MartinHafer Some westerns portrayed the American Indians as unthinking, one- dimensional idiots--riding around in circles waiting to be picked off by folks in the wagon train or by the cavalry. Others, like this one, are more sympathetic and show these same people as multidimensional and decent.When the film begins, the local chief is murdered. This is a serious problem, as the chief was a man of peace--and the new, younger chief is more headstrong and ready for revenge. Fortunately, there is a local guy (Rory Calhoun) who understands these Indians and treats them decently--and he can diffuse the situation. But the town is a hellish place that wants no part of peace and the local cavalry commander (Lloyd Bridges) is a cowardly jerk-face. With the Indians on the warpath and Calhoun's character the only person with any common sense, things look pretty awful for this stupid town.The Indians are generally portrayed well. However, a complaint I often have is that the main Indians are played by white folks--such as Vince Edwards! So, it's like two steps forward and one step back. Overall, however, the film is interesting and presents a more balanced view of the west. The only problem is that, at times, the characters are a bit more like caricatures--a bit too one- dimensional to be believable.

Spikeopath Ride Out for Revenge is directed by Bernard Girard and written by Norman Retchin. It stars Rory Calhoun, Gloria Grahame, Lloyd Bridges, Joanne Gilbert, Frank DeKova and Vince Edwards. Music is by Leith Stevens and cinematography by Floyd Crosby.A black and white Civil Rights Oater, Ride Out for Revenge has good intentions and no little amount of dramatic worth. Not everything works, as it's certainly portrayed in simplistic terms, but the anti-racist core of the story is worthy of viewing investment.We are in the town of Sand Creek and the inhabitants are all bitter victims to the Indian Wars. One man stands alone in Sand Creek, Tate (Calhoun), a one time superlative Indian Fighter who now finds himself in love with a Cheyenne woman and firmly of the liberal mind that war has no favourite side: Misery is equal regardless of race, creed and colour. But can Tate avert an impending massacre that is brewing because of bile strewn hatred? Sand Creek is the base for Capt. George (Bridges), a cowardly drunkard who just wants the Cheyenne out of the Black Hills and down to some army governed reservation. But when cold blooded murder rears its ugly head, and tragedy strikes on both sides of the fence, Sand Creek approaches its day of reckoning.The Wages of Sin, eh Captain?There's no great production value on offer but the film still looks splendid thanks to Crosby's (High Noon) photography. Thematically it's a formula that even by 1957 was hardly original, but the under valued Calhoun oozes enough stoic machismo and emotional conflict to really engage those interested in the Civil Rights side of this period in history. Though the fact that he is lusted after by the twin beauties that are Gloria Grahame and Joanne Gilbert marks him out as one lucky dude!Maybe you's like to know what a savage girl does when her savage father's murdered? She cries. She cries just as hard as you did when John was killed.Is it preachy? No, it isn't. It's a viable narrative doing the best it can on a "B" budget. It should be noted that it very much beats the drum for both sides, it makes sure we know that all parties are scarred by the horrors of this distasteful war. OK! So it wont give the superior Devil's Doorway a run for its money, or even be fit enough to tie the boots of Broken Arrow, but it shouldn't be readily dismissed as weak "B" movie fodder. Besides, it has enough character interest and an extended knife fight by the river to make it at the very least a time waster for the Western faithful. 6.5/10

dougdoepke A sheriff battles his gold hungry town and a cavalry captain who covet gold-rich Indian land.The movie's pretty unremarkable except for the cowardly cavalry captain (Bridges). Cavalry officers were generally not portrayed in such a negative light. But here Bridges tries hard, if not very persuasively, to be as craven as possible. The film came along at a time when Hollywood was beginning to recognize the Indians' side of the struggle over land. Thus their side gets a fairer treatment than had been usual. Calhoun plays an Indian sympathizer who tries to control the more bloodthirsty whites in the town. And, of course, he has an eye for the comely Indian maiden (Gilbert), who happens to look a lot whiter than he does. But then Hollywood never cast real Indian women as major romantic interests, even though they might use real Native Americans in all the other parts.I'm not sure why cult actress Grahame is in the film since her part appears inessential. I guess it was for marquee value, though her best years are clearly past. On the whole, it's a rather dull western, without the expected big shootouts, but with a lot of talk instead. Its heart is in the right place, but not much else, I'm sorry to say.

doug-balch You might be tempted to watch this movie when you see that Gloria Graham is the female lead and that Lloyd Bridges costars. Don't make that mistake.This thing looks like a high school play. It's a "civil rights" Western, where the Indians are a metaphor for blacks in the South.OK message, but there is no art to this movie. Graham's part is nothing. Bridges has just a little more to work with, playing a sleazy, cowardly cavalry captain.This is a good opportunity though to categorize three types of Westerns:The "Cold War" Western, where the cowboys represent freedom and individuality, while the Indians are a foreign menace trying to take their freedom away. All that stands between freedom and destruction is the bravery of the U.S. cavalry.The "Civil Rights" Western, where the whites are the bad guys oppressing a racial minority.The "Vietnam" western, where the oppression of the Indians becomes a much wider metaphor for global Western imperialism and colonization.