Former gunfighter Ned Britt (Randolph Scott) sets up shop in Fort Worth, Texas as a newspaper man. He falls in love with Flora Talbot (Phyllis Thaxter), who is the fiancée of a former friend, Blair Lunsford (David Brian). Britt tries to expose the crooked cattle baron Gabe Clevinger (Ray Teal) in his newspaper. Clevinger resorts to violence in order to prevent the arrival of the railroad at Fort Worth and Britt has to rethink his journalistic methods to stop him and resort to violence himself.
- Stars:Randolph Scott, David Brian, Phyllis Thaxter, Helena Carter, Dickie Jones, Ray Teal, Michael Tolan, Paul Picerni, Emerson Treacy, Bob Steele, Walter Sande, Chubby Johnson,
- Director:Edwin L. Marin,
- Writer:John Twist
Civil War veteran and former newspaper man Ned Britt returns back to Fort Worth after the war is over and finds himself fighting an old friend who's grown ambitious. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Fort Worth torrent reviews
(fr) wrote: Pixie Hollow really the best , I want to live there with tinker bell and her friends #Dreamer
(ca) wrote: the art direction, the camera shot, and the plot is quite beautiful to uncover 'unusual world' among conservatism...but the ending scene is detesting...
(es) wrote: it could have been a great movie because the intention is there but there are way to many side stories to make this movie work -
(us) wrote: I'd rather watch the original any day.
(jp) wrote: awesum Loved it the coolest action movie ever id like to watch it over and over again =)
(nl) wrote: Superbly directed and photographed by C. smith and certainly realistic of today's India countryside's life.
(ca) wrote: I loved this movie first time I seen it in a long long time this was mine n my first love song n we went threw same thing I was 13 n he was 21 n we didn't care about age he was good to me it always brings me back to 1984 when I was with my first love brook shield was amazing in the movie.
(au) wrote: Joe was commonly interpreted as an attack on the perceived free morality of the 60's, and the disillusion that followed the Summer of Love rather than a satire of the dangers of intolerance, xenophobia, and the alchemy of impotence into violence. However, the story hinges on the clash of cultures on 3 fronts: Dennis Patrick's rich, Cadillac-driving businessman, Peter Boyle's frustrated blue-collar racist, and the emerging culture of youth and 'foreign' ideals that confuses them both. No side comes across in a flattering manner in this conflict, and all are painted with broad strokes, often laughably.Joe was apparently hugely popular as an expression of the deep-rooted worry felt by so much of middle America at the time - that the reins of the country (and its culture) were passing from the white patriarchy into other, more chaotic hands. Almost 40 years later the fear of this seems unfounded, but the war of values is still very much alive, and Joe's personal worldview seems not far removed from many in power today. Boyle's portrayal of Joe is somehow sympathetic despite his reactionary and and sociopathic character.Despite some key plot twists that beggar belief, (Dennis Patrick gaining entrance to a hippie party by posing as a dealer is exceptionally bizarre) the story is really engaging, and could be considered to have inspired many other films (Michael Douglas seems to have taken a kick at both the lead roles, in Traffic and Falling Down, respectively.) It would be interesting to see a remake, perhaps with Anarchist activist types filling in for the Hippies of the original.It's not a great film, but a strangely overlooked one - important both as a distorted portrait of its time as a reflection of our own.
(de) wrote: (I submitted this as an English essay)Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation of Shakespeare(TM)s Hamlet was very well done. I enjoyed both Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation and Gregory Doran(TM)s adaptation equally. However, I felt like this adaptation did the better job of staying true to the play. While it does put a big modern spin on the play, it maintained the story(TM)s original dark and grim atmosphere.This movie was much better casted than the other adaptation. Having a younger actor (David Tennant) play Hamlet seemed to better fit the character(TM)s childish mannerisms. He acted with a great range of emotions. While Kenneth Branagh acted the part psychotically most of the time, David Tennant(TM)s acting ranged from psychotic to tranquil, from joyful to depressed, from hateful to loving. This great range of emotions portrayed in a very off-putting way helped show the character(TM)s emotionally-contradictive personality, which is what Shakespeare likely intended.The minor characters were also very well casted. Gertrude was portrayed as emotionally troubled as opposed to old and bitter, which I felt added more dynamic to the film. Claudius seemed more intimidating and antagonistic in his polite manners, in a devil in disguise? sort of way. The Ghost of Hamlet was acted antagonistically as well. While reading the play, most often the reader(TM)s first impression of the ghost wouldn(TM)t be that of an antagonist. But the way the part was acted was very tour de force, and aggressive in a kind of Raging Bull? demeanor. The portrayal of the Ghost reflects Hamlet(TM)s fluctuating emotions, but also foils his lack of anger and confidence. Also, it was very smart to portray King Hamlet as more directly antagonistic than King Claudius, because it helps the audience focus more on Hamlet(TM)s inner conflict and less on his family affairs. I also thought it was very clever to make Patrick Stewart play both Claudius and the Ghost of Hamlet, because they were physically the same person, but almost polar opposites in their demeanor.This movie had less production value than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s version. However, I liked the lesser production value of this version. It creates a whole different atmosphere. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation had Victorian, well lit settings that seemed almost too lively and grand. The setting of this version is much colder?. The rooms are smaller and the halls are narrower, giving the movie more tension. It also makes less use of lighting, for a dark and gloomy feel. It also gives the movie more ambiguity and suspense, while only focusing on what(TM)s important (example: the ghost? scenes at night sometimes kept the actors in the dark while lighting the ghost when it makes its appearance, then uses lighting to capture the actor(TM)s reactions). All of this helps to capture the play(TM)s true heart of darkness, which I really appreciated.There was a difference in this version(TM)s sequence of the play(TM)s scenes. Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation was very paint-by-numbers?, in that it reflected the original text in its entirety. But this adaptation(TM)s removal and rearrangement of scenes made it seem more movie-like?, so that the plot is more easily comprehensible and entertaining.What I appreciated the most of this movie is its well thought out use of different types of shots, which all had different purposes. The type of shot that I considered most cleverly executed was the found-footage shot. In this movie, it is in the form of security camera footage. I felt that the use of this type of shot helped to increase feelings of paranoia. My favorite example of this is during Hamlet(TM)s to be or not to be? monologue, where Polonius and Claudius watch him via the security cameras. This scene also made a good use of long shots (shots that last longer than a minute without cuts) and close-ups, which help the audience appreciate the acting more as well as create more intensity. A lot of long shots were used during monologues. The long close-ups in the to be or not to be? scene, matched with the found footage shots, created a really intense and paranoid tone that I really enjoyed and did not expect.Another type of shot that the director implemented that I really enjoyed was jump-edited shots. This is when two sequential shots don(TM)t differ in camera angle, and the subject remains on camera but in a slightly different position. Jump-edited shots were cleverly used during Hamlet(TM)s soliloquies to show sudden shifts of emotions. In one shot he(TM)d be maniacal in his expressions, and it will cut immediately to a shot of him in a sad and melancholy trance. This makes it seem like these two emotionally-polar sides of him coexist, and the intention of this was likely to mess with the viewer psychologically, which I really enjoyed.I also really enjoyed the varied use of static shots and moving shots. In Kenneth Branagh(TM)s adaptation, most shots were moving, making the movie seem much livelier. However, this adaptation consisted of mostly static shots to create a better gloomy atmosphere. The moving shots are only used when something is going wrong. This helps guides the viewer(TM)s emotions. Overall, I really enjoyed this film. The varied acting, the gloomier production atmosphere, the clever execution of different shots, and the more coherent plot sequence all helped to create a wonderful adaptation that is unique in that it stays true to the play not literally, but through artistic elements. This is a wonderful adaptation that deserves more recognition than Kenneth Branagh(TM)s, so that moviegoers can be exposed to the play(TM)s true raw heart of darkness, rather than given blockbuster eye-candy that only captures Hamlet(TM)s words and not its spirit.
(ru) wrote: 1st - 2nd Kind of cringe inducing at times as you'd expect from a teen romance, but still manages to invoke the deep sense of dread that accompanies the subject and the book.