a western. with the ambition to be more than one of ordinaries examples of genre. and this desire is far to be extravagant. because it propose a seductive story of lost, friendship, form of fatherhood and spirit of youth. and the great surprise remains Anthony Franciosa who has the best occasion to do a role in which the nuances are real important. Michael Sarrazin gives , more than a credible character, a lovely portrait of an age. it is a special story. about success and grow up, about love and seduction, about illusions and lost causes, about heroism and about ...women and the force who defines the words. short, more than a good western. because the classic story has deep roots. and an inspired director.

This movie is like a lot of others made at the height of the Vietnam War - I swear Hollywood was chucking out really bad movies just to take people's minds off the war (check out Burt Lancaster in "The Swimmer" some time.) Number 1: bad songs. This is a trademark of movies made between '65 and '71. Number 2 (or 1b): use of the harpsichord. Again, a key instrument in American movies made between 65 and 71. Then, there's the anti-hero (or two of them here.) I guess by 1968 / 1969, all the good western stories had been done. (Until Josey Wales, Dances with Wolves, and Unforgiven, that is.)This movie's writer and director must have said to themselves, "let's take the worst of the 1960's and put those characters in the 1880's." Let's imagine the Woodstock generation faced with a range war.

This is a remake of "Man Without A Star", which packed a lot more star power, and a much better story. In fact, the biggest star in this version may be Western favorite John Anderson.It is about a man (gee, could his name be Gannon?) who takes on a naive young man as his protégé. Unlike the original, both these guys are not credible characters. They have too much of the modern cinema touch in them, the desire to kill, kill, kill. They are more like a dork's comic book version of the original.Neither character is likable, and the movie is much like a spaghetti western in that it tries to make you hate one less than another, which is how to choose who you like. That sort of "director and writer" control freak format not only destroys the art and story of what they concoct, but it takes us out of the story, and makes us realize we're just watching. We're no longer into the story. Instead, we're just keenly aware of the presence of the director, writer, and others. They may as well just let the film crew walk around in the background. That would be less humiliating to them, as it would at least be honest.A look at this film, and one wonders why the two leads don't just conquer the world in one day, since the movie makes them such supermen, and also makes them totally unidentifiable.Every scene just fails compared to the original, which makes it even sadder, because the original wasn't a "great" movie, but compared to this, it looks like the Seven Samurai.

At least I'm pretty sure i was made for TV. I thought i was a fine, tightly directed little Western about a down-on-his-luck cowpoke who's lost his herd (or ranch; it's been awhile since I've seen it)and goes to work for a woman ranch owner. I wish I could find a copy of this movie somewhere. It's left a lasting impression. I liked it more than Man Without a Star, its nominal predecessor. Anthony Franciosa, an actor of limited range, is at his best here. Michael Sarrazin as the would-be gunslinger he takes under his wing also is fine. An episode of The Virginian TV series, perhaps one featuring the character Steve,was derived from Man Called Gannon/Man Without a Star.