Fury at Showdown

Looks like I stand alone in my review of this western. Whatever great cinematography or acting the movie might have was --for me-- not noticed or drowned out by the boring, trite story. I can't believe this movie got a 6.8 user rating. One of the most boring, talkative (and repetitive) westerns I have ever seen. Little action, and the most ridiculous, abrupt, meaningless fade-out to a movie I have ever seen. I had to strain myself to see it to the end. Even the title is trite. The only thing going for it was John Derek's handsome countenance.

To make ten lines for an acceptable review here, let me add this silly scene which typifies the movie for me. Derek rides out of town to talk to his estranged girlfriend, who he hasn't seen while in prison for a year, and immediately encounters her taking a nude swim. So they talk -- he on his horse and she completely covered by the dark water (save her head and shoulder tops). That's it; no comment by the characters on this awkward scene. ... ... ... Another situation that irked me is that time is running out, and three partners expect a businessman to arrive by stage to complete their crucial deal, but he doesn't show, and two of the partners won't let the third one ride to the town where the businessman is to learn the reason for the delay. It was so important that you'd think they would have thought of the obvious: send a neutral trusted person to make the trip to find out.

After serving a year for a killing in self-defense, gunfighter Brock Mitchell tries to help his younger brother save his ranch but a crooked lawyer has other ideas.

John Derek stars as a gunslinger just released from jail and a crooked lawyer whose brother had died in a gunfight when facing a showdown with Derek plots revenge by goading the easily riled Derek into a gunfight with his gun thug (Laramie's John Smith). Fury at showdown is a tightly-conceived stark western similar in vein to the Brass legend ( also directed by Gert Oswald) in terms of its starkness and its emphasis on character depth and tension. Not much action, but there's a killer fist fight between Derek and Smith. You got to see it to believe it.

Sometimes the tension can fluctuate and the pace is slow; overall, though, it's a decent western with good performances- but Derek steals the acting honours as the young man who is trying to restrain his anger and not turn to violence. The camera work, the town and characterisation is good. The finale was quite tense.

This is not a major western, this is not a Delmer Daves, John Ford or Anthony Mann's western, it will not stay in memories. It's just a seventy five minutes film, without much ambition, except bringing something unusual, moving, as the Budd Boetticher's western films series was during the same period. Not big budget yarns, but still riveting because of the characters study, not necessarily the gunfights. The two brothers relationship is really the must see of this Gerd Oswald's movie. Not ambitious at first sight, but, I repeat, really worth. Try it, just try, and I am sure you won't regret it. And It's rare too.

Looks like much of the movie was turned over to a John Derek uplift, his once promising career then in decline. He may get the screentime, but an unusually meek and mild Nick Adams almost steals the flick with his sympathetic portrayal as Derek's loving brother. I gather (Trivia) the western was shot in just five days, and frankly, the congested narrative and crowded cast show a hurry-up schedule. The various storyline threads are hard to figure out, while the number of supporting cast members drift in and out in hard-to-follow fashion.

Nonetheless, the rivalry thread between Derek and gunslinger Adams is well-done, especially Adams' unusual verbal abuse of the oddly silent Derek. How this will resolve amounts to the flick's main suspense. There're also good touches from director Ulmer, such as realistically keeping the brawlers' bruises for the narrative's remainder, or dragging the brawlers away beneath a galloping stagecoach, et al.

All in all, I get the feeling that a much better Western could emerge from the clotted ingredients if more time were afforded to preparation, especially in better organizing the screenplay''s unusual elements - for example, heightening the critical business papers suspense, or what will happen to Adams's vulnerable character. What survives is a promising flick that needs a more accommodating remake. So anyway, here's hoping.

This western has a very small budget.

But the story and the actors are as powerful and motivated as it were a blockbuster.

John Derek delivers a convincing portrait of a young man full of goodwill and also full of wrath. He is perfect for the leading part. His supporting cast - although not so well known - is a good one. Especially Nick Adams and the actor who plays the sheriff.

Gerd Oswald directed a couple of movies with stories of high morality. This one is his best.

The story is about a man who was in prison for manslaughter. He tries to come back to society and to his profession as a farmer but there is a man who wants revenge for the death of his brother...Village people are not very happy too...