User reviews

If for the first half of this drama, you can go through the typical Hollywood depiction of Mexico and its people (dancing flamenco and shouting "Olé"), you will enjoy this tale of greed and treason among common folks, related to one another in different ways. Never mind the mixture of Spanish elements with the Mexican: the description of Mexican culture (which is key to the story, though not essential) is not even offensive, but plainly cheap, funny and sometimes embarrassing for the cast, although Charlita seems to enjoy every minute of her part as a kind of Tongolele lost in a dusty cantina. Since the central plot is interesting enough by itself, we can overlook all the kitsch, for what is being told is universal: how human beings can become negative from one moment to the next, by ambition and lust for material possession. All the three leads are quite effective. I really had never seen Arthur Kennedy so good in a role, practically having the whole film on his shoulders; beautiful Betta St. John is a bit out of range in her dramatic scenes, but she is more convincing here than in those Tarzan movies with Gordon Scott; while Eugene Iglesias is intense enough to suggest the emergence of a lout in less than half a day. As in all of Edgar G. Ulmer's films, no matter how big or small the budget, the visuals are good. The ingredient I enjoyed the less was the proto-Morriconesque score by composer Herschel Burke Gilbert, who could have benefited by going to Plaza Garibaldi in México City and have some tequila and tacos, sing with a mariachi band, and listen to rancheras and other typical Mexican musical forms.

Decent but minor Mexico-set-Western about an enjoyable friendship-confrontation between Arthur Kennedy and Eugene Iglesias , while Betta St John turns out to be the third in discord . Nice but unexceptional Western adapted from a story written by Julian Zimet and loosely based on a short tale by Russian writer Maxim Gorky .This is the story of three people in love, a love that at the beginning doesn't affect their friendship, and about how their relationship evolving , but each person's relationship with the other two is complicated as it is not only based on their direct feelings for the person in question. It is In Mexico, at the dawn of the automobile and modern times , there a resourceful , jolly outlaw with anarchistic philosophy called Santiago (Arthur Kennedy) robs train freight cars , but things go wrong when he has just lost his intimate colleague. Stars Arthur Kennedy as the stranger who steps into the middle of an isolated farm and ends up befriending one young husband named Manuel (Eugene Iglesias) and his beautiful wife Maria (Betta St John) . The latter is a haplesss and hopeless woman who is mistreated by her hubby , while the drifter gets turned around by the simple farmer who subsequently becomes an ambitious person . Vera Cruz to Matamoros they stalked his desperate trail ! So close together ... only a bullet can separate them !

A good little drama that takes place in Mexico at the dawn of the automobile including thrills , loves stories , emotion , crossfire and better than the title suggests . An interesting a strange movie that allegedly inspired Jules at Jim by Francois Truffaut , in fact the relation among Truffaut's roles : Oskar Werner , Jeanne Moreau , Henri Serre bears a certain resemblance to Arthur Kennedy , Betta St. John and Eugene Iglesias. Furthermore , displaying colorful cinematography by Frederick Gately , as well as evocative musical score by Herschel Burke Gilbert. Film relies heavily on the peculiar relationship among three protagonists Arthur Kennedy , Betta St. John , Eugene Iglesias . But , really here stands out Arthur Kennedy , in fact , this is one of Kennedy's best characters from his long career , usually as a great secondary actor . There he plays an adventurous hustler having a taste of the good life who burglarizes trains and along the way falls in love with a poor farmer's wife. While Betta St. John is pretty well as the gorgeous but unfortunate spouse of the hardworking and eventually reedemed farmer finely performed by Eugene Iglesias .

Being nicely shot on location in Mexico and Mack Sennett Studios , Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California . The picture was professionally directed by Edgar G. Ulmer . He was a prolific filmmaker who made all kinds of genres , directing acceptable films and here providing an intense pace though it results to be some dated. Adequate and professionally shot , being filmed in short time . Edgar was born on September 17, 1904 in Olmütz, Moravia, Czech Republic as Edgar George Ulmer. He was a notorious and prolific director and writer. At his beginnings he was blackballed from Hollywood work after he had an affair with Shirley Castle -he eventually married her and she became known as Shirley Ulmer-, who at the time was the wife of B-picture producer Max Alexander, a nephew of powerful Universal Pictures president Carl Laemmle. That's why Ulmer spent the bulk of his remaining career languishing at "Poverty Row" studios. He signed a long-term contract there in 1943 after directing the "big-budget" Jive Junction (1943), being especiallly known for Satanás (1934), Bluebeard (1944) , Detour (1945) , The Strange Woman (1946), People on Sunday (1930) , Aníbal (1959) , The Amazing Transparent Man (1960) , Beyond the Time Barrier (1960) , among others. Rating : 6.5/10. Well worth seeing.

A compelling movie of a different kind. When a low budget movie that was filmed in 10 days with very few characters, markedly rivets ones attention, that is a telltale sign of a a good and unusual production. The attire and settings were very convincing. The three leading characters all portrayed Hispanics extremely unusual for a 1950s western. The acting/directing was very good. The movie discusses female servitude/abuse; and the lure of money and its impact on ones loyalty, profession, and romantic decisions. With few characters and a low budget, the movie project took the very little and turned into quite an interesting and believable flick, of a different kind, that found time to examine core aspects of human behavior. In the same general genre as For Whom the Bell Tolls, but yet so different. Wow!!

There is something very likable about this low budget, "poetic" story of an aging outlaw who comes upon the small farm of an ambitious peon and his willful wife. The atmosphere is a bit thick perhaps, constant philosophizing in a "poetic" Spanish accent, with a guitar playing in the background. But Kennedy is particularly good as the outlaw, worldly-wise and mellow with flashes of toughness, anger and cynicism. The other players carry their weight well enough, though Iglesias sometimes goes a bit overboard with his characterization of the naive, greedy young man. There's not much to the story, but it's well told. Here, certainly, is a film that, whatever its ultimate virtues, is unique. Though the subject makes it a Western, the style (as well as the Mexican setting and the apparent thirties time-frame) makes it something completely different. This is the sort of film one expects from Ulmer's reputation; small but personal. I really did like it, but I don't know if I would go as far as Francois Truffaut: "Poetic and violent, tender and droll, moving and subtle, joyously energetic and wholesome... reminds us inevitably of Renoir and Ophuls."

A low budget gives this western its strength : almost all the action takes place in Manuel's seedy farm and do not expect an action-packed yarn ;it's almost a crepuscular western for the automobiles appear .In its own special way ,it's also a parable desguised as western .

The great character actor Arthur Kennedy rarely got top billing ,and considering his talent,it was totally unfair.Made up as a Mexican ,with a fake accent , you hardly know him;his character is colorful: before his pal dies , he imposes an interminable religious solace upon him , justifying their dirty deeds by the Holy Scripts.

However, Santiago may embody the Devil ,coming to tempt a couple of innocent peasants ,resigned to their modest fate; when one meets him, Manuel hopes for a better future ,but through his hard work ;the lure of gain appears later when he accompanies his new friend who calls on his boss to recover his wage ;in parallel, the wife is sexually attracted by the bandit and his depiction of an idealized Vera Cruz makes her dream of a storylike life,far from the lousy life she leads with a rather indolent hubby :when one meets her by the river ,she 's daydreaming ,humming a melody , perhaps waiting for something which never happens ...Relatively speaking ,religion plays an almost Bunuelesque role.

By and large , the intimate scenes are much more successful than the (rare ) eventful moments: the hanging of the boss, the rumble,the final settlement of scores .

This movie provides the viewer with an opportunity to see a truly gifted,if unsung actor, in a role that he owns. Arthur Kennedy played many supporting roles in the 40's and 50's and was nominated five times for an Oscar as Best Supporting Actor. During that time he acted for most of the outstanding directors of the period and with actors like Mitchum,Sinatra,Douglas,to name a few. Long overdue for a memorable starring role, he finally has the lead in this movie. As Santiago he demonstrates how callousness and gentleness of spirit can reside believably in the same person. His contact with th peasant couple ultimately changes forever their views of the future as well as his own and final redemption. This is a movie one can see only on TV late shows. A pity, but if you're lucky enough to catch it, you'll be rewarded. Guaranteed.

Fascinating little gem of a movie offering a slice of life and circumstances that makes one ponder about it all. The film is raw in its depiction of real life not setting the stage for anything but instead jumping right into one life dynamic after another. We watch as we see and relate of how senseless and unsatisfying the lead players life is but in no way will you condemn him simply because a bit of it exists in you. That's what keeps you engaged. Its to see how he would handle these scenarios and would it be different than your approach? He steals, lies, plays with morals, corrupts and mocks (plus more) yet he does it without denial. Actually there is a sorrow about his existence and for that reason, you forgive him. The supporting players do well to help drive the human nature points especially about temptation which visit casually and effectively with them all. The thing is, can they recover? Learn from it? Not repeat it? At no time to you believe that the main player likes what he does but at the same time effectively convinces the viewer that he doesn't know what he does or what to do different except after the fact. Some of his after (s) come with consequences. There is a theme in this movie of a simple life versus a non-simple life and it asks this question? Is your life simple good or simple bad? In other words, are you hiding out and avoiding or have you found contentment and peace? Only the viewer will know. This movies has a slow but meaningful pace and Arthur Kennedy carries it along without effort. If you find this, watch it and learn from it. Have a tasty drink and some Mexican food on standby as there are beans, tacos, tortillas scenes that you can eat along with. Of course, a tasty drink too and not because they drink tequila and pulque but to wash your meal down. BTW...pulque is a fermented alcoholic milk-looking type drink made from cactus type plant popular in Mexico. If a man cannot hold his pulque well he has some work to do. Also, there is a custom that if someone pours you a glass, you must drink it down. Its the second one you get to sip...

An excellent little western that shows what can be done with a good story, little money, character actors and inspired direction(i.e. with no studio interference). The story unfolds in a slow but well-controlled tempo and proceeds to show how greed changes a kind-hearted man and his family into vicious money-hungry people. Edgar Ulmer, a much underrated but top-grade director, knows how to bring out the deepest and most secret feelings of his characters, through the excellent direction of his actors (Arthur Kennedy gives the best performance of his career) and create tension and the right atmosphere. On the level of John Ford's "Wagonmaster"! Should be seen and enjoyed more often. Makes you want to see more of Ulmer's works. Andreas-27

King of the cheapies Edgar Ullmer directed this modern west saga set in Mexico with something he normally didn't have at his disposal, technicolor. Even with that it's certainly one parsimonious production, but not bad.

Although why he cast Arthur Kennedy replete with dyed black hair and a greasy beard as a Mexican bandit who knows. This was a role so right for Gilbert Roland. I guess he wasn't available.

Nevertheless Kennedy gives it his best as the charismatic bandit who after losing one partner doing a job is ready for another. He takes refuge in the house of farmer Eugene Iglesias and wife Betta St.John. In one way or another he seduces both of them with what they see as a romantic life style. Both want to go off with him and leave the other.

The Naked Dawn is a curious little film, deep in character rather than plot. But I think it would have been a classic with a Gilbert Roland or a Fernando Lamas in the lead.

Santiago (Arthur Kennedy) is a good-hearted bandit...if there actually is such a thing. And when he meets up with Manuel and his wife, he leads the very meek Manuel into life on the wild side. While Manuel has always been very righteous, soon he starts to enjoy the idea of wealth and soon his true, violent and selfish side comes out after making this new friendship. But he's not the only one affected by Santiago's arrival...as soon Manuel's wife, Maria, has fallen for this new mystery man! What's to come of all this?

While this could have been a nice little morality tale about greed, it suffers in several ways. Its pacing is not great and has some slow moments or scenes that could have been excised. At times, the Mexicans seemed awfully silly and stereotypical. Also, occasionally the acting is a bit overwrought...though I must admit that I was surprised that Kennedy was actually pretty good in the lead...playing the Bandito.

Bargain basement director Edgar Ulmer once again gets plenty of bang out of his buck in this shot in 10 day shot in luxurious color film. A well told tale of corruption the main problem is to be found in the lead played by the usually reliable Arthur Kennedy.

Veteran bandido Santiago's (Kennedy) sidekick is gunned down during a night train robbery. Santiago escapes and finds himself taken in by a dirt poor but honest farmer Manual and his wife Maria. Telling tales of easy money and an exciting life style he unintentionally seduces both, upending life on the farm and corrupting Manual with a sudden lust for the material after realizing a big take from a crooked border agent.

The miscast Kennedy's accent is glaringly bad. It comes across like a guest star doing a skit on an hour variety show. He spouts some interesting philosophy but the false inflection mars it. Betta St. John and Eugene Iglesias are both inconsistent. The music score is atrociously over the top but a tawdry cantina scene sparkles giving Ulmer his best reason to go technicolor in a film mostly draped in dull earthen hue.

I don't have a high opinion of Edward G. Ulmer, who strikes me as a good visual stylist -- this movie is lit like a bullfighting poster, which is a nice touch. However, he had a tin ear and his great artistic ability was coming in cheap, whether it was a stylish studio effort, like THE BLACK CAT, or a porn movie in which he's cast his daughter. I'm not making up the latter. While I haven't seen it myself, a friend who hunts Ulmer's movies obsessively told me about his conversations with the daughter about it.

In any case, Arthur Kennedy is a bandito who wanders onto the farm owned by peons Eugenie Iglesias and Betta St. John. Everyone gives moderate-length speeches, and everyone's life is changed. Kennedy does well with his speeches, despite apparently having Mel Blanc voice-coaching him as Speedy Gonzalez. Betta St. John yearns for something to happen and breaks crockery to make it happen. Iglesias vacillates between goodness and greed.

It's a three-person play set in Mexico from a Gogol story -- I assume, set originally in Russia. Admirers of Ulmer will admire it. I think it's an OK programmer.

The movie's not a western in the usual sense. Instead, it's more like a pondering of character and life-styles set in modern Mexico. Manuel and Maria are in an arranged marriage, she being passed along like a piece of property, he being a budding farm entrepreneur. They are above all "respectable", and the feeling is that this is what holds the marriage together.

Then, into their settled life arrives escaping train robber Santiago. But he's not a typical robber. We know that from his buddy's moving death scene. There Santiago shows something of a poetic sensitivity, proving he's not without his own sense of values. In fact, he's more a free spirit than a criminal type, even giving away much of his loot to deserving strangers. Ironically, however, he appears unfree to be anything but free!

It's Santiago's free-wheeling effect on the young couple's brittle marriage that makes up the storyline. Kennedy, of course, was one of that era's premier actors. Here, his bravura performance effectively dramatizes Santiago's free spirit gusto. On the other hand, as the young couple, Iglesias and St. John appear over-the-top at times. Perhaps that can be rationalized by their emotional release from repressed lives. Nevertheless, the emoting does at times distract from story advancement.

The notion of respectability is also pondered here. What the screenplay seems to be saying is that conforming lives are okay as long as one's humanity is not sacrificed in the process. In his own eccentric way, this appears the lesson Santiago imparts to the young couple. At the same time, religion gets much the same treatment, while criminal Santiago acts poetically as a kind of secular priest in easing his dying confederate into the great unknown.

All in all, the movie's distinctive features come more from blacklisted writer Zimet's offbeat screenplay than from cult director Ulmer who's required to film in Technicolor instead of his b&w forte. Nonetheless, the movie's fully deserving of the Ulmer brand-- an offbeat 80-minutes that manages some depth over and above its tacky 50's title.