A Brilliant Conflict

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Blistering performances.

I DVR'd films with James Garner in it, and this film was recorded from the MGM channel as a result. When it started with the Bowie knife slashing the screen, I knew this would be a different western. The title cards were really weird, they used a white font similar to those I've seen on low budget drive in films next to a custom dark font that just seemed weird but interesting, it beckoned low budget to me. Then I watched the aerial shots of the beautiful scenery, which were amazing in HD, good job by MGM in presenting this film, watch it in this format and not on low quality like on a Youtube, it's a difference to the overall enjoyment. So I quickly reasoned, yes it's kind of low budget but the people involved considered it more then just a cheap western. The next scene starts with violence and graphic (for the time) torture, I knew pretty fast that this would be exploitative as far as the action goes. Spoilers, I predicted to my wife when the soldiers are riding out on the mission that 90 percent would die, and I nailed it. The morality tales concern race and mixed race relationships. The Indians are presented as really ruthless and willing to be killed off in droves which seemed over the top. The arrows are shown multiple times hitting soldiers in all body parts, however they did that, it was a very effective effect. I'm guessing they played the arrow scenes in reverse. Funny blooper that I caught, Poitier is twirling his pistol and when he puts the gun back in the holster he misses the holster and has to quickly pull it back and reset it. I'm surprised that wasn't re-shot but I guess the low budget comes into play. The woman character is played by a European with a thick accent and so is the Army Officer, which lowered my suspension of belief but I guess is plausible. Poitier's role seems unnecessary since the racial morality is already being addressed with the white woman and her mixed race child, luckily, it doesn't get over the top on the morality issues to the point that it detracts from the action. I noticed only one other black soldier and he has no lines and is only seen briefly which also made me question why Poitier is the only Buffalo Soldier around. Weaver's role is schizophrenic, one scene he's a total bigot, the next scene a caring husband. For those who like character actor roles, I enjoyed seeing William Redfield, he reminds me in this movie of a character I would be like, realistic. There is a tread in there about Garner's murdered Indian wife that loosely ties it all together but there are some bad plot holes and character motivations that I didn't think were realistic. With all that said, the film is entertaining and if you are looking for some good action check it out. 7 of 10, for this unconventional western, entertaining.

Its absolutely amazing to me how badly a movie can age. I saw this one in the theaters when new. I remember thinking it was acceptable at the time. There was an actress that I knew from Bergman. There was the surprise of the Indian baby, which I saw in the segregated South. It had what seemed to be explicit torture scenes. But most of all I actually thought the setups made sense: the mirroring of the miscegenation, the mirrored revenge, the dual showdown.Seeing it again now, I have no idea how I could have been that person.This time around I noticed the amazing shot at the beginning, of some Utah landscape. But everything else was flat. The acting and script are worthy of Ed Wod. Even the Swedish actress was lost. The score is from the studio library. The dialog is dubbed. The narrative devices seem artificially constructed. The interesting thing though, was how engaged I got in my own narrative about the horse cruelty. There are many Indian fights, and most of the effects depend on tripped horses among the dubbed whoops. Its a parade of horror that got more and more disturbing: the fake deaths and torture fading, the blond woman bringing back the "Seventh Seal."Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

What we have here is a b western whose messages are probably of more value than the film. This is not shot well, with a script that does not stand out and the action set pieces are obviously cheap, but well ahead of it's time we have no real good and evil here with flaws in both sides and it is here that the film excels. James Garner is the anti hero who is only persuaded to come along on the quest to see his ex-army colleagues through territory filled with hostile Apache because he is looking for revenge on the man who killed his Indian wife. Sidney Poiter is in the unusual position of an empowered black man who despite his statements has loyalty to his ex-army colleagues. In fact all the characters are multi faceted and I feel this movie could actually be remade extremely easily to great effect. Not a great film that I would not really go out of my way to view again but well ahead of it's time in terms of message.

James Garner leaves behind his usual likable rogue that he normally plays for a role in Duel at Diablo as a grim and vengeful scout for the Army who's been told by Lieutenant Bill Travers and graphically shown that his Apache wife has been killed. If he goes on a mission scouting for Travers delivering ammunition and green troops to another fort, he'll meet up with the man who had the scalp, the marshal there, John Crawford.Garner's not the only who's lived in both the white and Indian world. He rescues Bibi Andersson who's been held captive by the Indians and when he brings her back to her husband, Dennis Weaver, he's not exactly happy to see her. Decent white women were to do the honorable thing back in the day and commit suicide before being defiled by an Indian. Andersson's not welcome back in the white world.In the end nearly the whole cast is in a desperate battle for their lives against Apaches who have jumped the reservation. Also in the battle is former buffalo soldier Sidney Poitier. And with a whole lot of green troops in the battle, Poitier being around comes in mighty handy.Duel At Diablo is not a western for the squeamish, it gets pretty graphic at times. The themes that were explored in such films as The Searchers, Trooper Hook, and Two Rode Together are really explored far more here. There's also a little bit of Stagecoach in Duel At Diablo with Garner like John Wayne on a vengeance quest against the people who murdered his family.Sidney Poitier's part is interesting in that there really is no racial reference as far as his blackness is concerned. In fact Poitier having been in the army and fought the Apaches has just about the same attitudes towards them as the white characters do.This is a good western, maybe a great one, but not one for the faint hearted.