Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

GodeonWay One thing that bothers me about typical reviews of Hollywood westerns is that every modest picture with horses, six-guns and saloons gets thrown into the same 'just another western' sack. If it's not The Big Country, or High Noon, or Rio Bravo, or a John Ford classic, then it's usually 'just another routine oater'. Of course, way too many westerns are cliché ridden and flat. But there are scores of really good ones. Westerns that not only hold your interest, but also make you marvel at what a difference a good director, a good cast and a good script can make.The Rawhide Years is one such picture. Expertly directed by Rudolph Maté and flawlessly filmed by Irving Glassberg, this movie has an exciting story, a terrific cast and carefully distilled themes of betrayal, friendship, courage and redemption. It's on a par with the best westerns of Anthony Mann or Budd Boetticher. I've seen it many times, and it never disappoints. Very highly recommended, even for viewers who don't usually cater to oats.

drystyx This has to be one of the "best looking" films around. Very scenic, as a Western should be. Maybe the best looking two leads together ever.It's a "fluff" Western, and that isn't always an insult. That's what this was meant to be. Lots of B Westerns were made with different goals, but roughly 2/5 were made like this, to be just eye candy, with a few side dishes added on.Here, Arthur Kennedy is the "mystique" character. he comes on with too much of a likable rogue, and we wonder if he'll be the masked murderer who leaves Tony Curtis with the blame for a killing of a respected cattle baron.This is lifted up a bit over the usual fluff with a few red herrings, as we get a bit of a mystery. And the clues come to us the same way they come to the character played by Curtis, which is refreshing. We actually feel along the way with him, as this is very well directed.The review that claims Korman may have copied the villain for Blazing Saddles looks to be close to the mark I dare say. That kind of gives it a retro appeal that they hadn't counted on in 1955. It is an appealing film. Not memorable, but appealing.

dimplet To call this a "B Western" is to do it an injustice. B Westerns were long on action, shooting, horse chases and short on acting, and, most of all, character development. And they were intended as second billing to an A feature. Rawhide Years has solid acting all around, and some truly enjoyable singing (and fine acting) from Colleen Miller. Tony Curtis delivers a relaxed, low-keyed performance in the manner of Hitchcock's dictum: Don't act! The result is some remarkably good acting for the Fifties. The movie is similarly low-keyed, and delivers a pleasant, interesting tale. There is a bit of a who-dunit in the river pirates that puts some meat on the plot, and there is character development to the Curtis role that shows a con man with a conscience who becomes a cowpoke and, ultimately, a man. The Arthur Kennedy character has an even stronger element of character development, and the twists add greatly to the story's interest. Kennedy's is, indeed, the most interesting acting. And then there is Peter van Eyck, the bad guy almost to the point of caricature -- Boo! Hiss! -- at least by the end of the movie. He all but ties Zoe to the railroad tracks. I kept having to double check that I wasn't seeing Harvey Korman in Blazing Saddles. I suspect Korman was parodying van Eyck -- and there is some resemblance.There is no strong moralizing here, just an entertaining story. If there is any lesson, it is that appearances can be deceiving, and it can be hard to know who your friends are. The opening, where the crew of the riverboat mistakes some logs for pirates hints at this, as does the Kennedy character. Rawhide Years has a good storyline that keeps moving and keeps your attention. In the end, the story ties the threads together nicely. It is not a great movie, just a good, solid, entertaining one, and that's all it sets out to be.

Brian Camp I watched THE RAWHIDE YEARS (1956) on the Encore Western-HD channel, mainly to revel in the beautiful Technicolor photography and picturesque settings ranging from western locations in Lone Pine, California to well-appointed Universal Studio sets and backlots. I'm assuming that the riverboat used in several scenes is the one left over from earlier Universal westerns with a riverboat setting, namely BEND OF THE RIVER (1952), THE MISSISSIPPI GAMBLER (1953), and THE FAR COUNTRY (1954). The director, Rudolph Maté, was a former cinematographer who also directed THE MISSISSIPPI GAMBLER and knew how to make the most of the studio's ample resources to craft good-looking films no matter how ludicrous the story might get. In this case, I'm guessing the studio's directive was to create a Tony Curtis vehicle that made use of the standing riverboat and waterfront sets. The plot is wildly unpredictable and full of twists and turns that come at the viewer pretty fast, although the absurdities begin to pile up as well and the final set of plot twists, while thoroughly unexpected, are just too implausible to allow us to take this very seriously. There's a reason why we see these films on Encore's Western channel and not in Tony Curtis western box sets.Curtis plays a gambler's shill who, on the run from a murder accusation, goes out west to become a cowboy and make enough money to come back to Galena, the river town where the trouble started, to try to clear his name. Along the way he picks up a fast-talking hustler played by Arthur Kennedy who makes no bones about trying to separate Curtis from his money belt. As they share adventures, they develop a symbiotic relationship and wind up getting each other out of jams from one incident to the next. Kennedy's character may be seen as a softened version of the good-bad guy he played in BEND OF THE RIVER who initially sides with James Stewart but eventually turns against him. Curtis is handsome, charming, and athletic (although doubled in the more strenuous fights and stunts), but he looks like a carefully groomed movie star in every shot and not a western hero, although his legions of fangirls in 1956 would not have complained.The real surprise for me in this movie came from seeing German actor Peter van Eyck in the role of Boucher, the oily Frenchman who runs the saloon and gambling hall in Galena. I'm familiar with him from several of his German films (Fritz Lang's THE THOUSAND EYES OF DR. MABUSE) and the international productions he appeared in during the 1960s (THE LONGEST DAY, THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, SHALAKO, etc.), but I'd forgotten about his Hollywood period in the mid-1950s. I found the sight of him alongside such stalwart Hollywood veterans as William Demarest and William Gargan an amusing bit of culture contrast, a bridge between two distinct eras of film history.Colleen Miller plays the pretty showgirl from whom Curtis is separated for three long years. During that time she takes up with Boucher, which creates problems when Curtis finally comes back to town. She sings three songs in the saloon and one of them was written by Peggy Lee and Laurindo Almeida and even includes a Spanish dancer as backup. Whoever dubbed Ms. Miller's vocals has a great voice and I'd sure like to know who she was, but IMDb doesn't identify her. The title, THE RAWHIDE YEARS, would seem to refer to that period in the film when Curtis' character has fled west to work as a cowboy for three years, a montage segment that lasts for maybe two or three minutes of the film's 85-minute running time before he starts his trek back east, with Kennedy tagging along. Perhaps that section was longer in the novel on which this film is based, in which case the title might have made sense. It doesn't here.