Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Pretty Good

Nice effects though.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

A more extreme version of the numerous westerns in which a 'town boss' is brought down, or a cattle baron is pitted against a group of small operators. In the present case, the greedy James Reavis (Vincent Price) doctors various old documents relating to a large land grant(the Perlata grant) by the Spanish crown that includes most of present Arizona, to make it look like his young wife, Sophia, is sole heir to this grant. Thus, James wants to charge the residents a rent for using his resources. It was the policy of the US government to honor grants given by the former Mexican or Spanish owners of the lands ceded to the US. James even spend 3 years in a Spanish monastery to access an important document, then worms his way into the home of a Spanish nobleman, who has another important document. .....James and Sophia are based upon historic people, but the details are mostly fictional. The real James did spend nearly 2 years in prison: a totally inadequate punishment for the magnitude of his crime. In the film, a hanging mob had a more appropriate punishment in store. But, he talked his way out of it, pleading that they couldn't get a clear title to their properties unless he was found guilty of fraud and forgery in the courtroom.....Tina Pino played a gypsy girl who pleaded for James to take her away from her gypsy group, while Margia Dean played the Marquesia in Madrid who also fell for James during his brief stay, in which he found another important document. Like these women, Sophia really was little more than decorative through most of the film, although she eventually had an important influence in causing James to give up his charade. Beulah Bundi played Loma, who acted as governess for Sophia to teach her how to be a lady. Reed Hadley played Griff, a government agent, who played the major role in tracking down James' activities. Edward Keane played the surveyor,who became suspicious of the validity of the Perlata land grant, and called for Griff. Vincent probably portrayed a less menacing James than the historic one. .......In all, a modestly interesting western. See it on YouTube

After His Debut Directorial Movie, I Shot Jesse James (1949) and Before one of His most Admired, The Steel Helmet (1951), Sam Fuller made this Awkward, Stuffy, but Enticing "Western" about a Real Life Story that is a Truth Stranger than Fiction.A Forger/Con Artist/Swindler/Thief and all around Bad Dude decides to Spend a Lifetime Concocting a Scheme that will show that His Wife, by way of Land Grant is the Sole Owner of the State of Arizona. Bizarre, to say the Least, this was going to be a Monumental Effort to Pull Off with a Shooting Schedule of 15 Days and an Ultra-Low Budget.But, on board is Writer/Director Sam Fuller, Leading Man Vincent Price (brilliantly cast), and Cinematographer James Wong Howe. The Finished Film is Extraordinary Considering, but the Impact of Viewing it can be Tedious and Demanding.Not quite sure what it is, but the Movie is Heavy Going and those Looking to Find the Fuller Touch may be Disappointed, although there are Flourishes. It is a bit Long and those Usually Fond of this type of Historical Melodrama with a bit of an Edge might Enjoy it as a bit Quirky and at the Same Time, a Generally Rewarding Experience. This is one of those that is not going to be for Everyone. Its Appeal is Limited.

Baron of Arizona, The (1950) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Fact-based drama of James Reavis (Vincent Price), the man who tried to gain control of Arizona and taking the U.S. government to court in order to prove it was his. In reality, Reavis set out on a life-long scheme full of lies and forgery to try and pull it off. As with Fuller's first movie, this second feature has a lot going for it but at the same time there are some major problems that keep it from being a lot better than it actually is. The biggest problem for me was the screenplay, which I felt spent way too much time with the build up and not enough of a pay off. The first fifty-two minutes are so drawn out that I began to lose interest in the film, story and characters. The opening of showing how Reavis set everything into motion is so drawn out that I was becoming quite bored and losing interest in the entire film. To me this entire segment could have been done in a twenty-minute sequence and it would have paid off more in the end. The film really starts to pick up once we're back in Arizona and Reavis tries to fulfill his evil plan. The reaction to the poor land owners, the government and the effect this plan has on Reavis makes for some good drama, which is lacking in the first half of the film. Price gives a wonderful performance and is the main reason to watch the movie. He's so calm and collective in how evil he is at one point you really can't help but wish he'd get away with the crime. The supporting players are fine even though no one really stands out. Fuller's direction is nice throughout and the cinematography is good as well. In the end this is a rather nice look at history but one can't help but wish it was better.

Although I am a US history teacher, I'd never heard about James Reavis and his claim to be the Baron of Arizonia (most of modern Arizona). So I was fascinated to see a film about this huckster who had the audacity to try to claim this huge chunk of territory as his own private land in the late 19th century. So fascinated that I did a bit of research on Reavis after I finished the movie.It seems that when the US got this land from Mexico, it promised to honor all existing land grants. Reavis, a talented forget and swindler, concocted a complicated scheme to take this land--a claim that ALMOST worked! The film stars Vincent Price in one of his earlier starring roles. While he'd been in Hollywood for about a decade, most of the time he was relegated to supporting roles. Here in THE BARON OF ARIZONA, he was clearly the star and the film benefited from his fine acting. However, you may be surprised to see Price acting a bit more like an action hero at times in the film, as he is much more macho than his usual persona--occasionally resorting to kicking the snot out of his enemies!The film was one of the earliest directorial efforts of the legendary Sam Fuller. While I didn't like how the story was fast and loose with the real facts of the case, Fuller must be commended for making such a professional looking film with only 15 days shooting!! Usually such a quickly made film would be a cheap horror film along the lines of an Ed Wood movie, but this one has all the polish of an A-picture.As for the plot, despite the facts that so much of the script is wrong, it still is a very captivating movie and at least it captures the essence of who Reavis was--even though the details are more than a little wrong. This playing fast and loose with details is fairly common in Hollywood films of the era, so I don't hold this against the film that much.Overall, the film is fascinating, tough to stop watching and a quality production throughout most of the film. However, despite Fuller's reputation for not being a sentimentalist, the last 15 minutes of the film are indeed heavy on sentiment and actually is about the worst part of the film. Plus, in reality Reavis only got a 2 year sentence (not 6) and his wife did indeed leave him--and the way the film ended and how he was caught is pure fiction.For a much more correct version of the real case, see http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/baron.html . It has a link to a very exhaustive site by Michael Marinacci. Oddly, the true facts of the case are in many ways much more interesting than this film!!