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

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

James Stewart is a man trying to put his chequered past behind him as he guides a group of settlers to virgin territory, and then returns to civilisation to collect their paid-for winter supplies, only to find the unscrupulous supplier has re-sold them at a much higher profit to gold rush miners. Arthur Kennedy is on the scene as another baddie-turned-good, except his teeth are far too white for it to be genuine in his case. This is a hugely enjoyable western directed by Anthony Mann, with excellent performances from all concerned, although Stewart and Kennedy excel. This is perhaps the first movie in which Stewart showed he could be a hard nut as well as a nice guy.The story creates a number of elements which have now become cliches, and puts them together in an original order. The scenery and colour photography are gorgeous.

Jimmy Stewart and Arthur Kennedy play Glyn McLyntock and Emerson Cole, two friends with mysterious(and questionable) pasts who agree to guide a group of homesteaders from Missouri into Oregon. They make camp outside of Portland as winter arrives, so Glyn and Cole bring them supplies which they will need if they are to survive. The homesteaders(led by Jeremy Baille, played by Jay C. Flippen, and his two daughters, played by Julie Adams & Lori Nelson) become close to Glyn, but Cole isn't so attached, and when they receive a better offer to divert the supplies to gold prospectors, Cole takes the supplies by force from Glyn. Enraged by the betrayal, he vows to kill his former friend, and help the homesteaders.Underrated western is beautifully filmed in color on location, with a compelling story, excellent direction by Anthony Mann, and fine performances, especially Stewart.Makes a fine double feature with "Winchester '73".

For its portrayal of the rough going of emigrant wagon train life, and its spectacular scenery in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon and the Columbia River Gorge, "Bend of the River" scores high marks. It also has a first rate cast, all of whom shine in their performances. And it is an engaging story that pulls together very well elements of several genres of film — Western, pioneer, adventure, historical and dramatic.Many Westerns have been made with wagon trains, but they were mostly action movies. Very few have shown the hardships of wagon train life. "Bend of the River" is an exception. It shows the difficulty of moving wagons across streams, up and down steep grades, and over rocks and uncleared trails and mountain passes. So, this film shows a little reality from what historians call the longest migration in human history.Now, for a closer look at some curious aspects that render the film's particular story implausible. Except for the license of Hollywood to alter facts, times and places to fit the fiction, this story just couldn't have happened as shown. That doesn't take away from the movie's entertainment value. But, for those who enjoy finding solutions to curiosities, I offer these few salient points about the film. First — No one in the film seemed to know the name of Mt. Hood that shows so prominently throughout the movie. They referred to it as that old mountain, or old baldy. This is interesting because Mt. Hood was named in 1792, and Lewis and Clark noted it during their expedition in 1804-1806. Soon thereafter, towns sprang up in Oregon – Astoria in 1811, Oregon City in 1829 and Portland in 1843. Everyone knew the name of Mt. Hood, and the maps of the Northwest would have clearly shown Mt. Hood. Indeed, the diaries of Oregon Trail pioneers mentioned landmarks such as Mt. Hood all the time. The time setting of the movie had to be after 1846. That's when the Barlow Road was completed around Mt. Hood, so wagons didn't have to raft down the Columbia from The Dalles. So, why would the filmmakers not use the name of Mt. Hood when it's shown so clearly for long periods of the film, and from three different directions? My guess is to support the rest of the fictional story and give the impression to viewers that there were many different mountains, and that the parties were traveling to more distant places. Otherwise, the rest of the storyline in the movie wouldn't make sense. Second — The Portland outfitter described the great lush land beyond the falls where they were headed. He was describing the Willamette Valley, which was the goal of most who rode the trail to Oregon to settle. And, about 10 miles upstream from Portland, Willamette Falls blocked river navigation upstream on the Willamette. The Willamette Valley would be an easy overland trek from Portland. But then, the movie would have had to eliminate the spectacular Columbia Gorge scenery and the squabble over gold. So, our movie group instead heads back up the Columbia River toward Celilo Falls. In real life, at 75 miles east of Portland, they would have been right back where they were when they came out, before starting their trek around Mt. Hood. But now Jimmy Stewart has the captain stop to let them off 20 miles below the falls. That would be about where Hood River is. They're going to look for a route across the mountain. That means they will cross the Barlow Trail to get to their settlement, which obviously doesn't make sense. But it is believable to think that they might have settled in the Hood River Valley. In the film, Harry Morgan drops a tree when he is loading the boat and Jeremy tells him that they are going to plant apple, pear and plum trees at the settlement. Today, Hood River is known for its pear, apple and cherry orchards. And, in 1858 the Post Office opened in Hood River. Third — The gold strikes and gold camps are the hardest part of the story to reconcile. Since they account for most of the action and drama, we know why they are there. But, in real life and times, it wasn't like the movie shows. Gold was first discovered in Oregon in 1852 at Jacksonville near the Siskiyou Mountains that border California. That's more than 200 miles south of Portland and way beyond the Willamette Valley. The second gold discovery in Oregon was in 1862 in the Blue Mountains. Again, more than 200 miles from Portland, east toward Idaho. Even if some prospectors bought provisions in Portland, they had no way to take the goods by river or boat. And they were far beyond any of the lands settled by people from the Oregon Trail. Yet the movie has the gold camp closer than the wagon settlement.Fourth — The Stewart and Kennedy characters had been raiders on the Missouri-Kansas border. That period began in 1861 and ended shortly after the Civil War ended. That would mean that the movie setting was much later – perhaps toward the end of the Oregon Trail in 1869. Fifth —In the early scenes, after Stewart has saved Kennedy from a hanging and the wagon train sets up camp, Kennedy asks Stewart how the wagon train got through the Black Hills and the Big Horn country. The Oregon Trail doesn't go near either place — it's more than 100 miles away. For the life of me, I can't imagine why they left this erroneous reference in the script.

I don't hear this said often, but this might be the best of the Mann/Stewart Western. Personally, I thought "The Far Country" was better, but not by a whole lot.Here's what I liked:As usual in a Mann movie, it is thematically interesting. This time a haunted loner is trying to redeem himself from his sordid past.Very good tension is created and maintained throughout the movie.Restless change of location keeps the plot from stagnating and reinforces theme of the wide open West. This was done very well also in "The Far Country" and "The Naked Spur".Tough, tough location shooting results in brilliant technicolor scenery. Very limited use of studio sets. Also, location is authentic i.e. they are actually shooting the movie in Oregon where it is supposed to be taking place.James Stewart's charisma as a cowboy is off the charts.Arthur Kennedy is fantastic in this. You like him, but don't trust him for the entire movie. Kennedy knows how to project a unique mixture of charm, menace and sliminess all at once.Julia Adams is very good looking and has a lot of sex appeal (watch for her in a much better role playing opposite Raymond Burr and Robert Ryan in "Horizon's West", released the same year). Also, her character isn't purely ornamental. She develops and contributes.It was very interesting that the movie had rotating heavies. The mantle was passed from the Shoshones to Hendrix to the wagon train crew and finally to Cole.Now here's where it wasn't so great:Mann's not big on comic relief, yet he attempts it here. He misfires badly, employing Stepin Fetchit as the attempted humor. I try show a little more understanding for these flaws in films made in earlier eras, but this was released in 1952. No excuses.Indian presence is almost completely absent, except for an attack at he the beginning of the movie when they are presented one dimensionally Also, there are a couple of long windy speeches about how important it is for settlers to clear this "unclaimed" and "uninhabited" land.Listen, I'm not saying every movie has to side with the Indians on this issue, but the debate should at least be acknowledged.Finally, we encounter typical Mann plot holes, although they are not nearly as severe as those in "The Man From Laramie" and "The Naked Spur" and "The Man of the West". However, there are still several, the worst of which is during the film's climax, when McClyntock teleports himself around the forest, magically appearing wherever it suits the plot best.