Charming and brutal

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Blistering performances.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

No wonder director Ford considered the movie "crap". That may be a little too strong, but the results are definitely sub-par for the legendary filmmaker. If The Searchers (1956) dealt with whites kidnapped by Indians, the plot here is a reversal: Whites raised as Comanches are ransomed back into the white world, and in the process of reintegration, settler bigotry is exposed. That's a good thoughtful premise but the screenplay can't seem to provide a focus on anything. As a result, the story meanders from event to event in generally unfocused fashion. For whatever reason, writer Nugent can't seem to organize the elements into a coherent, effective narrative.Then there's the miscasting, especially Widmark as a 45-year old West Point lieutenant, who's supposed to romance a 26-year old Shirley Jones, who looks and acts like she just stepped out of a malt shop. And shouldn't forget poor 55-year old Andy Devine, a very un-cavalrylike cavalry sergeant. Somehow, his grossly over-weight figure is just not that funny. On the other hand, Stewart's not miscast, but this may be the only movie where his usual low-key style gives way to some serious over-acting, which unfortunately overshadows his low-key co-star Widmark. His character is, however, surprisingly dark and combative, an interesting feature.At the same time, for a western, there's little action, mostly just palaver and clumsy stabs at humor. However, the lynching scene is well staged and a real grabber. Anyway, it's pretty clear that director Ford's heart wasn't really in the production for whatever reason. Unfortunately, the end result is one of the least of his many fine Westerns.

It's big, loud, blowsy, breezy, glib, heartening and heartrending, larger than life, colorful, fulsome, winsome, .... all the schmaltz and schlock and superficial sentimentality that Hollywood loves to throw at you.James Stewart plays James Stewart. He's corrupt, heartless, cynical, cold; he drinks, he smokes, he offers to buy and sell people .... but, wait, we know, don't we, that he's the guy who opened the doors to the bank ... It's an act, isn't it? James won't let us, and America, down.Widmark, sadly underrated throughout his career, does an amazing job but he's the only bright spot. Ford's stock actors play the stock characters they always play. Ken Curtis plays that there hillbilly rebel guy who aw-shuckses and darns-its you to death.John Ford became the Norman Rockwell of movies after doing some harder stuff. Real shame. This should probably be rated a 2-3 given Ford's reputation.

Two Rode Together has some big names attached to it. John Ford; screenwriter Frank S. Nugent; James Stewart and Richard Widmark. But it doesn't live up to its potential.Widmark is fine but Stewart's performance is hard to figure out. Was he just not in a very good mood? I have to give him credit for taking risks as an actor, playing someone the audience is not likely to warm to. But it's hard to watch someone being peevish for two hours.This is one of Ford's lesser films. Like Stewart, he's one of my favorites. But this movie borders on being a mess. It covers similar ground to The Searchers, but comes up short in comparison.There's a great scene on a river bank, between Stewart and Widmark. It's often shown in documentaries about Ford. The scene (with no cuts) simply involves the two actors and their incredible timing. It's just about perfect. If only the rest of the film were as good.It's interesting to see Ford try a new Western location. The lovely Brackettville, Texas, area is pretty and green, with twisting trees and far-off blue mountain ranges. But it's not a very compelling location (like Ford's favorites, Monument Valley and Kanab, Utah). It doesn't do a lot for the film, dramatically.

I'm not sure why John Ford had such a problem with Two Rode Together as he did (according to the trivia page Ford considered the film "crap" even after his favorite writer came in to make it more like a Ford picture). It brings many of his favorite, or just preferred, themes to come back to: male camaraderie, the very fragile divide between whites and Indians in the late 19th century, and a sense of balance between leisure pace and high dramatic tension and stakes. Maybe he thought he was repeating himself, or had other ideas that didn't make the final cut of the script or lost them in the direction. There's a lot of meat on the bones of Two Rode Together, even if if it does shy away from real greatness. It takes its story seriously, and also leaves some time for some unexpected human comedy between its two leads (or just mostly James Stewart).It's premise is a little like a re-working or quasi-sequel to the Searchers. In that film Wayne was on a dogged search for his niece after she'd been captured by the Comanches and spends years tracking them down, only to find her totally changed (he still brings her home anyway). In Two Rode Together, a Marshall, about as tough and gruff and cruelly sarcastic as Wayne in that film, and a Major (Richard Widmark, the more level-headed and honorable of the two, if not quite as interesting), are put to task by the army to go to Comanche territory and bring back a few people that had been taken away years ago. Their families are desperate to see them again, and the Marshall is way more reluctant than the Major as he's had more experience with the Comanches (that, and the lack of pay, very shrewd and greedy he is). But they go ahead to the Comanche territory, track down a couple of them, and bring them back. This is halfway through the movie.The rest of Two Rode Together sees the dire straits of this assimilation, how one of them, a rowdy boy who doesn't speak a lick of English, isn't even thought to be the right son of the desperate mother, and the other, a Mexican, is pushed aside and made to feel an outcast right away. How Ford and his writer presents this isn't very insightful (I'm sure other films have explored the American-Comanche relationship with more depth or subtlety), but it's still entertaining and full of some compelling scenes. And while Ford keeps the drama moving at a nice clip- sometimes leisurely, sometimes with more force like at the dance later in the film- he lets his two stars do a lot of lifting that makes the movie very worthwhile.Stewart has been this cranky before, but rarely have I found this kind of grumpy but moral Marhsall so well-rounded. We laugh at some of his drunken outbursts because Stewart gives it some irony and sincerity. And there's some real tension brought out between the two characters; when he pulls out a gun he means to use it, even if he doesn't, and it's this uncertainty about him that makes it so interesting (he's not like 'Duke', for example, who you'd expect this kind of behavior). And Widmark is well-cast in this nicer-but-firm role, as a decent man who has to put up with a lot as a friend-partner-watcher of the Marshall, while also putting on a good face to his possible fiancé.The action is far from heavy here- only one scene with a gun firing at someone, oddly enough it's a pretty weak scene and not well directed by Ford- so it's mostly a character study, more about the decisions they make, the bit players and their words to say in scenes, and what these two men in uniform will do when they complete their mission. By the end their is some redemption and catharsis, and it's not all happy all-around, and its 'issues' it deals with about racial harmony and acceptance is never too heavy-handed. Ford cares about these people, even if he says he's like his Marshall character, just doing it for the money.