UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Western >

Stagecoach

Stagecoach (1966)

June. 16,1966
|
6.1
|
PG
| Western

A group of unlikely travelling companions find themselves on the same stagecoach to Cheyenne. They include a drunken doctor, a bar girl who's been thrown out of town, a professional gambler, a travelling liquor salesman, a banker who has decided to embezzle money, a gun-slinger out for revenge and a young woman going to join her army captain husband. All have secrets but when they are set upon by an Indian war party and then a family of outlaws, they find they must all work together if they are to stay alive.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

richrhea5
1966/06/16

I was in middle school when I saw this in the theatre. It was panned in the press then and it's not much better now. Makes me want to see the 1939 original.

More
redwhiteandblue1776
1966/06/17

Just a couple of observations. Pausing the film before the last big fight with the Indians chasing the stagecoach, I counted 25 Indians on horseback. During the fight, there were 41 shot off their horses. Hummm? The director must think horses lope (run) everywhere? It's a good thing they were making a movie and the horses got breaks along with the actors or they would have keeled over dead from all that running. When a gun is fired, it recoils or jumps back. Here they pretty much stay still. And guns are LOUD. Yet no one ever flinches or even reacts to the noise. Shots inside that stagecoach would be deafening. Firearms only hold a given number of bullets yet the guns in this movie never seem to run out. Firearm accuracy! I've shot a lot and even hitting a still target it hard but these movie cowboys must be the world's most accurate shooters, hitting Indians on running horses and shooting from a fast moving stagecoach. Pretty impressive! And lastly, if they had to have a floozy in the movie, I'm glad they picked Ann Margaret 'cause she had to be the hottest dance hall girl in the old west. Probably not many looked like that. Just sayin'.

More
TheLittleSongbird
1966/06/18

The original 'Stagecoach' from 1939 was, and still is, a benchmark of the western genre, and a wonderful film in its own right too. Considering the generally dodgy track record of how remakes fare in quality, was honestly expecting this 1966 'Stagecoach' to be an insult and with no point or merits.Expectations that were mostly proved very much wrong. Yes, it is a far inferior film to 1939's 'Stagecoach' (whereas the original is a masterpiece this is just fair), and, yes, one does question the point of it with so much of the content already seen previously and with much more impact. However, it does have a lot of merit, with it being made with competence, with respect being shown and with attempts to bring some freshness or build on what was seen previously (characters like Plummer being richer in characterisation here).Starting with the faults, not all the casting comes off. Mike Connors sleepwalks through a role in need of so much more intensity than what actually came off. Stefanie Powers is an attractive but rabbits-in-the-headlights blank, but coming off worst is Alex Cord as a pivotal character crying out for much more charisma and personality than what was given in Cord's very wooden and vacuous take on it.Gordon Douglas' direction is competent with a keen visual eye, but, in terms of momentum and storytelling, it's a case of everything done pleasingly and correctly with nothing offensive but with some lack of invention or oomph and with a sense of routine-ness about it all. The story is actually a good one and the characters are still interesting on the most part, but apart from a few scenes much of it has already been done before and with more excitement.However, it's a great-looking film. While the scenery doesn't have the magnificence of Monument Valley it's still sweepingly beautiful and the cinematography is similarly striking, especially in the aerial shot and the chase sequence. Production, set and costume design register strongly too and who can't help love those paintings. Jerry Goldsmith's score is rousing, atmospheric and extraordinary in instrumentation, while the theme song is very much a memorable one.Meanwhile, it's nicely scripted, and there are sequences that register strongly, especially the chase sequence (the highlight), the storm on the cliff and the opening massacre. Also appreciated an ending where what happens is shown with more clarity and less ambiguity. The cast are fine generally, Bing Crosby plays his boozy-doctor-with-a-heart role perfectly in his final screen appearance, while Van Heflin is similarly terrific, Slim Pickens brings some welcome humour and Keenan Wynn is frightening (even though not on screen long).Ann-Margaret shows how to be an alluring presence while also being able to act with sass and compassion, while Robert Cummings is good enough (he has been better though) and Red Buttons shares a strong touching rapport with Crosby in a remarkably subdued performance.Overall, inferior and maybe pointless but nowhere near as bad as expected. A lot is done right and nothing offends, but at the end of the day even whether compared to the 1939 film or out of context it just felt a little bland. 6/10 Bethany Cox

More
Bill-16
1966/06/19

Many people question why this and other films that we think are great are remade. I don't know about many others, but I did hear about why this one may have been remade.Before there was Cable TV and Movie Classic Channels people like me were at the mercy of TV programmers. We could look through TV Guides or newspapers and hope to find a certain movie would be on and then maybe it was showing at a time we would actually be around to watch it. Didn't have VCR's back then either.Then there were movies that weren't available for TV. Sometimes the powers that be wouldn't allow the movie to be shown on TV because they didn't approve commercials interrupting the director's vision. Sometimes there was other reasons that they weren't available for TV.I heard that the 1939 version of Stagecoach was one these movies. I can't find anything about this online, but I seem to remember hearing it. I do know that I didn't see the 1939 version till sometime in the 1990's. I see it was re-released in 1996.So, if people were deprived of seeing the original, then I can see why a remake was done and they didn't do a bad job either. I had put off seeing the 1966 version simply because the original is readily available and played frequently on TV here. I got to see it today and it in no way comes close to the original, but it isn't anything that anyone connected to it need be embarrassed about.As for other classics being remade in this day and age when the originals are easily available, well, Don't even get me started on that tangent, makes me want to pick up my Winchester and ride the Stagecoach into Indian Territory!

More