Best movie of this year hands down!

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It takes courage to make a new movie based on a story so well developed in 1939 by John Ford and starring John Wayne so magnificent, but Gordon Douglas decided to take the project forward and the result was not bad. The cast except Mike Connors and Bob Cummings (bad bad bad) is very good, especially Bing Crosby and Ann-Margret. Alex Cord is not up to John Wayne did not disappoint. It has good stage presence and fulfills its role. The final scenes, so different from its predecessor are explicit, while in 1939, John Ford chose to hide details of the final confrontation. Finally a movie is interesting and should be considered. It has more positives than negatives.

I don't know what to say about the taste of those who like the 1939 version of this movie. The original version just flat SUCKS. The acting of Wayne sucks, and everyone but Andy Devine as Buck stunk it up (even John Carradine as McCoy, Mike Connors showed him how it's done in the 1966 version). There is nothing, I mean nothing, even remotely worth watching in the original, once was all I could stomach of it. The ending was gawd-awful; the Luke Plummer character was a sniveling coward. Keenan Wynn's Luke Plummer was sensational, and the ending in the 1966 version was light-years ahead of the 1939 version. All the actors and acting is infinitely better in this version. With the possible exceptions of McClintock, The Conqueror and The Green Berets, Stagecoach is hands-down the worst movie John Wayne ever made. Even the 1986 version is better than the 1939 one, and it sucks too.

When I first saw this movie in 1966 I was vaguely aware it was a remake but I had never seen the original. The premise - a group of vivid characters traveling together across Indian territory - is a classic formula. The key to making this work is the casting, which in this case is as perfect as the original. The interplay between Bing Crosby, as the drunken doctor, and Red Buttons, a traveling liquor salesman, is particularly delightful. Bing Crosby had a comedic style that brought out the best in anyone cast as his foil (see Bob Hope) and his performance here is worth the two hours alone. Bob Cummings, the quintessential movie nice guy, is terrific as the nervous thief on the run. Van Heflin and Slim Pickens are exactly the kind of guys you'd want at the reins of a stagecoach making a run for your life. Ann-Margret, Stefanie Powers, Mike Connors and Alex Cord do what they can with parts that were perhaps too closely patterned on the originals. Although movies of this type can at times seem contrived - with events and action occurring at the most inconvenient moments - you have to give a little leeway for dramatic license. Who would want to see a movie where nothing happens? As for the action this movie delivers - the Indian attack and chase scenes through the mountains are every bit as compelling and edge-of-your-seat thrilling as the original. And the music, by Jerry Goldsmith, is a classic in western movie scores - I remember wearing out my soundtrack album of it back in the sixties. Overall, far from being a pale imitation of the original as some have suggested, this movie stands on it's own because of the performances and crackling good direction.

I saw this movie in 1966 when it was released, and It was one of the few movies that left an impression on me all these years for several reasons. I feel the aesthetics of this movie make it worth watching. The artwork of Norman Rockwell alone is unforgettable. The music is very appropriate for the movie, not overwhelming but rustic and timed well. The scenes that were shot on location are truly breathtaking. You wont find many mattes or computer digitized images in this movie, Forget about the plot, just enjoy the artwork. But I still feel There are a few good lines in the movie. Some are even worth including in ones vocabulary.