The Outcasts of Poker Flat

Why did they mix the storyline and characters from two very good Bret Harte stories:1) The Outcasts of Poker Flat and 2) The Luck of Roaring Camp? It's confusing and makes this movie suck.

The Outcasts of Poker Flats (1937)

** (out of 4)

Decent version of a couple Bret Harte stories has been told many times over the years including a 1919 version by John Ford. This one here features Preston Foster playing John Oakhurst, a gambler working out West when the gold rush struck. He's got the biggest business in town but things start to change when a teacher (Jean Muir) and a preacher (Van Heflin) show up. The story itself wasn't too original but I found the performances to be so great that they made the film worth viewing. Foster is extremely good in the lead because he really makes one believe the character development that he goes through. I thought the actor managed to do the more action packed scenes well and he made you believe that he was this tough gambler who really didn't care about anyone but himself. Muir is also extremely good in her part and she and Foster has some great chemistry that leaps off the screen. Heflin easily steals the film as the young preacher who shows up hoping to change this rather dirty town. The supporting cast includes nice work from Virginia Weidler, Si Jenks, Al St. John and Billy Gilbert. I think the biggest problem with the film is the direction of Christy Cabanne who simply never makes it too interesting. Visually the film is quite flat and a lot of the emotion that the story is going for never comes off and this is especially true during the final minutes. Still, the performances are so good that fans of the actors will still want to check this out.

Never read the Bret Harte novel on which this is based, but it must read better than it transfers to the screen. It was hard to build up any sympathy for any of the players as the film is very stagey and plays like a filmed play. It is poorly written and I squirmed in my chair at some of the dialogue mouthed by some of Hollywood's best character actors.

I'm trying to think of a reason to recommend this movie and I can't think of one, apart from the performance by little Virginia Weidler as an orphan brought up by a saloon keeper. Can't recall having heard the name of the director before but he's probably a Poverty Row director unaccustomed to working with better talent. My rating is due to a lack of interest in the story and inability to generate feeling for the characters. Not worth your trouble, even at only 68 minutes.

I caught this on TCM the other night, it's short so it doesn't bore you too much I suppose. It's just an average flick. Nothing great, nothing awful, but it lags quite a bit for a film that isn't much more than an hour in length. Preston Foster isn't that great of an actor, so when he has the lead role in a film you find yourself getting a bit bored, Jean Muir didn't impress me much either for someone that was supposed to be such a great stage actress. Maybe she was better suited to the stage than to the screen. I found her dull too. The only high points of this film were Virginia Weidler and Van Heflin. So if you are dying to see Van when he was young and cute, check it out.

"The Outcasts of Poker Flat" is a classic film that was originally made in 1919 and was remade several times--and this 1937 version is just one of them. It's based on two stories by the famous old west author, Bret Harte. And, to me it LOOKS like two separate stories as you watch the film--one excellent but familiar one and one that left me totally flat and didn't see to fit.

This film is set just after the famed Gold Rush began and concerns growing pains that town experienced. In the earliest days, law was pretty much nonexistent and life was tough. However, with growth comes the forces you'd expect in bigger cities--churches, government, lawmen and folks looking for a civilized lifestyle.

One of the forces pushing BOTH directions in the film is Oakhurst (Preston Foster). He is a gambler and his bar is the center of vice in town. But, he also sees that change is inevitable--especially when he meets up with a nice lady, Helen (Jean Muir), and the preacher (Van Heflin). What's next for all these characters? See the film for yourself.

The best thing about the film are some of the actors. While Preston Foster is pretty much forgotten today, he was a leading man in the 1930s--and you can see why. Additionally, while Van Heflin is young, he already shows his abilities as a supporting actor (he later received an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor). However, the story is a bit too disjoint for me--with the ending not fitting in terribly well with the rest of the film. Overall, a time-passer but not a lot better.