gkhege The Duke was around 65 when he made this movie so it's understandable why he is not seen rolling around or jumping off horses. He himself never thought this movie was well written. I think he just loved to make movies. I have read many of the viewers reviews and wonder why some of them never get it. The topic is, Add a review not tell everyone what the movie is about. As with all John Wayne movies, you can watch them with your kids without the worries of naked bodies or four letter words filling the air or the floor. We miss you Duke...

Wuchak Released in 1973 and directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, "Cahill United States Marshal" is a Western starring John Wayne as the titular marshal and Neville Brand as his half-Native tracker in the Southwest. Widower Cahill is so busy with his work that he's neglectful of his two sons, 10 and 17, and thus they veer toward delinquency, hooking up with a group of ne'er-do-wells (led by George Kennedy). After getting away with robbing a bank, the sons must deal with the moral conundrum of a (dubious) group of men being hanged for a crime they didn't commit.The Duke had some great or near great Westerns in the final two decades of his career (e.g. "The Horse Soldiers," "The Alamo," "The Comancheros," "El Dorado," "True Grit," "The Cowboys," "The Train Robbers" and "Rooster Cogburn"), but "Cahill" isn't one of 'em. While I appreciate that Wayne tried to do something different by having the story focus on the ramifications of his neglected kids, the movie simply isn't very compelling and the boys aren't interesting as characters. It doesn't help that Kennedy is decidedly cartoony as the villain. Disregarding the awesome Western locations, the storytelling smacks of a 60s or 70's TV show Western.Yet, if you're a Duke fan, "Cahill" is mandatory viewing. The relationship between Cahill and the tracker (Brand) is a highlight, as is the Western scenery. Speaking of the latter, the movie is further hampered by three nighttime sequences obviously shot in the studio, which appear at the beginning, middle and end, but that's a minor cavil.The film runs 103 minutes and was shot in Sonora, Mexico; Arizona; and Calderon Ranch, California. The screenplay was written by Harry & Rita Fink based on Barney Slater's story.GRADE: C

MattyGibbs This is a typically glossy late John Wayne western. Wayne plays Cahill a US Marshall whose job has meant that he has somewhat neglected his kids. When they decide to rob a bank with the help of George Kennedy and his gang they find themselves in trouble. John Wayne looks pretty tired in this although he still has a great screen presence. The film is essentially about a man's relationship with his sons and as such there is relatively little action. This is itself is no bad thing but it's just that the plot is a little too thin to carry the film. As a result it's just intermittently interesting mainly when George Kennedy is on screen. This is John Wayne in reflective mood but it's just not comparable to his great performance in the brilliant 'The Shootist'. Overall although watchable there's just not enough of interest here to make this anything but an average western.

kenobi7 "CAHILL - UNITED STATES MARSHAL" is one of those movies that is somewhat frustrating. It succeeds on a few levels, but fails on so many others that makes it nowhere near one of the best films of John Wayne. The script is a horror to behold (such a pity too, because the writer for this was also the writer for "BIG JAKE", one of the Duke's better outings), the action is near perfect, the performances are great. The main plot is of U.S. Marshal J.D. Cahill (John Wayne) trying to get his sons out of a gang of outlaws alive. His oldest son Daniel (Gary Grimes) being in an outlaw gang is believable, because he is very rebellious. But not his youngest son Billy Joe (Clay O'Brien). Billy Joe is basically a good kid who loves his pa. The audience assumes that Billy Joe threw in with the outlaws because he followed his brother, but the film never shows or says that. Not to mention that the sight of little O'Brien holding that shotgun that is bigger than he is not at all convincing. However, films that have the "unbelievability factor" are usually appealing to me. But those films know they are unbelievable and just move along with an amazing pace - that's why they are so enjoyable. Not this movie. It is unbelievable, but it never decides if it knows that or not. It just seems to stay in the same gear the whole time and as a result, is bogged down in mediocrity the entire film. There is no bad acting, just bad acting choices. The film casts several veterans of movies and television, such as Jackie Coogan, Harry Carey Jr., Marie Windsor, Royal Dano, Denver Pyle, and Paul Fix, but the script unfortunately only gives them unimportant roles. Their acting is not at all bad, but the characters are unnecessary. It looks like the director cast these roles based on their talent, not on their significance to the script. On the positive side, the other actors are great in their roles, like George Kennedy as Fraser. Also, the action scenes are almost perfect, and the script seems to pick up the slightest bit in the last half hour. Overall, a fair movie, but if it was not for The Duke, it would have been a complete disaster.Also Recommmended: "STAGECOACH" (1939), "RIO GRANDE" (1950), "TRUE GRIT" (1969), "CHISUM" (1970), "THE SHOOTIST" (1976)THIS REVIEW IS DEDICATED TO ANYONE, LIVING OR DEAD, INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF "CAHILL - UNITED STATES MARSHAL".