Review of How the West Was Won (1962) by Kevin S — 30 Mar 2012

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.