Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueTwelve renegades dressed as Indians kill the parents of two brothers. The brothers who have similar birth marks then separate. Ten years later a man known as the Rawhide Terror is murdering ... Tout lireTwelve renegades dressed as Indians kill the parents of two brothers. The brothers who have similar birth marks then separate. Ten years later a man known as the Rawhide Terror is murdering the renegades who are now town citizens.Twelve renegades dressed as Indians kill the parents of two brothers. The brothers who have similar birth marks then separate. Ten years later a man known as the Rawhide Terror is murdering the renegades who are now town citizens.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
William Desmond
- Tom Blake - Betty's Older Brother
- (as Bill Desmond)
George Gyton
- Judge
- (as George Holtz)
Bartlett A. Carre
- Cowhand
- (as Bart Carre)
Victor Adamson
- Townsman
- (non crédité)
Ed Carey
- Cowhand Ed
- (non crédité)
Clyde McClary
- Renegade
- (non crédité)
'Snub' Pollard
- Renegade
- (non crédité)
Ernest Scott
- Young Tim Brent
- (non crédité)
George Sowards
- Cowhand
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
The only reason I watched this is because it was advertised on the internet as "A horror Western" Hmmm a mixed genre film featuring cowboys and horror elements . It's not something you see every day. After seeing the movie it's not something I want to see again
A caption tells us "In the nineties twelve renegades disguise themselves as Indians to rob settlers" You have to remember this is a Western so any mental images of Peter Sellers dressing himself up in a turban and robbing rave goers at a beach in Goa are quickly dispelled. Considering the renegades are so ruthless they won't take any prisoners it's never revealed why they have to disguise themselves in the first place
As the film continues it becomes more and more apparent that this in no way any type of horror movie . It's just simply a revenge Western where a boy grows in to a man off-screen and when he reaches adulthood it's a case of a man having to do what a man has to do. I felt rather cheated by this and you will be too if you're expecting horror thrills
I did perhaps console myself in watching a film from an era when talkies ere just becoming common place while baring in mind it's a massive amount of films were being made from yesteryear. But no it's a dreadful film composed of stilted acting , haphazard editing and badly framed sequences. And no it's not bad enough to be good either. A complete waste of 47 minutes
A caption tells us "In the nineties twelve renegades disguise themselves as Indians to rob settlers" You have to remember this is a Western so any mental images of Peter Sellers dressing himself up in a turban and robbing rave goers at a beach in Goa are quickly dispelled. Considering the renegades are so ruthless they won't take any prisoners it's never revealed why they have to disguise themselves in the first place
As the film continues it becomes more and more apparent that this in no way any type of horror movie . It's just simply a revenge Western where a boy grows in to a man off-screen and when he reaches adulthood it's a case of a man having to do what a man has to do. I felt rather cheated by this and you will be too if you're expecting horror thrills
I did perhaps console myself in watching a film from an era when talkies ere just becoming common place while baring in mind it's a massive amount of films were being made from yesteryear. But no it's a dreadful film composed of stilted acting , haphazard editing and badly framed sequences. And no it's not bad enough to be good either. A complete waste of 47 minutes
The limitations of film-making technology in the early 1930s is apparent, with somewhat iffy sound design and image quality. Nevermind that there are countless other instances of pictures made then or much earlier that are as sharp and clear as day, but sure; in fairness, this was made independent of major studio resources. I don't know if there were any particular constraints on this production that specifically limited the efforts of its contributors, but it's also noteworthy that the acting is almost uniformly stiff, blunt, and unconvincing, and likewise the direction. One also readily observes how incredibly direct the storytelling is, as exemplified in dialogue, scene writing, expository intertitles, and otherwise plot development that collectively leave no mystery whatsoever to the course of events. Almost from the time the tale begins, the audience knows exactly what's going to happen. I suppose that to some degree this comes with the territory for a feature clocking in at under 50 minutes, but still the incidence is a little startling for how rarely we see such inelegance in cinema.
None of these facets by themselves inherently mark 'The rawhide terror' as a bad movie, but taken up all together, the entertainment one could derive from it is severely diminished. From start to finish the entirety of the picture is astoundingly, unnaturally plainspoken, if not also a tad stilted or forced. Even the sequencing and editing at large raise a skeptical eyebrow, and the cinematography that feels strangely amateurish. As if all this weren't enough, the writing was also in substantial, desperate need of being both expanded upon and tightened in various ways: the major plot points are glaringly obvious, and everything in between nevertheless flounders with bizarrely insufficient coherence, cohesiveness, clarity, detail, or basic communication. In essence, the writers flatly told us the core of the plot at the outset, then just haphazardly threw the rest together.
At least the filming locations are nice, and the horses.
If there were even the slightest more care taken toward any element of this production, the end result would have been improved. As it stands, I'm not convinced that anyone involved here even possessed the fundamental skills to do any better. I'm downright flummoxed at how weakly every aspect of 'The rawhide terror' was treated, arguably even the sets, props, costumes, and makeup. There was a kernel of a worthy idea underlying the story, but after that everything pretty much fell apart with far too little quality or rudimentary capability to do anything about it. I suppose I admire the gumption to produce a film under these circumstances, but this is a title that one has to actively labor to enjoy for how stunningly flimsy it is. I don't know who I would ever earnestly recommend this to, or why, because I don't know who would earnestly enjoy it. Scattered fragments of capability save this from being counted among the worst movies I've ever seen, but at this level, that doesn't really mean anything. Whatever it is you think you're going to get out of 'The rawhide terror,' I strongly suggest you look somewhere else instead.
None of these facets by themselves inherently mark 'The rawhide terror' as a bad movie, but taken up all together, the entertainment one could derive from it is severely diminished. From start to finish the entirety of the picture is astoundingly, unnaturally plainspoken, if not also a tad stilted or forced. Even the sequencing and editing at large raise a skeptical eyebrow, and the cinematography that feels strangely amateurish. As if all this weren't enough, the writing was also in substantial, desperate need of being both expanded upon and tightened in various ways: the major plot points are glaringly obvious, and everything in between nevertheless flounders with bizarrely insufficient coherence, cohesiveness, clarity, detail, or basic communication. In essence, the writers flatly told us the core of the plot at the outset, then just haphazardly threw the rest together.
At least the filming locations are nice, and the horses.
If there were even the slightest more care taken toward any element of this production, the end result would have been improved. As it stands, I'm not convinced that anyone involved here even possessed the fundamental skills to do any better. I'm downright flummoxed at how weakly every aspect of 'The rawhide terror' was treated, arguably even the sets, props, costumes, and makeup. There was a kernel of a worthy idea underlying the story, but after that everything pretty much fell apart with far too little quality or rudimentary capability to do anything about it. I suppose I admire the gumption to produce a film under these circumstances, but this is a title that one has to actively labor to enjoy for how stunningly flimsy it is. I don't know who I would ever earnestly recommend this to, or why, because I don't know who would earnestly enjoy it. Scattered fragments of capability save this from being counted among the worst movies I've ever seen, but at this level, that doesn't really mean anything. Whatever it is you think you're going to get out of 'The rawhide terror,' I strongly suggest you look somewhere else instead.
Rawhide Terror, The (1934)
* (out of 4)
Incredibly bad "B" picture that started off as a 12-chapter serial but when the money fell through the producers decided to just make a western. To bring more money in they sold the picture as the first horror/western but this film is so bad it makes both genres look bad. A killer known as "The Rawhide Killer" is strangling various members of a small town and no one seems to know why. This movie was produced and written by Victor Adamson who's son would go on to make various drive-in classics like Dracula vs. Frankenstein and Horror of the Blood Monsters.
* (out of 4)
Incredibly bad "B" picture that started off as a 12-chapter serial but when the money fell through the producers decided to just make a western. To bring more money in they sold the picture as the first horror/western but this film is so bad it makes both genres look bad. A killer known as "The Rawhide Killer" is strangling various members of a small town and no one seems to know why. This movie was produced and written by Victor Adamson who's son would go on to make various drive-in classics like Dracula vs. Frankenstein and Horror of the Blood Monsters.
Traveling across the prairie in a covered wagon, a family is attacked and the parents slain by a band of outlaws posing as renegade Indians. With the murderous deed done, the eldest of the two surviving brothers disappears hysterically laughing into the brush, never to be seen again.
Years later, the outlaws are now legitimate businessmen of the town of Red Rock, being terrorized and systematically murdered by a mysterious fiend known only as the Rawhide Killer, a buck-toothed loony with a strip of rawhide across his nose!
Being quite possibly the stiffest western of the 1930's, it does have a bit of charm thanks to the odd nature of the mad killer, his incredible wardrobe, and some inventive use of murder techniques.
Writer-producer Victor Adamson, better known as Denver Dixon, was the father of drive-in filmmaker Al Adamson, the director of another much maligned western, Five Bloody Graves.
Years later, the outlaws are now legitimate businessmen of the town of Red Rock, being terrorized and systematically murdered by a mysterious fiend known only as the Rawhide Killer, a buck-toothed loony with a strip of rawhide across his nose!
Being quite possibly the stiffest western of the 1930's, it does have a bit of charm thanks to the odd nature of the mad killer, his incredible wardrobe, and some inventive use of murder techniques.
Writer-producer Victor Adamson, better known as Denver Dixon, was the father of drive-in filmmaker Al Adamson, the director of another much maligned western, Five Bloody Graves.
On YouTube is a not-very-good of a print of "The Rawhide Terror" that is in no way a "horror" film, but it is a horror of a Western.
Supposedly it started life as a serial, which might explain some of the gaps in the narrative, but perhaps good editing could have saved it, if there had been more of the story compacted and the story complete.
Though Art Mix is billed first, Edmund Cobb ends as the main character, and that ending is just ... well, out of the blue.
There is not much reason to watch this, except to complete your knowledge of the history of B Westerns. There is little excitement, there is the Hollywood convention of a psychotic who laughs all the time, as symbol of his insanity -- or in other films of his marijuana use.
There is a good cast, and Herman Hack, credited with 811 roles, actually gets lines in this one.
William Desmond gets a nice part, and Frances Morris, who had a long and busy career -- 248 credits listed here on IMDb -- was the leading lady.
It was fun to watch her mount a horse, but she wasn't a very good rider at this point. Maybe she learned later.
I've changed my mind: There ARE reasons to watch. Just don't expect a very good script, or good direction, or good editing.
Supposedly it started life as a serial, which might explain some of the gaps in the narrative, but perhaps good editing could have saved it, if there had been more of the story compacted and the story complete.
Though Art Mix is billed first, Edmund Cobb ends as the main character, and that ending is just ... well, out of the blue.
There is not much reason to watch this, except to complete your knowledge of the history of B Westerns. There is little excitement, there is the Hollywood convention of a psychotic who laughs all the time, as symbol of his insanity -- or in other films of his marijuana use.
There is a good cast, and Herman Hack, credited with 811 roles, actually gets lines in this one.
William Desmond gets a nice part, and Frances Morris, who had a long and busy career -- 248 credits listed here on IMDb -- was the leading lady.
It was fun to watch her mount a horse, but she wasn't a very good rider at this point. Maybe she learned later.
I've changed my mind: There ARE reasons to watch. Just don't expect a very good script, or good direction, or good editing.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis film was begun as a serial, but, after a production halt, was converted to a B-western. Just as the main titles fade to black, one can observe, however, the beginning of a dissolve to "Episode 2, The Terror Returns."
- GaffesAt one point Tommy Bupp's character, whose name is Jimmy, is called Tommy several times, then Jimmy again. The same thing happens to Edmund Cobb's character, who is called Luke but by the time the film nears the end he is being called Tim.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Durée52 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was The Rawhide Terror (1934) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre