User reviews

I am familiar with Kurosawa's "Rashomon", which is original work interestingly remade in Hollywood by Martin Ritt. Those who have seen both works will be able to note the obvious virtues of the original. Yet, I saw this film with no prior knowledge of the fact that this was a remake of Rashomon.

What struck me within minutes of opening of the film was the unusual camerawork of James Hong Howe, that takes pleasure in close-ups and tilted shots that are reminescent of European cinema of the sixties. It is so far removed in style from Hollywood.

Reams of paper have used to write about Akutagawa's story immortalized by Kurosawa. So I have nothing to add on the brilliant story that obviously attracted Ritt and the playwrights Kanin.

What is unusual is Ritt's treatment. His choice of actors are interesting--Claire Bloom is a fine choice as she has a range of emotions to display with credibility; Laurence Harvey's role is limited even though he occupies a long screentime gagged and bound but he has to show scorn for a brief period the gag is removed without speaking--and when he speaks his face is not visible; Edward G Robinson is a perfect choice for a snake oil salesman and so on...

Ritt's use of the soundtrack is again non-Hollywood in style. He uses music and uses silence with great effect while characters talk to underline the emotions. Kurosawa did it to the extreme limits that makes it odd for the non-Japanese viewer.

Ritt is an interesting director. I have always admired his choice of subjects to film. I prefer his black and white films to his color projects because of the subjects that he chose to film--"Edge of the City" being one of my favorite Ritt works. The second reason I admire him is for his choice of actors, especially for the major female roles. He has derived great performances as he did here with Bloom.

This film will never be talked about because it is a remake of a classic. However, in my view it stands out as unlike John Sturges' "Magnificent Seven," which was also a remake of another Kurosawa work in Hollywood, this film adopted a different style closer to Europe and Japan. It is essentially a fine work of depicting a play on film somewhat like nuggets of celluloid gold found among the works of the American Film Theatre series.

Directed by Martin Ritt, The Outrage is a remake of the 1950 Akira Kurosawa film Rashomon, that in turn is based on stories by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa, but Ritt has reformulated it in a Western setting. It stars Edward G. Robinson, Paul Newman, Laurence Harvey, Claire Bloom, Howard Da Silva & William Shatner. The story remains the same as four people give contradictory accounts of a rape and murder during the trial of Mexican bandit Juan Carrasco (Newman). The story is told within a flashback framework of three men waiting for a train at a rain soaked Southwestern station-a prospector (Da Silva), a con man (Robinson) and a preacher now struggling with his faith in humanity (Shatner). As each story is told the validity of each account comes under scrutiny, could it be there was a gross miscarriage of justice at the trial?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this remake of a well regarded classic was a commercial flop, with many front line critics particularly savage in their reviews. Which while acknowledging it's a long way away from style and tone of Kurosawa's movie, it's hardly the devil's spawn either. Solidly constructed by Ritt and potently shot in black & white by James Wong Howe (vistas however are in short supply), the story is strong enough to make for an interesting social conscious Oater. There's some misplaced humour in the final third, and a charge of overacting from the talented cast is fair enough (especially Bloom); but maybe, just maybe, Ritt and his team deserve a little leeway for trying a different approach? I mean at least it's not a shot for shot remake eh?

Certainly Newman could never be accused of not being bold or daring with his role selections, one only has to look at his Western film's to see that. Especially the three he did with Ritt: Hud (1963), The Outrage (1964) & Hombre (1967), three very different roles, and each of a different ethnicity too. Throw in his intense turn as Billy The Kid in Arthur Penn's The Left Handed Gun, and it makes a mockery of those people who pop up from time to time proclaiming Newman had limited range! Is he miscast as Bandido Carrasco in The Outrage? No not really, he throws himself into the role and without prior knowledge of whose under the hat, it's not overtly evident it's the great blue eyed man performing. Sure a Mexican actor would have been better for the role, and definitely Rashomon wasn't in need of a remake. But for Western fans, and especially for fans of Newman, The Outrage still has enough to warrant spending a pie and a pint of beer with. Not particularly great, but not exactly bad either. 6.5/10

Paul Newman plays a Mexican bandit so convincingly in "The Outrage" (Martin Ritt, 1964) that it's extremely difficult to recognize Newman at all. Far from being a star vehicle, the Paul Newman "persona" isn't recognizable here in the least. I must admit that for quite a while, I kept wondering when Newman was going to finally arrive on the screen, before it dawned upon me that Newman was playing the bandit. I wouldn't deem his amoral, animalistic, lusty performance brilliant because it constitutes a rather stereotypical caricature of a Mexican bandit. Nevertheless, Newman disguises himself so dramatically, to the point where "Paul Newman" is almost invisible, that his performance becomes noteworthy just the same.

Overall, Martin Ritt's Western remake of Akira Kurosawa's landmark and legendary "Rashomon" (Kurosawa, 1950) is worth viewing despite some obvious flaws. Ritt doesn't add anything new to Kurosawa's famous study in subjective truth and point-of-view prejudice, and at times, "The Outrage," which was also taken from a then-recent Broadway play, appears a bit flat and copied. Indeed, it occasionally seems as if Ritt grows bored with the story that he's copying from Kurosawa and Broadway and that he's yearning for comedy and satire in his otherwise straight remake. However, those alternative tones are never fully developed and as a result the film fails to make a dynamic impact. That same year, over in Spain, Italian director Sergio Leone remade Kurosawa's Samurai classic "Yojimbo" (1961) as a Western, but he did so with epochal results, largely because he brought a whole new visual style (a patient, rhythmic balance of stunning panorama and extreme close-ups) and directorial slant (a fluid study in operatic nihilism and surrealism) to Kurosawa's story. In other words, Leone remade a Kurosawa film and in doing so, he transformed it into something vastly different. In "The Outrage," Ritt fails to pull off the same trick.

That said, there are some aspects that recommend "The Outrage" to the viewer, and Newman's chameleon performance is just one of them. All of Ritt's remarkable directorial trademarks are on display here: his ambiguity; his objectivity; his refusal to condescend to the audience; the moral shadiness that he evokes; his rejection of black-or-white moral simplicity; his implicit and unstrained social commentary (in this case revolving around the holy trinity of race, class, and gender, not to mention regionalism); his spare, ominously striking visuality; his meditative pacing. Perhaps most noteworthy is James Wong Howe's haunting black-and-white cinematography, which reflects an ominous glow and projects an apocalyptic sensibility rather than Western grandeur. Instead of macrocosmic vistas, Howe's compositions capture a sense of claustrophobia, moral confusion, and subjective truth thanks to their low-angle and eye-level confinement. Through his camera-work, the Western landscape becomes not a romantic frontier or an open-air arena, but instead an entangling thicket where honor and honesty descend in a squalid ravine. Most remarkable are the crepuscular, stormy, forbidding shots of a forsaken railway station during a desert thunderstorm. It is here that three observers (one of which is deliciously played by the always memorable Edward G. Robinson) discuss the different versions of truth while refraining from spelling out the implications for the audience. Ritt, as usual, forces the viewer to think for him or herself. And what Ritt reveals are the human motivations—pride, vanity, contempt, guilt, shame, distrust, lust, cowardice, avarice, survival—that color the notion of truth and ultimately render it subjective. Unfortunately, as a straight remake, "The Outrage"'s presentation of these themes is a little too flat and perfunctory to leave a fresh impact. Still, the film is compelling and curious, standing as an artistic, sobering Western and the most obscure oater that Paul Newman ever starred in. And of course, Newman virtually obscures himself by becoming another.

This remarkable 1964 film has many virtues, among them a strong script, fine photography, and a pre-Kirk William Shatner (whose idiosyncratic acting style is already well-developed, however).

The story is a Westernization of "Rashomon", the story of a rape and murder told from the points of view of three participants and an outsider. The contrast between the subjective stories (told by the bandit, the husband, and the wife) and the story told by the miner who witnesses what really happens is both hilarious and thought provoking.

Everyone is in fine form, but DaSilva's miner and Edward G. Robinson's snake oil salesman are especially fine. Newman's portrayal of the Mexican bandit is often over-the-top, but always interesting.

This is one of those movies that makes one wonder if Mr. Maltin saw the same thing. I think that it is one of the better films of the 60's, a decade that produced a great many of the best movies ever made.

Newman's fifth film for Martin Ritt, "The Outrage" was based on the classic Japanese film "Rashômon," but Ritt transplanted the tale to the South Western U.S. following the Civil War…

Carrasco has been convicted of raping a woman (Claire Bloom) and murdering her husband (Laurence Harvey), but four eye-witness accounts conflict… All agree that the bandit raped the woman, but only one asserts that he committed the killing…

Sadistic, defiant, and challenging, Carrasco snarls, sneers, and walks with macho arrogance, to hide the fact that he can only be strong by tying a man to a tree and raping his wife…

The role allowed Newman to give a bravura performance, not unlike Toshiro Mifune's in the Kurosawa film, and the stylization would fit the story if everybody else weren't playing it so straight… As it is, the performance seems too showy, easily understandable, exaggerated

"The Outrage" is a re-make of the Akira Kurosawa classic "Rashomon." It's a very faithful adaptation but does not improve upon the original. It would have been better served not to have been as faithful as it was. The cinematography of "Rashomon," for instance, is groundbreaking and an all-time great. Martin Ritt's remake is slicker and more modern but not better. "Outrage" is set in the old west, where the original was set in feudal Japan. Four years before "Outrage," director John Sturges remade Kurosawa's `Seven Samurai' into "The Magnificent Seven." Both are classics. Ritt's stab at Kurosawa (a slightly older film) has been swept up into the sands of film history and is little-remembered. This despite an all-star cast that includes Edward G. Robinson, Laurence Harvey, William Shatner, and Paul Newman as (agh!) a Mexican outlaw.

The source material for "Magnificent Seven" is a story and a script written for film. The source material for "Outrage" technically is a short story written in the early 20th century by Ryunosuke Akutagawa called "In A Grove," from which "Rashomon" was also adapted. Oddly, `Rashomon' is another story altogether, by the same author. The Rashomon Gate is the largest entrance to the walled, then-capital of Japan, Kyoto. Having chosen this the setting for the telling of the film's story, as the three souls take refuge from a storm under this giant gate, Kurosawa re-named the film after it. Instead of going back to the original source, Ritt remakes Kurosawa's film. In doing so, Ritt walks into a trap many filmmakers do when trying to faithfully remake a much-loved piece of work. To remake a film seems to convey that the original lacked something or was somehow flawed. "Rashomon" clearly did not need to be re-made. But once the decision was made to make another version, whether Ritt used the film or the Akutagawa story as his source, it's a no-win situation. Even if he'd based it on the original story, he would have spent his time and energy trying NOT to make another version of "Rashomon."

There are humorous moments in both films. More times than not, I could not tell the difference between what was funny intentionally or unintentionally in "Outrage." One possible improvement that is made by the remake is that the fourth and final re-telling of the trial by the thief, distinguishes itself much more from the first telling, by the bandit. It comes off more comically, which I believe was intended in Kurosawa's version, but doesn't quite come across. The sequence, taken by itself, is the high point of "Outrage."

All things considered, "The Outrage" is an exercise in futility. It's a curiosity for those wondering how yet another Kurosawa film could be overhauled and made into a western. I'd guess the idea was to bring the same story to America, with a more familiar setting, in English. Maybe someday directors will quit wasting their time trying to re-make films that are already masterpieces. If you really feel you need to do a re-make, find a bad film and rise to the challenge of improving upon it (example: Christopher Nolan's "Insomnia"). With "Rashomon," there was nowhere to go but down.

The one exception is the aforementioned "Magnificent Seven." By Kurosawa's own admission, the inspiration for his "Seven Samurai" came from the American western genre. It's for this reason that Sturges' remake works so well.

If you're going to do a movie with multiple flashbacks told from different points of view, the ground covered in those flashbacks better be damned interesting. Such is not the case here. Each witness' version of the events in question becomes progressively more pedestrian until the final one is played for laughs. This is the movie's point, of course, that people would rather believe well-spun myths which confirm their own preconceived notions about human nature than a banal truth that won't conform. All fine and good, but it's a danged self-destructive way to tell a story. Especially when James Wong Howe's apocalyptic visuals (those rain-drenched scenes at the isolated train station are almost Blade Runner-ish in their darkness and despair) are gearing you up from the first moment for some grimly powerful examination of evil.

The sad fact is that Laurence Harvey and Claire Bloom, as the victimized husband and wife at the heart of the film, do not come across as terribly noteworthy or distinctive. You keep waiting for some explosive revelation that might account for the idealistic Parson (played by William Shatner - young and fresh-faced but overly-mannered even then) to be so shattered by the incident that he loses his faith, but no luck. Edward G. Robinson is excellent as the old con artist with no illusions about mankind, while a close to unrecognizable Paul Newman does an entertaining Anthony Quinn impression as the dastardly bandito.

The train station segments are sensational, film-making at its best, but the endless flashbacks are flat and tedious as hell, making this film a uniquely disappointing experience.

There is something elusive about Martin Ritt's film "The Outrage" as what starts with supposedly minor characters slowly develops into a serious drama with the help of established actors.This is a rather curious anomaly as this film features famous actors like Edward G. Robinson and William Shatner who play some extremely minor roles.This meaningful film must escape from the clutches of unwarranted comparison to Japanese cinema maestro Akira Kurosawa's cult classic "Rashomon".No true film fan can deny that there might be similarities with that film yet "The Outrage" remains absolutely true to its American essence.With a fairly good command of colloquial Spanish,American cinema legend late Paul Newman excels in every frame.He proves that he is very much a woman's man despite getting a very negative role.It is said since time immemorial that various truths and lies are fair and valid as long as their authenticity is expressed in a just manner.This axiom holds full sway in this film."The Outrage" is a film wherein viewers have been urged to believe in the sanctity of male/female relationships especially when a man and a woman become a husband and wife.

Having never seen Rashomon I'm at bit of a disadvantage in writing about The Outrage. Nevertheless it's an attempt at something a little more unusual than the average western.

As even the beating of Rodney King caught on videotape was successfully challenged in a court of law, what does that say about eye witness testimony? The Outrage is the story of an incident on a western trail that left a traveler dead and his wife ravaged by a bandit on the run.

Rashomon the film is only the grandfather of The Outrage. It was first adapted as a Broadway play with Rod Steiger and Noel Willman playing the roles that Paul Newman and Laurence Harvey have on screen. It ran for 159 performances in the 1959 season and Claire Bloom who was Mrs. Rod Steiger at the time was the only one to repeat her role. Rod Steiger would have been a far better choice to repeat for the screen and he certainly has the screen name recognition. Newman was better box office, but Steiger was far better at playing all kinds of ethnic types.

Added to the screen are the characters of Edward G. Robinson and William Shatner playing a conman and a disillusioned minister whose conversations with prospector Howard DaSilva provide a kind of narrative framework for the proceedings. DaSilva provides one of four versions of the events.

All we know for certain is that Claire Bloom got violated by Paul Newman and Laurence Harvey wound up dead. At Newman's trial, he and Bloom provide differing accounts of what happened. An old Indian medicine man played by Paul Fix came upon a dying Laurence Harvey and Fix repeats it for the court. And then DaSilva tells Shatner and Robinson yet another version of the same events.

Bloom is a southern belle, not quite of the upper crust, she married well and she does her best to imitate the behavior of one of the upper crust, no doubt taking Scarlett O'Hara as her model. Laurence Harvey is Ashley Wilkes had he married a road show version of Scarlett instead of Melanie Hamilton. Repeating her performance from Broadway, I'd say Claire was the best one in this film.

The conclusion was most unsatisfactory in my humble opinion, the focus could have and should have stayed on the three protagonists not on the witnesses. Still The Outrage is definitely a most adult western.

Akira Kurosawa's "Rashomon" Americanized and moved to the Old West. A preacher, a con-man, and an old-timer rehash the recent conviction of a notorious Mexican bandit, deemed guilty of killing a newlywed traveler and raping his wife. Gimmick of the differing accounts preceding the crime provides the only interest; the characters, the literate but prosy dialogue, and the over-worked performance of a miscast Paul Newman as the mustachioed bandito are each in their own way utterly false. James Wong Howe's striking black-and-white cinematography provides an appropriately moody feel, and Alex North delivers yet another of his fabulous music scores, but the picture isn't intrinsically exciting--it alienates the audience. The various brutalities are gripping, though rather uncomfortable to watch (due to director Martin Ritt's sensationalist staging), while the final summation is muddled and unsatisfying. *1/2 from ****

The first four-fifths of The Outrage were not bad, but the ending was disappointing, especially compared with Rashomon. And Claire Bloom, though a fine actress, can't approach the amazing performance delivered by Machiko Kyo. Also, the medium used in Rashomon (which is after all set in the 13th century) is far more effective.

Not bad overall, but pales in comparison with the original Rashomon.

Sometimes, I'm amazed at the low level of commentary on these films. This one is no exception. The reviewer opening these comments comments on a "Western" as if this were a Roy Rogers or Gene Autry oater. While I'm aware that we all have the right to express our views, I would like to see a little more insight on those selecting which reviews will be presented. This film is a remake and reset of the Kurusawa classic and is a classic in its own right. Fine, fine performances are given by Newman, Harvey, Bloom, Shatner(in his pre-Kirk days), Robinson, Salmi, Da Silva and Fix in this casting of a Japanese film play-- which is a composite of two stories, BTW-- by Akira Kurusawa. It's not perfect. The role of the medium, the old Indian shaman portrayed by veteran character actor, Paul Fix, doesn't have the cultural impact of the original. There is confusion around the rape and fight scene, but these are small things. The film is marvelous and the black and white setting captures much of the shading and light contrasts of the original Rashomon. The story in both films, which Kurusawa wove out of two earlier stories, is full of archetypes but lacking much of the impending chaos of the original. The first tale of the old gate at kyoto tells of a ronin confronting an old woman and taking the blanket from an abandoned child in the time of civil war and political upheaval; the other tale, in the woods, tells of the various versions of rape, murder, honor and shame, told by each of the participants. Kurusawa blended them into an excellent film story. While the cultural background of the original sets it apart from this American version, there is much that does make it work. The genteel Southern couple, the Mexican bandido, the pragmatic sheriff, the country preacher, the snake-oil salesman and the miner/prospector, fit the Samurai, bandit, medium, etc., of the original very well. So, face it. It ain't John Wayne. But it's good cinema at it best.

The Outrage is the American version of Rashoman, the famous Japanese story told from multiple points of view. In this stylized tale, a crime has been committed. One man's version is related from start to finish, convincing the audience of what's so. Then, a second witness comes forward. His version is different, planting the seed of doubt into the viewer's head. And so it goes.

Those of you who like to discuss philosophy after a movie's end have probably seen this film, or another version of it. I like this version because it was produced right after the end of the Hays Code. Violence and sex were allowed in movies during the 1960s, but since it was all new to filmmakers, they didn't go overboard. While the movie discusses rape and murder, it handles them tastefully. In The Outrage, get ready to see some intriguing performances from Laurence Harvey, Paul Newman, William Shatner, Claire Bloom, Edward G. Robinson, and Howard Da Silva. With a twist during every tale, you won't know who to trust! And you'll be talking about the ending long after the credits roll, trust me.

Yes it's a remake of "Rashomon", widely considered one of the best films of all time, but let's set that aside for a while and try to evaluate it on its own: it's a riveting Western-Whodunit with a tangled flashbacks-within-flashbacks structure, some great plot twists, some impressive stuntwork, and a few extraordinarily arty moments (particularly in the segment featuring the Indian). Paul Newman is fatally miscast as a Mexican, of course, but he still manages to deliver a strong performance; in supporting roles, Claire Bloom (who shows many different sides) and Edward G. Robinson are outstanding. *** out of 4.

A noble experiment: export the ground-shaking work of a Japanese auteur director, set it in the southwest high desert; with cowboys, a shamanic Indian, a Mexican outlaw, a snake oil salesmen, a lapsing preacher, a restless and frustrated wife; acted by Hollwood's circa 1964 pedigree--how could it possibly work? And it doesn't. The reason is simple--Rashomen is a brilliant reckoning of Japan's social turmoil of the time, told by proxies of its own mythologies, in a way that it's marvelously universal, but it is a silly exercise to literally westernize the telling. Paul Newman almost makes it work. E. G. Robinson too. It would have worked better, and fully occidentally perfected, if instead of Claire Bloom and Barry Sullivan playing the husband and wife, it was Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, spitfiring their love and hatred as George and Martha. And if Rod Serling talked us an epilogue. But that would be silly too, right? As probably would any co-option of Rashoman, however told.

There is something elusive about Martin Ritt's film "The Outrage" as what starts with supposedly minor characters slowly develops into a serious drama with the help of established actors.This is a rather curious anomaly as this film features famous actors like Edward G. Robinson and William Shatner who play some extremely minor roles.This meaningful film must escape from the clutches of unwarranted comparison to Japanese cinema maestro Akira Kurosawa's cult classic "Rashomon".No true film fan can deny that there might be similarities with that film yet "The Outrage" remains absolutely true to its American essence.With a fairly good command of colloquial Spanish,American cinema legend late Paul Newman excels in every frame.He proves that he is very much a woman's man despite getting a very negative role.It is said since time immemorial that various truths and lies are fair and valid as long as their authenticity is expressed in a just manner.This axiom holds full sway in this film."The Outrage" is a film wherein viewers have been urged to believe in the sanctity of male/female relationships especially when a man and a woman become a husband and wife.

A disillusioned preacher (William Shatner) is abandoning Silver Gulch after a trial of a despicable crime. A scruffy prospector (Howard Da Silva) finds him waiting at train station. A con man (Edward G. Robinson) sleeping there join them at recounting the events leading to the trial. Mexican bandit Juan Carrasco (Paul Newman)'s encounter with husband Wakefield (Laurence Harvey) and wife Nina (Claire Bloom) had ended with the husband's death and the raping of the wife. The couple was leaving the post war south. An old Indian shaman (Paul Fix) performs a séance at the trial using the spirit of the dead man.

It's a reimagining of Akira Kurosawa's iconic Rashômon in the old west. This is definitely not the traditional western which probably confused some people at the time. It just happens to take place in the old west. Paul Newman is almost unrecognizable as a Mexican bandit. He's pushed to the limit with such a vast range of an unlikely role. The acting is all first rate. This is an engaging film throughout. The slapstick humor and the mannerisms in the last act doesn't quite fit. Overall, it's a good attempt at a remake. Even Newman's brownface didn't put me off.

Initially intriguing, though overwrought, but ultimately pointless and silly.

A Hollywood adaptation of Akira Kurosawa's "Rashomon". Three men meet at a deserted station in the middle of nowhere. Soon their discussion turns to the trial that occurred in the nearby town the previous say. The trial concerned the death of a man. Three people claim they killed him, and we see their version of the events. Who is correct and why are two of them (at least...) lying?

From the outset there is a degree of unnecessary complexity about the script. The script is overly wordy, almost to the point of being Shakespearean, and feels padded. The plot is quite interesting but as it goes on it becomes less and less plausible, and feels complex just for the sake of it. Soon the holes appear, none of which are filled in by the end of the movie.

After a point the implausibility and complexity have descended into farce. The last few scenes are quite silly and ultimately you're left wondering what the point was and even possibly what the story was...

The casting provides some interesting appearances. Paul Newman puts in a good, almost over-the-top, performance as the Mexican bandit. William Shatner is there, as a preacher (two years later Star Trek started...). Edward G Robinson gets the role of the verbose swindler (he is largely responsible for my "Shakespearean" comment). Laurence Harvey and Claire Bloom put in reasonably solid performances as the married couple.

To be honest, even though many regard Rashomon as a classic, I don't. The plot for The Outrage demonstrates why Rashomon is overrated.

The Outrage, starring Paul Newman, is the Western remake of the Japanese classic, Rashomon. It basically cam be summed up, without giving anything away, that there is a man accused of a crime, the only problem is that all of the witnesses have varying accounts on the events which occurred. The acting in this movie was not anything very noteworthy, but it certainly was not bad. The same can be said for the camera-work in this film, it was not breath taking, but it was not bad. The whole movie, aside from the plot, was average. However, the saving grace of this film is certainly the plot. At first the movie seems very straight-forward, a man committed a crime and he is to be punished. It seems as if the movie has little place to go, and that possibly the main bulk of the movie will occur after the trial. However, it soon becomes apparent that there is much more to this seemingly ordinary occurrence than meets the eye. This cinematic work is much more than a simple story about deceit, it is a story about the truth. Not the truth of the crime, but the truth about the enigma which is the human psyche. The deceptions are not what make the movie, it is the logic behind the deceptions that truly makes the movie what it is. A movie, after all, is not only what has been made, but rather, it is more so what you make of it.

A woman (Claire Bloom) is raped and her husband killed. A Mexican bandit (Paul Newman, believe it or not) is put on trial for the crimes. But there are four conflicting stories about what really happened: the bandit's, the woman's, a prospector's, and an old Indian's. Western remake of Rashomon is, not surprisingly, inferior to that classic in every way. However, it is entertaining although not always for the right reasons. It has a nice cast, most of whom turn in terrible performances. Paul Newman is especially bad. Probably the most embarrassing role of his career. Other stinkers in the cast include William Shatner, Howard Da Silva, and Paul Fix. Edward G. Robinson is the best actor in the movie. His character is broad and prone to being over-the-top like the others but he manages to rein it in just right. Claire Bloom and Laurence Harvey do fine but are nothing special. Not a great movie by any means but curiosity factor warrants giving it a look, particularly if you're a Newman or Robinson fan.