the film is the difficulty in convincing southerners of the good intentions of many military governors imposed upon them. I agree with the opinion of some that the screenplay is generally too dark to be a pleasant viewing experience. It might have helped if it had been shot in color. Two women are featured, on opposite extremes of the political spectrum. Joanne Dru plays the daughter of the Union loyalist who was lynched. She is in a difficult position, as she must have been during the war, as she harbors the same attitude toward secession. After a period of hating Major Drango, for failing to protect her father, she gradually warms up to him, and they share a passionate kiss, although it's not clear whether they were destined to go farther. In contrast, Julie London plays a wealthy plantation heiress, apparently spared by the Union army. Her boyfriend, Clay Allen, is the leader of the elements that want to continue the war at the local level by sabotage and raids on Union supply depots. Initially, I though I was looking at and hearing Leslie Howard as Clay, but that couldn't be, as he was killed during WWII. His son, Ronald, played Clay. The easily recognizable Donald Crisp played Judge Allen, Clay's father and critic of his attitude. He comes into prominence late in the film, when he foils Clay's attempt to assassinate Drango, and gives an impressive pro-Drango speech. We have another conflict in the clashing attitudes of Major Drango and his superior: Colonel Bracken. Major Drango represents the conciliatory attitude toward the defeated, espoused by Lincoln. Bracken represents the harsher attitude of the radical Republicans, whose representative will soon replace Drango. In the end, Drango convinced most of the population of this northwest Georgia town that he was more their friend than enemy, despite his conspicuous role in laying waste to this region during Sherman's march to the sea, However, I'm not sure that Drango's last important act: of leading the unarmed populace in a march on the Union fort to beg for more food rations and clothes, will be successful, given Bracken's attitude.See it at YouTube.

dougdoepke 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.

lorenellroy This is a notch or two above the usual "good guys vs bad guys" Western movie,being at its core about the need to bring about reconciliation after conflict ,in this instance the American Civil war . Major Drango is appointed US military governor to a small Georgia community where tensions are running high after the defeat of the Confederacy .Drango himself participated in Sherman's march through the state and saw the devastation at first hand .Neither Drango or his men are welcomed in the community except by the small coterie of Union sympathisersOpposition is lead by Ronald Howard (son of Leslie Howard ,in his first US Movie) the son of the local judge(Donald Crisp).The father -while in sympathy with the aims of his son -is less than impressed by the violent methods he employs.A confederate sympathiser is lynched and arson is also deployed as a terrorist weapon by the unregenerate Southerners.Drango -in addition to his professional problems -finds himself drawn to the daughter of the lynched sympathiser -winningly played by Joanne DruChandler is a bit wooden in the title role -perhaps worn down by his production duties as his company produced the picture-but the rest of the acting is fine especially from John Lupton as an embittered Confederate Captain .The direction ,jointly undertaken by Hall Bartlett and Jules Bricken (who also scripted)is lumpen but the fluid and inventive monochrome photography by James Wong Howe is superb The movie is more intriguing than exciting but it is a striking and worthwhile movie with something interesting to say

silverauk The director and writer of this movie, Hall Bartlett knew the far-west because he made a documentary fiction about a Navajo Indian who was brought up in a white school (Navajo 1952). You can see that this movie looks more real than other westerns. Jeff Chandler as Major Drango is an officer who understands this villagers and he has self-reproach because he sacked the village during the civil war. He did it by order but anyway he wants to make it good. The officer of the confederation, Captain Marc Banning (John Lupton) is full of lust for revenge and at the end there will be the confrontation with his own father -the past- and with Major Drango who claims a peaceful future for the people who lost the war. After each war people have to try to live together again but all wounds cannot be healed in some months. This movie is a serious attempt to show the psychological difficulties in the reconstruction of a nation after a civil war.