Masterful Movie

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

John Wayne leads a group of colonial settlers that have to contend with Indians, as well as stuffy Brit George Sanders and traitorous Brian Donlevy. Despite the colonial setting, it's essentially a western. Wayne's great but Claire Trevor steals the show as a loud-mouthed tomboy in love with him who wants to fight alongside the menfolk. The rest of the cast is solid. Lots of action in this one and more than a little comedy. The fast pace helps a lot. This is loosely based on real people and events. Made the same year as the classic Stagecoach. This isn't on that level but it's a very entertaining historical drama and pseudo-western.

John Wayne's first non-western after his breakthrough role with Stagecoach was with his Stagecoach co-star Claire Trevor and is what I would call a colonial. For myself I've always thought of westerns as films that are located west of the Mississippi and this one isn't even west of the Appalachians. Nevertheless it's a good follow-up film to Stagecoach and the first of about two dozen loan outs that Republic's Herbert J. Yates charged for the Duke's services. This one was made under the RKO banner.Neil Swanson's novel The First Rebel was the source for this film and later on in a film based in the same post Seven Year's War American colonial period, Cecil B. DeMille would make a big budgeted spectacle of another of Swanson's novels, turning The Judas Tree into Unconquered.RKO didn't quite put the production values of a DeMille film into Allegheny Uprising, but it still is a good action film and a plus on John Wayne's career.What Alleghany Uprising shows are some of the seeds of the American Revolution. The Treaty of Paris that ended the Seven Years War which was known on the North American continent as the French and Indian War gave generous peace terms to the Indians. The British took over the French guarantees of no white settlement west of the Appalachians. That was easier said than done.John Wayne is the leader of a group of settlers located in the Alleghany river area and he's pretty upset that trade is still permitted with the tribes. Brian Donlevy and Ian Wolfe are a pair of unscrupulous traders who are devilishly shrewd in gaining their objectives. They play British captain George Sanders like a violin, stirring him up against Wayne and the settlers. Of course the trade goods that Donlevy and Wolfe are peddling consist of rum and tomahawks.George Sanders has the key role in this film. He really does represent the worst of the British military character. Not a bad person at heart really, but pigheaded and stubborn with not a clue as to how he's being tricked and used by Donlevy and Wolfe. Usually Sanders whether playing villains or heroes is usually someone of intelligence. This was a radical departure for him, but he carries it off.Sanders also represents in microcosm the type that in dealing with the American colonies created the climate for the American Revolution down the road. The key scene in the film is when Wayne remarks how Sanders just refuses to understand the settlers and their ways.Claire Trevor plays a colonial Calamity Jane, a real frontier girl who is both in love and exasperated with the Duke. A nice follow-up for her to the almost tragic Dallas in Stagecoach.You'll see such stalwart supporting characters as Chill Wills who has a song to sing in this first film with John Wayne, Wilfrid Lawson, Eddie Quillan, Olaf Hytten, and Robert Barrat. Barrat is my favorite among the supporting cast. There's a court martial in the climax scene where the very shrewd Mr. Barrat who is the civil magistrate in the area, turns defense lawyer and with some interesting ballistic evidence turns the tables on the villains.The Pennsylvania farmers were one independent lot. Not to be forgotten is the fact that this area in refusing to pay the tax on whiskey, precipitated the first challenge to U.S. government authority thirty years later in the Whiskey Rebellion. Of course George Washington was shrewd enough to use just the right amount of authority in dealing with the situation.

John Wayne had been making low budget movies for almost 15 years when he starred with Claire Trevor in the William Seiter directed "Allegheny Uprising". He must have felt his career was going backwards as the production values here are second rate even by the marginal standards of his earlier films. Cast before the release of "Stagecoach", he and Trevor were given a more central role in "Allegheny Uprising" as it is not an ensemble piece like "Stagecoach". The new popularity of the two B-Movie actors required P. J. Wolfson to alter his adaptation of Neil Swanson's novel "The First Rebel". In place of his straight historical fiction action- adventure tale (based on the Smith's Rebellion and Fort Loudoun in southern Pennsylvania) Wolfson was forced to add a romance and pad Trevor's role. Unfortunately adapting a novel to the screen is difficult enough without having to insert a character utterly irrelevant to a story already too expansive for easy adaptation. Contemporary viewers will find the forced insertion of Trevor into most of the scenes rather puzzling, at least in part because she has little going for herself as an actress or a screen presence. The younger John Wayne was much better when paired with talented leading ladies like Ella Raines and Cecilia Parker. Set in Pennsylvania's Conococheague Valley in 1759, Wayne plays title character James Smith who returns to the valley with a friend called The Professor (John Frank Hamilton). They find the local British commander (George Sanders) a martinet and a local civilian (Brian Donley) trading contraband goods (whiskey and weapons) with the Indians, in league with some corrupt soldiers. Trevor plays Janie MacDougall, a loud tomboy who loves Smith and manages to insert herself into his affairs at every turn. 1939 was not a good time for a movie which portrayed our soon to be allies (insert the British here) as stupid and corrupt. And southern California was not a good location for shooting a film about colonial America. There are far too many shots of grassy, almost treeless, California valleys to maintain the necessary geographical illusion. Also jarring is the contemporary dialogue which leaves you expecting Mickey Rooney and Lewis Stone to pull up outside the fort in the family sedan. When not painful, the inattention to period detail is unintentionally amusing. My favorite scene involves the British soldiers laughing at the idea of the settlers taking over the fort. It will remind you of the "Robin Huck" episode of "Huckleberry Hound" where he exhorts his merry men to "yuk it up a bit" and they respond by going "yuk, yuk, yuk". All in all, a weak example of the B-movie product. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I watched this film because, after seeing THE PATRIOT (2000), I wanted to see an another perspective on the American Revolution. The contrast is refreshing. Whereas Mel Gibson and his bunch of cut-throats often sound and act as if they had come straight out of THE TURNER DIARIES, John Wayne and his own band of irregulars live according to the principles of another gospel - that of law and order, western style. The film is indeed a western, in spite of the geographical and historical settings - the mountains of Western Pennsylvania, 15 years before the Boston Tea Party. More specifically, it is a glorified version of the typical B-movie western of the era, which often starred John Wayne, was often shot in exactly the same locations, and always featured the same formulaic story-line and motley collection of stock characters, such as the soft-spoken community leader, the wild mountaineer who talks and acts so funny, the tomboy love interest, who would like so much to be treated like a guy, but cannot, because she is *only* a girl, etc. The main difference, of course, is one of scale and production value : this is not a cheaply mid-length program filler, but a full-blown feature film in which enough talent and production value has been invested to sustain interest from the beginning to the end, even some 60 years later - and this in spite of a few dated scenes and some awkward moments of political incorrectedness (e.g. the questionable philosophical adage Çthe only friendly Indian is a dead IndianÈ is quoted approvingly).The film, as suggested above, is based on the central classical theme of the western genre : the implementation of law and order on a wild and untamed country. In this case, however, the familiar story is told with a novel twist. The author of the screenplay has remembered that American law is, in fact, English law, but adapted to the peculiar circumstances of the new country. The pre-Revolutionary setting has provided him with an opportunity to oppose the two understandings of the same legal tradition - the new, American, understanding of English law represented by James Smith (John Wayne), a nation-builder and a free spirit who does not always play by the rules, but abides by the spirit of the law in his attempts to curb illegal liquor and arms trading with Indians, and the old, British, view, as represented by Captain Swanson (George Sanders) an upright, but unimaginative and incredibly obtuse military officer of a far-away Crown who does not seem to know of any other way to apply the law, but to the letter, regardless of common sense and consequences. In his own words : ÇI am a soldier, sir. They could have been carrying the murder of my own father if they had a permit for them. I would have defended them with my own life.È The point of the story is both that the clash between the Britain and America was inevitable and that they would eventually be reconciled because of their deep shared faith in the same ideals of justice - ultimately, it will be observed, it is the British General Gage who steps in to resolve the dispute between soldiers and colonials in a remarkably fair and even-handed manner.We are very far from the exercise in quasi-racist British-bashing characteristic of THE PATRIOT! However, the two films have this in common that they fail to make their British villain credible. In the case of THE PATRIOT, this is due both to Robert RodatÕs script - all in black and white - and the acting, for Jason IsaacsÕ main asset, sad to say, seems to be his uncongenial face. George Sanders, on the other hand, is one of the greatest character actors specializing in villainy that Hollywood ever had. (Even his stints in BATMAN and THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. are very much worth seeing!) He had the face - and so much more : the style (ÇRemove this barbarian from the courtroom!È - Who could have said it more contemptuously?) Unfortunately, there is little that he can do to lend genuine human substance to the cardboard unidimensional character entrusted to his art. The scriptwriter seems to have meant to depict a specimen of obdurate military stupidity (British style) closely patterned on the Captain Bligh of Charles Laughton from four years earlier (MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, Oscar for Best Picture in 1935), but, evidently, he lacked the means of his ambitions. Sanders still makes the best of the uneven material and he has his moments, most notably the scene when, besieged in his fort with his troops, Swanson orders that the soldiers who caught napping be flogged, and yet treats kindly the one man whom he actually finds sleeping on duty.