Excellent, a Must See

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

In one of my earlier reviews I stated that although James Stewart may occasionally have played morally ambiguous, conflicted characters, especially in the Westerns he made with Anthony Mann in the fifties, I could not recall him ever playing an outright villain. At first sight it seems that this film is going to be an exception, as we learn early on that his character, Mattie Appleyard, is a murderer. It soon becomes clear, however, that this is going to be one of those films where the criminals are the good guys and those supposedly charged with enforcing the law the bad guys. The story takes place in 1935 in West Virginia. The elderly Appleyard is one of three prisoners released from jail on the same day; the others are middle-aged bank robber Lee Cottrill and the young Johnny Jesus. (We never learn exactly what Johnny's alleged crime was, although he continues to protest his innocence). The three are put on a train out of town, but soon realise that they are in danger from an unexpected source. A prison official, Captain "Doc" Council, and two accomplices are trying to track them down and kill them. The reason is that Council, who is in league with a corrupt local banker, wants to embezzle the large sum of money, in excess of $25,000, which Appleyard has received for all his work during his 40 years in prison. During the earlier part of his career, Stewart was as accomplished a comic actor as he was a serious one, appearing in classic comedies as good as "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", "Destry Rides Again", "The Philadelphia Story" and "Harvey". After about 1950, however, his gift for picking the right film seemed to desert him when it came to comedy. He continued to appear in some excellent serious movies, principally Westerns, but few of his comedies from this period are of the same standard, and "Fools' Parade" is an example of what I mean. He has one splendid bravura passage where, in the throes of a supposed religious conversion, he plucks out one of his eyes in order to frighten off one of Council's sidekicks who has come to shoot him. (What the said sidekick doesn't realise is that this is in fact a glass eye). For most of the time, however, Stewart is simply trying to invest Appleyard with a greater depth and significance than he really merits; as one critic said "Time and again he gives you the impression of an interesting character that really isn't there in the role."This was really Stewart's last starring role. After the film came out in 1971, he was absent from the screen for five years, and in his later films, starting with "The Shootist", he confined himself to supporting roles and cameos. In his autobiography Charlton Heston recounts a conversation he had with his co-star Maximilian Schell during the making of "Counterpoint", in which Heston played an orchestral conductor captured by the Nazis during the war and Schell played the German officer holding him. Wouldn't it be fun, they agreed, if a second version of the film could be shot, this time with the music-loving Schell playing the musician and Heston (who rarely got the chance to play a villain) as the Nazi? Someone seems to have had a similar idea with "Fools' Parade" because it stars both George Kennedy and Strother Martin, both of whom had several years earlier appeared in another prison drama, "Cool Hand Luke". Only here their roles are reversed. Kennedy, who had played a prisoner in the earlier film, here plays Council, whereas Martin, a brutal prison warder in "Cool Hand Luke" ("What we have here is failure to communicate"), here plays the prisoner Cottrill. Martin does not have the same impact here as he did in the earlier film, but Kennedy is one of the better things about "Fools' Parade". His Doc Council, complete with pebble glasses, bad teeth, an ill-fitting suit and a curious stooping gait, is a splendidly leering pantomime villain who combines his villainy with religious fanaticism. (In his spare time he is a Sunday-school teacher). I earlier described the film as a comedy, although I note that some reviewers on this board have insisted on taking it seriously, possibly because the film-makers and cast seem to have been unsure what sort of film they were actually making. As I said, Stewart was trying to invest his character with a certain seriousness, but others, especially Kennedy's Doc and Anne Baxter's Cleo, a raddled old whore with an obsessive grievance against the local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, who refuse to have her as a member, seem to be played firmly tongue-in-cheek. The result is a rather uncertain black comedy which occasionally tries to cross the border into seriousness but never gets very far. A frequent complaint by my fellow reviewers is that "Fools' Parade" has not been released on DVD. Well, keep asking, lads, but personally I feel that there is more chance of Cleo being accepted by the DAR. 5/10

Fools' Parade (also known as Dynamite Man from Glory Jail) is directed by Andrew McLaglen and stars James Stewart, George Kennedy, Kurt Russell, and Strother Martin. It's based on the novel of the same name by Davis Grubb with a screenplay by James Lee Barrett. Harry Stradling Jr. photographs on location in Marshall County, West Virginia and Henry Vars scores the music.Three men released from prison, one with a cheque for $25,452.32 in his pocket. One crooked bank manager and one vindictive prison captain, both men determined not to let the prisoners cash in that cheque.Something of an under seen picture due to no home format release as yet, Fools' Parade is a well acted story set around the depression era. It's got a mixture of violence, comedy, adventure and whimsy, while its themes of corruption, new beginnings and moral quandaries are neatly put together as a melodramatic whole. The characterisations are most interesting, not least the three criminals, who having served time for some terrible crimes, are actually the most stand up guys in a town that's full of desperation; where the residents are teetering on the brink of badness.The cast speaks for itself as regards quality, and they deliver on the promise of their names. While an unrecognisable Anne Baxter also enters the fray late on with a heartfelt and dramatic performance. Special mention for Stradling's photography, which captures the hazy atmosphere of the troubled 30s especially well. A more than involving film that prospective new viewers should try and catch if they get the chance. 7/10

I've seen some references state that Anne Baxter didn't like her own performance and had the ability to block distribution. Her vanity pretty much assured that the city of Moundsville would lose a rare lifeline to drag itself out of poverty oblivion. It must have been a terrible let-down at the time because you can bet that the townsfolk were tickled pink. I do not think it is possible to come up with a better version in a remake, but perhaps someone should try that out. I see no chatter to indicate that the distribution will ever be approved. A new version with current actors might attract a following and create the stimulus to release the original. Want to make a movie? You can rent this town for cheap - it's not changed a lot since the movie except for Walmart and other eyesores on the highway.I consider this a must-see movie and if you look hard enough around the Internet, you will find copies.

The plot is simple: 3 convicts have done their time and are being released from prison. Mattie Appleyard (James Stewart) has saved a large sum of money while behind bars and plans to open a small store with his two compatriots. However, we know from the very first scene that prison authority 'Doc' Council (George Kennedy) is not a friend of inmates nor those who have paid their debt to society, and this is where the story begins. Both Stewart and Kennedy give very solid performances, and as to why this movie is not widely recognised for being one of the best in either actors' careers is very much beyond me. No, it doesn't have space aliens blowing up New York, or laser beams shooting out of mutants' eyes, or even alleged terrorists fighting each other with bio-chemical weapons in some far flung country. However, what it does have are actors practicing their individual crafts as best as they know how to and providing the viewing audience with an extremely good product. This is what is called entertainment.