The Baron of Arizona (1950)

Vincent Price no less plays the title role of the real-life confidence man, James Addison Reavis, who forged documents through which he hoped to gain control of all the land in Arizona. This was Sam Fuller's second film as both writer and director. At 97 minutes, the movie was judged as overlong and was trimmed down to 93 minutes. In my opinion, it's still too long to retain an audience's rapt interest, despite a first-rate cast of support players led by Ellen Drew and Beaulah Bondi. The movie's limited budget also doesn't help, although production values are never less than adequate. What does disappoint is that Price is not at his best in the title role. He should have been charismatic but Fuller gives him little scope here. Similarly, James Wong Howe's photography, although always nice and sharp, is nevertheless not particularly noirish or arresting. In fact, aside from three or four effectively atmospheric shots, the movie's photographic elements are disappointingly routine

In one of the boldest land grabs in US history Confederate vet Samuel Reavis through energetic and ambitious duplicity managed to claim and convince the government and the land's occupants that Arizona Territory belonged to him through his wife by way of recognized Spanish decree who supposedly deeded the rights to her family. In the Baron of Arizona Sam Fuller does an effective job of briskly and clearly detailing the convoluted and exhausting efforts of Reavis but his threadbare production values and awkward handling of tension inducing moments fails to do the audacious act itself justice and the film fails to ignite.After his quirky directorial debut in I Shot Jesse James Fuller follows up with another offbeat Western legend in Reavis and while Vincent Price has the sinister chops and countenance to smugly bamboozle those that need to be he fails abjectly when called on to wield weapon or punch it out with the locals. In a sloppily edited climax, Price with a rope does save his best for last but the film's solid story begs ( and deserves) a bigger budget with more of a two fisted huckster (Douglas or Lancaster) in the lead displaying more energy and guile, less contempt and condescension.

The fact that this is based on a true story makes this the most outrageous plot ever filmed. Vincent Price plays the biggest con man in US History prior to the 20th Century. The ending of the movie is Hollywoodized but amazingly the rest of the story is true.A man named Reavis who worked in a government land office devised a complicated scheme to forge documents here and in Spain to develop a way to claim the entire state of Arizona as his own with a young girl he develops into a Baroness and marries in order to make his claim legitimate. It is hard to believe this really happened.In this movie the United States is actually put on trial as a Defendant having to prove Reavis does not own Arizona. This movie was made on a low budget with some quality film making people behind the camera and great work by Price. The story cries for a remake although I would be frightened who would be chosen for Price's role. If it were remade with the real true ending of the story, it would be a strong movie. Reavis only problem here is he set his sights too high. At one point the US Government offers him $25 Million Dollars to drop his claim. Considering this is the 1800's Reavis should have taken the offer. Instead he is tripped up by a dogged government expert that finally proves his scheme.Too me there is a real chance for a great remake of the movie.Still having this one with Price carrying the film is a pleasure that is easy to endure.

After "I Shot Jesse James" a film which pleased the public and the critics, Fuller made "The Baron of Arizona", with Lippert, casting Vincent Price and Reed Hadley, the actor that played Jesse James. The story, which basically really happened, is about a giant fraud committed by James Addison Reavis, who pretended to own almost the whole state of Arizona. It is interesting that in spite of the damage done by Reavis, the film is sympathetic to him, creating a happy ending, which was not even true, because Reavis died alone in a shack. The story also shows how carefully Reavis planned his fraud though many years.Fuller was able to have as a cinematographer the great James Wong Howe, who wanted so much to shoot the picture that agreed to have a lower salary than usual. Fuller's direction, the great acting of Vincent Price and Wong's camera makes this a remarkable film. It is a shame it did not do so well at the box office.