Featured Audience Ratings

• jay n

  
  Pratically defining the word sprawling this phenomenal drama of the settling of the west is so much more than a conventional western. Directed by three top flight directors all three segments have a slightly different feel but join together into a harmonious whole. Again the phrase… More
  Pratically defining the word sprawling this phenomenal drama of the settling of the west is so much more than a conventional western. Directed by three top flight directors all three segments have a slightly different feel but join together into a harmonious whole. Again the phrase once in a lifetime cast could have been invented for this film with a star of some magnitude in almost every role, all of whom give good performances. The real standouts in terms of acting are probably George Peppard and Carroll Baker, they share a particularly poignant scene when he goes off to war, but Debbie Reynolds ties the whole thing together and she's full of snap and verve. The always welcome Thelma Ritter is a most amusing frontier woman. Shot on a massive scope this is enjoyable in any form but if you have the opportunity to see the Blu-Ray version on a large screen that's as near to ideal as you'll get. This film is what the movies are all about.

• Dean M

  
  Any Western with this cast is worth a glimpse. Very interesting story of the American history on a grand scale. This movie in effect tells the fourth story - and tells it in a thrilling, colorful way - from the 1840s when the frontier was still the Ohio Valley to about 1885 - not so… More
  Any Western with this cast is worth a glimpse. Very interesting story of the American history on a grand scale. This movie in effect tells the fourth story - and tells it in a thrilling, colorful way - from the 1840s when the frontier was still the Ohio Valley to about 1885 - not so long a time. These stories brought two actors, Debbie Reynolds and George Peppard, in two of each stories. This is stunning - beautifully cast - music you'll always remember - and many powerful and moving scenes.

• Conner R

  
  You have to hand it to everyone involved, this is one mammoth viewing experience. This covers generations as well as historical events like no other movie has attempted to do. I think the wisest decision was having multiple directors so each time period has a different feeling and… More
  You have to hand it to everyone involved, this is one mammoth viewing experience. This covers generations as well as historical events like no other movie has attempted to do. I think the wisest decision was having multiple directors so each time period has a different feeling and vision. With a huge western ensemble, this is no short of fun to watch. Most of the known actors play some of their suited roles and serve as a time frame for the genre itself. What's interesting is that the segments get richer and more defined as they go along, rather than decrease in quality. Now this isn't a character movie in a traditional way, I don't even think there is a close up shot at all. However, this shows the progression of the west from a dream to a reality.

• Tim S

  
  If ever there was a western or an epic that failed to live up to its name and disappoint altogether, it would be this film. How The West Was Won was one of the last of MGM's large scale epic films, which followed big budget successes like Ben-Hur and El Cid. It was also one of… More
  If ever there was a western or an epic that failed to live up to its name and disappoint altogether, it would be this film. How The West Was Won was one of the last of MGM's large scale epic films, which followed big budget successes like Ben-Hur and El Cid. It was also one of the last films to be shot using the Cinerama process, whereby three strips of film were shot with the intention of blowing them up on a large curved wide screen. As for the film content itself, I can't say that there is much here to be impressed with. The film is split up into five segments with connecting segments in-between. It tells the story of 19th century early frontiers, civil war and outlaws, as directed by John Ford, Henry Hathaway, George Marshall and Richard Thorpe (the last of which went uncredited). The main problem with the film is that the directors were not accustomed to shooting in the Cinerama process, and therefore, the film suffers a bit for it. The beautiful landscapes and cinematography of past John Ford works like The Searchers is completely lost in the process on this film. Although it does feature an impressive all-star cast, most characters in the film are not present long enough to give any sort of performance. Even though the film is over 3 hours long, it spends very little time with its characters in their particular environment before moving on to another segment or action set piece. You get to know them very little, and therefore, care very little about them. You would think with the likes of Jimmy Stewart, Gregory Peck, Henry Fonda, Debbie Reynolds and John Wayne that you would have a remarkable story. Alas, you don't, at least not in this film. Each actor makes little more than a cameo before the film moves on to another part of the overall story. I hate to suggest this, but in order to hold the epic scope of the story that the film was obviously trying to maintain, it should have been even longer...at least 4 to 5 hours total. Yes, it would have been outright embellishment, but I think it would benefit by keeping its stars on-screen longer and its story a little more focused. The film today has been enormously difficult to present on televison and home video. With Cinerama now obsolete, the three strips of film used to make up the Cinerama experience had to be combined and presented in the now standard widescreen format. Faint bars from the combination of the three strips of film are always present during the film, often being the most apparent during the brighter outdoor scenes. Otherwise, you tend to forget about them. It doesn't matter much though because the odd 'fish eye' look of the film due to it being laid on a flat surface is disconcerting and ineffective. Recently, the film was restored to its original Cinerama format and released on Blu-Ray. I haven't seen this release, so I cannot make a fair judgment on whether or not the original technical limitations of the format still hamper it after all these years. Overall, the quality of the film is mediocre at best. It did make a lot of money in its day, but unfortunately, doesn't hold up well with its look being a major turn-off to a cinephile like me.

• xGary X

  
  Western epic that's rather lengthy and uneven, but where else are you going to see all the biggest stars of a genre all in the same film?

• The Movie W

  
  I recall viewing this film as a child and wondering why I could only see the actors' noses and ears speaking to one another. Later it was shown in full widescreen and I realised that the previous TV screenings had been victim to the barbaric and now thankfully extinct practice of… More
  I recall viewing this film as a child and wondering why I could only see the actors' noses and ears speaking to one another. Later it was shown in full widescreen and I realised that the previous TV screenings had been victim to the barbaric and now thankfully extinct practice of "pan & scan". The picture, like all widescreen movies shown on TV until quite recently, had been cropped to accommodate the TV screen. The movies which suffered most from this philistine ritual were the lavish Hollywood productions of the fifties and sixties. Casts of thousands were often reduced to no more than ten centurions and half of Liz Taylor's face. Ironically widescreen was originally developed to combat the growing popularity of the domestic television set. "How the West was Won" was filmed in that widest of formats, Cinerama, and was the only real success of the format, discounting the various travelogue documentaries. This was to be an epic undertaking on a scale never before witnessed in the western genre. By celebrating the conquering of the West, Hollywood was acknowledging the factors which ultimately led to it's own foundation. While it brashly celebrates the American pioneer spirit, the film avoids a rose-tinted view of events. It's a movie which isn't afraid to acknowledge that while the taming of the West is a story of hard toil and ingenuity it's also a tragic tale of deceit and broken promises. Spencer Tracy narrates a storyline which is broken into five segments. Strangely, given the reputation of it's director, John Ford's "The Civil War" is the weakest. Ford evidently viewed the Cinerama process as no more than a gimmick and makes little effort to compose his shots in a manner which exploits the distinctive shape of the frame. The most exciting segment is George Marshall's "The Railroad", featuring a chilling performance from Richard Widmark as a railroad foreman who cheats an Indian tribe out of their land. There's a thrilling scene involving a buffalo stampede which must have been some experience in a theater fitted with a Cinerama screen. Compare it to a similar sequence in this year's dire "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and see how far Hollywood spectacle has sunk. No amount of CG can compare with the sight of a herd of live buffalo running rampage across the screen. Marshall is one of Hollywood's forgotten men, known for helming action scenes for other directors. He's responsible for no less a set-piece than the famed chariot race in "Ben Hur". Henry Hathaway takes on the remaining three segments, "The Rivers", The Plains" and "The Outlaws". His westerns were usually more intimate tales and here he focuses on the journey of two generations of a pioneering family. Of the three directors, it's Hathaway who uses Cinerama to it's best advantage. His shots are beautifully composed, exploiting the unique sense of depth the format was renowned for. I know it's a cliche but you really could hang any of these shots on your wall. This is a light film for the most part but a must see for fans of good old Hollywood extravagance. I recommend the Blu-ray which features a second disc employing the "Smilebox" technique. This replicates the curved screen of Cinerama and makes for one of the most impressive sights you're likely to see on a HDTV.

• Cameron J

  
  Not be mistaken for the Led Zeppelin concert album, nor some movie called "How Weed Won the West". You'd think that it would go without saying that this film shouldn't be mistaken for the latter, but you'd be surprised how much I've happened across that… More
  Not be mistaken for the Led Zeppelin concert album, nor some movie called "How Weed Won the West". You'd think that it would go without saying that this film shouldn't be mistaken for the latter, but you'd be surprised how much I've happened across that film that doesn't even have a Wikipedia article while looking up this film. Still, it remains quite possibly the only thing with a title similar to that of this film that's more obscure than the TV show from the '70s, and that thing can only be found on DVD in Europe. Poor Bruce Boxleitner just can't catch a break, because if "Tron" didn't launch him into stardom, then lord knows that show wasn't going; but at least he's doing better than Richard Kiley, whoever that is, and I'm not just saying that because he's dead, because his career can only get more notice from here. I guess from the standpoint of having a cast of known performers, that show was anything but faithful, because this film is stuffed with then-big stars, seeing as how that was apparently what you did for most every epic back in the early to mid '60s. I guess I can't blame people for that, because they were stars for a reason, that is because they knew how to carry a film, even if they weren't the only thing that made the film good. Most female stars, on the other hand, couldn't act to save they're lives, so they were only famous for being attractive in a kind of starlette way that has dated so phenomenally, it's unreal (I'd still consider Marilyn Monroe's kind of starlette look hot, though), yet they're acting was never the only flaw in a film from back then, and while the bad actresses are actually rather lacking in this film, if they were here, they would still certainly not be the only issue in this film. The film wastes no time in slipping up on a fairly amateur level, with the first segment being riddled with repetition and absurd melodrama attached to an already structurally unbuyable romantic subplot. Still, the flaws only begin there, with others spilling right on in quite quickly upon the first of many painfully jarring segment transitions that repel you so far out of the film that it takes a little while to lock back in. Still, even when you do get a grip on the film again, you're still knocked back by flaws that are actually consistent between segments. While some romantic subplots are considerably more believable than others, just about every bit of romance - of which, there's more than you think -, as well as some other dramatic aspects, is swimming with melodrama, some of which is dismissable and some of which is downright painful. Another flaw that I earlier stated to have been unveiled within the first segment is repetition, as the film will often plague itself with familiar material, some of which is also found scattered all throughout each segment as yet another overly consistent aspect (Seriously, how many men are gonna propose to women they hardly know?), thus creating a blow to steam, intensified by the occasional piece of rushing, which can serve as a component to the film's ever so occasional, yet still rather overbearing matter-of-fact approach to some of the more history focused moments in the film. Indeed, the film is a sprawling mess of clunky dramatic aspects and repetition, and yet, the west isn't the only thing won in this film, as you would be rather hard pressed to find yourself ultimately won over by the film. Trust me, what I just said isn't as cheesy as this film gets to be, yet the picture, with all of its faults, really keeps you going, and does so with the help of, well, some pretty good tunes. The original songs are pretty top-notch, reflecting the tones and themes of the picture and standing as an absoulte joy to hear, even if they're only to be found at the intermission and bookends of the film. Music more prevalent and just as memorable is the score work of Alfred Newman, who may not be knocking things out of the park like he did with something like a then-later-to-arrive "The Greatest Story Ever Told", yet is still delivering on a sweeping, lively score that really sets the tone of the film, while making it an engrossing experience to hear. What makes it an engrossing experience for the eyes is the work of the myriad of cinematographers, all of whom deliver quite the number of then-innovative and now-still remarkably brilliant concepts of dizzingly elaborate and immerisve camera staging that gives the film the scope and transportive value needed to help sell the worldly dynamicity within this perhaps too heavily layered story structure, as well as enhance the thrills of some pretty fantastic action sequences, especially the train climax, which is nothing if not nothing seen then or hardly anything seen nowadays. This is a sweeping production for worthy subject matter that may go hurt by the spotty script, yet is generally well-structured and thoroughly charming, as well as entertaining. For this credit not only goes out the writers and directors, but also the star-studded cast of classic charismas. There is the ever so occasional performance that's not all that up to par... and I they're all delivered by the actresses, yet on the whole, every Joe Schmo and lady of the screen brings charisma to the screen, as well as some chemistry that may be hurt by the melodrama and some far-fetched choices in pairing, yet pulls through, more than it runs thin. This massive cast is merely one of the many key aspects to this film's pulling through all of its spottiness and fall-flat moments and ultimately coming off as, well, winning. In conclusion, the film faces jarring transitions between segments, yet still much consistency in melodrama and repetition, as well as degree of rushing and too much of a matter-of-fact tone on occasion, yet the film still "wins" you over, powered by worthy, sweeping subject matter, complimented by a lively score and stellar cinematography, as well as thorough charm, powered by across-the-board charismatic performances among the colorful all-star cast, thus leaving "How the West Was Won" to stand strong as a grandly entertaining and generally compelling classic piece of a collaborative epic. 3/5 - Good

• Jeffrey M

  
  Watching any movie filmed in panoramic Cinerama on the small screen represents a major compromise, however the blu ray helps make up for that fact with its' incredible picture. The film itself is a major feat, perhaps overly ambitious, in that it tackles too much and never lets… More
  Watching any movie filmed in panoramic Cinerama on the small screen represents a major compromise, however the blu ray helps make up for that fact with its' incredible picture. The film itself is a major feat, perhaps overly ambitious, in that it tackles too much and never lets you have a relationship with the characters. Still, you have to admire the awesome cast and visuals. Note to Wayne fans- his part as General Sherman is a very small role.

• Sarah B

  
  George Peppard is the true star of this film, he even gets the most screen time, so why doesn't he get the credit for it?! He outshines the greats: Peck, Wayne, Stewart and Fonda. An epic in terms of the cast, landscape, scale, and the lengthy period it covers. A true portrait of… More
  George Peppard is the true star of this film, he even gets the most screen time, so why doesn't he get the credit for it?! He outshines the greats: Peck, Wayne, Stewart and Fonda. An epic in terms of the cast, landscape, scale, and the lengthy period it covers. A true portrait of a fascinating bygone era.

Read all 9 featured audience ratings