hans101067

This average horror film has been seen in a least a dozen other variations.It's stereotyped,both in terms of plot and dialog.Highly predictable,with every cliche about Bigfoot,the Yeti,and the Sasquatch,we don't get anything new.So,in order to get a new angle,you have to add new and interesting characters,and/or situations to bring it to life.And we don't even get that.Who are these non-entities showing up in the film?I've never heard of any of them.the only redeeming element is the presence of the mighty Jack Elam,given a roaring,scenery-chewing performance that really brings the picture to life.But,sad to say,he isn't around long enough.

I think that most John Wayne buffs would agree that this is a remake of 2 previous picture-"Rio Bravo",and "El Dorado".We have the same characters,the same basic situations,and the same resolutions.What I found interesting is the way that the "Duke"was able to kid his image in this one.He's not just strong,tough,brave,resourceful,and quick;he's also able to show a middle-aged man whose libido might not be as urgent as it was previously.Let's face it,being a lover isn't just performance,but also being tender and"comfortable"(the word that they use in this picture.)Let's not be too hasty about the performances of O'Neill,Rivero,and Mitchum-they were young and needed experience,and they got it in this film.(And Rivero is every bit as tasty looking as O'Neill.Isn't he delectable?)Nice to see Victor French as a porcine,slimy villain,and Mike Henry manages to play against his Tarzan image as the sheriff.I found him tough enough,and certainly brutish,but I didn't see him as quite enough of a sadist to go around cutting up women.David Huddleston does a first-rate job as Dr.Jones.The real acting honors of the evening,however,do go to the redoubtable Mr.Elam.This is a scenery-chewing,rip-roaring,over-the-top performance of such eye-rolling looniness that it's a joy to behold.Watch this film for fun,and don't take it too seriously.

There's a proverb somewhere that states that youth is wasted on the young.One might similarly feel that the wisdom of fairy tales,folklore,and fantasy are wasted on children.While I,for one would hesitate to go that far,I feel that the messages contained in this film,like so many other classic children's stories,are best understood in an articulate fashion by adults.Kids will unconsciously and intuitively pick up the meanings,but it requires more maturity and life experience to fully appreciate what's going on here.So,here ends my pontificating,and begin the review.The plot with Arthur O'Connell trying to take over the town is a simple,relatively benign framework to introduce the real story;the necessity of looking at ourselves,our flaws,our foibles,and the illusions we need to protect ourselves,and to keep on living.And the circus of Dr.Lao does provide that chance,in a gentle and compassionate way.We can complain about the dated quality of the special effects,but don't forget,this was 14 years before Star Wars.The villains are a couple of stupid oafs who are easily disposed of in a benevolent fashion,and the other characters are shown the ways in which they stunt their own development,and then are given the chance to change IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO!(Let's face it,some of them decide to stay the same.)Randall gives a tour de force performance as the circus cast(although I believe that stuntman Janos Prohaska actually did the Abominable Snowman)and the true development of Merlin,from doddering has-been to capable miracle worker is am impressive display of character creation and sustenance.(I've always wondered if the bagpipes accompanying the growth of the Loch Ness Monster was some sort of inside joke.)This is the kind of film that the entire family should see together;everyone could get something out of it.