Arizona (1940) User Reviews

A High Toned Skunk

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 30 July 2007]

In Arizona Jean Arthur repeats her Calamity Jane character from the earlier DeMille classic, The Plainsman. She's a tough pioneer woman, one of the founders of early Tucson.

Her dream man comes by way of a wagon train in William Holden who was making his first western with this film. Originally the part was offered to Gary Cooper who turned it down. I suspect that Cooper clearly saw that Arthur had more screen time. Holden who was under dual contract to Paramount and Columbia had no choice in the matter.

But by far the best one in this film is Warren William who is the suave villain of the piece. In The Big Country, Burl Ives describes Charles Bickford as a 'high toned skunk'. That phrase so very aptly describes what Warren William is all about here.

Previous to his arrival, the local bad guy was Porter Hall. But William with guile and cunning bullies Hall into a partnership who in turn sets him up with the local Apaches. Nobody can quite prove what's going on, but Holden says William has the odor of polecat about him.

There's a nice battle scene with the Apaches before the final showdown with Holden and William. Their final battle is a combination of the shootouts from both Stagecoach and High Noon.

Paul Harvey has a nice part as the Scottish merchant who is Arthur's business partner and Edgar Buchanan does one of his patented reprobate judge parts that he would do over and over in his career.

And we even get to hear William Holden sing I Dream of Jeannie. Nothing special and it's no accident he had no career in musicals.

Arizona is still a nice film tribute to our western pioneer spirit and it's one of Warren William's best screen characters.

Worthwhile Western

[krdement · 8/10 · 4 August 2007]

I am a fan of all 3 of this film's principals - Jean Arthur, William Holden and Warren William. This film is not the premier vehicle for any of their talents, however, it is a very entertaining western. First, if you have read some of the other comments, I want to provide a few corrections. William Holden is NOT a drifter - he is in the United States Cavalry. He does not appear and disappear. Early in the film he returns rather expediently (just like the Cavalry!) to save Jean Arthur when Porter Hall has turned the tables on her (so to speak) and has her at gunpoint. Holden then pops in and out of Arthur's office a time or two, while stationed in Tucson. (Presumably he is on duty from time to time!) Jean Arthur does not become feminine whenever Holden is around. To the contrary, she is in her usual, untidy, "male" garb whenever he is around - even when he proposes to her! The first time she dons a dress is on the eve of Holden's trip back to Nebraska to acquire feedstock for the ranch they are building - which is the reason he "disappears!" The dress, she makes clear, is new for the occasion - intended to remind him of what's waiting for his return! (It may well be her only dress - "special" for the occasion, and in anticipation of her married life!) She rides out to meet him with their new herd in her same- old breeches and hat! Oh yeah - she wears a dress on their wedding day!

Many negative comments have been made about the difference in age between Arthur and Holden. Actually, I completely disagree with the criticism - on several levels. First, from a technical standpoint, I find it fascinating that in this film the customary casting technique is reversed! Male leads are usually old enough to be the fathers of their co-stars! But when I look at Arthur in this movie, I fail to see a woman who is obviously older than Holden. I think Jean Arthur's age is always difficult to determine in film - if you are inclined to speculate on such matters. She seems rather ageless to me - and she certainly doesn't "show her age" in this movie. Even more to the point, however, I suspect that people who criticize the film on that basis are more influenced by other depictions by Hollywood of the Old West than by the reality, itself. Women lived extremely hard lives in the Old West. Plus, I have no doubt that the climate of Territorial Arizona would have rapidly aged a hard-working woman. Without modern moisturizers and astringents, I suspect a woman's skin began to look twice its age after a very short time in that harsh environment. Thus, if you do think that Arthur looks older than (an admittedly very young-looking) Bill Holden, I suspect that's just about what you should expect of a female in that environment when compared with a recent arrival from less harsh environs further east. (For a perfect illustration of this, just check out Barbara Stanwyck in So Big. The use of hands as a symbol in that movie is wonderful!)

The story is a little uneven. Just how the arrival of the herd on the very day Arthur is to pay off the debt will help her circumstances is not made clear. No prospective buyer is ever identified. Nor has Warren shown any willingness to accept cattle in payment. AND, After all, the herd was intended to be the basis of their ranch stock. But never mind! The cast is stellar. Warren William stands out as the villain. Holden is good in his first starring role. Arthur always looks and sounds good, even if she seems a little out of place in dusty Tucson - as opposed to an office on Capitol HIll! This is not a great western, but it is a good example of a TYPICAL western. THAT is its strength.

A different Western oozes with charm and reality

[SimonJack · 8/10 · 22 November 2013]

"Arizona" is a very enjoyable movie about pioneer settlement of the West. Without giving away the plot, let's just say that it has enough twists and angles to make it stand apart from the normal grind of Westerns. It gives us a little bit of all the various stock parts of Westerns – Indians, cowboys, cavalry, good guys, bad guys, guns and shootings, robbery and romance, sagebrush and scenery, horses and a stampede, a wagon train and cattle drive. But it's the way those bits are put together and woven into a nice story that sets "Arizona" apart and gives it the feel of an epic film.

Jean Arthur is excellent as Phoebe Titus. She's a self-assured, decent, hard-working, and tough Western gal with big dreams. We never learn why or how she got to Tucson on her own. But viewers are taken with her sincerity and toughness which has just a touch of humor. The men in the movie are also won over by her pies. I can't think of another Western that has a pie shop or stand in it.

William Holden is a delight as Peter Muncie. This is only the fifth movie in which he was listed in the credits. It's one of his early starring roles and his very first Western. Holden's character has a very likable, easy-going and pleasantness about him. A pity we didn't see more of that persona throughout his career. For most of his roles later on, Holden had a more straight or serious demeanor – even dour at times.

Another reviewer commented on Warren William's excellent role as Jefferson Carteret. He played the villain very well. William was a very accomplished actor who might have done some great films in the 1950s and 1960s. But he died in 1948 from cancer. He was just 53. He had played suave, sophisticated and intelligent leading men, and fiends and conniving crooks and scoundrels, equally well. I especially enjoy him as Perry Mason in the original movies about that fictional detective- lawyer.

A number of other character actors gave banner performances in this film. Edgar Buchanan, Porter Hall, Paul Harvey and Regis Toomey stand out. The direction and cinematography were excellent, and the musical score for this film was a delight. It received two Academy Award nominations, one for musical score.

Others have commented about the setting and feel of reality about the movie. "Arizona" was made in 1940, when it was possible to find space to shoot a film around Tucson that wasn't invaded by utility poles and lines, paved highways and other signs of modern times. The ramshackle settlement of the early town sure gives it a feel of reality. I'm not so sure, though, how accurate a picture that is of Tucson at the time of the story. It's taking place around the Civil War years. The town of Tucson wasn't incorporated until 1877, but the town got its start a hundred years earlier. Hugh Oconor is the founding father of Tucson. He was the military governor of northern Mexico and authorized a fort to be built there in 1775. Even before that, the very first development was the Mission San Xavier del Bac in 1700. The mission is still operating today and is a historic site south of Tucson.

Columbia Pictures built the set for the film, with a sound stage, a few miles west of present-day downtown Tucson. It sat idle for a number of years after the movie was made. Then, in 1960, it was fixed up and opened as an active movie set and tourist park. In time, more streets were added and some amusement events were staged – gunfights and bank robberies. Nearly 70 movies have been filmed in part or in whole in Old Tucson, as it is called. Most were Westerns, but a number of mysteries and dramas were made there – even a comedy or two. John Wayne filmed four of his Westerns in Old Tucson – "Rio Bravo," "McLintock," "El Dorado," and "Rio Lobo." A 1995 fire destroyed much of the set and sound stage; but the community rebuilt the movie set town and it is still open today.

This film is doubly synonymous with its location.

[rpgray7 · 8 March 2002]

The story line in this film is basically fictional, but real names of people who lived in Tucson, Arizona Territory, in the late nineteenth century are given to members of the cast, and the set that was created specifically for its production still exists just over the hill from the real Tucson of today. As someone who remembers visiting that set during filming in 1940, I am still impressed by the place and by this film. Jean Arthur's character was indeed a prototype of the independent frontierswoman . But even more important from the perspective of today as I stand among the remnants of the old set (still used, together with a sound stage on the property, to produce "Westerns") and look back sixty years just as the producers looked back sixty years for their story, I think of it as a story within a story. Anyone visiting Arizona today would do well to think of the film "Arizona" as a true picture of 1880 and, in another context, of 1940, and let their imaginations wander. The social attitudes and mores of both periods stand in great contrast to those of the 21st century.

Surprisingly good role for Jean Arthur; excellent Western

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 29 February 2012]

By coincidence, just as this film came along on TCM, I happened to be planning a trip to Arizona. Surprisingly, there's a fair amount of decent history here...no, not so much in specific facts, but in terms of what was happening in the period. And, if you want to know what the earliest years of Tucson were really like, this may give you a pretty good idea. It was filmed just a few miles west of Tucson at "Old Tucson" where several famous westerns have been made, and at what is now Saguaro National Park (west unit). So this movie has the right look and feel to it.

Knowing what the film was about in advance, I had a difficult time seeing Jean Arthur in the lead role. But, darn, she was very good here...although it's a very long way from films like "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and other comedies of hers in that era. Of course, she eventually did go on to star in "Shane". But this film is definitely against type for her.

Her costar -- William Holden -- is so young here (only 22) that you may have difficulty recognizing him! But he does just fine also.

Warren William is excellent as the bad guy you want to hate. The other character actors here do very well.

This is an excellent film, although there is one bit of illogical action. Apparently horses belonging to White cattle drovers run faster than horses belonging to Indians, since the cattle drovers outrode the cattle, but the cattle stampeded the Indians. Ah well, it moved the plot along.

Recommended.

An odd but enjoyable Jean Arthur film

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 6 July 2014]

"Arizona" probably marks the most unusual performance by Jean Arthur. Usually, this actress is known for comedies or romance but here she's in a western. This isn't that unusual, considering she's known for her performance in "Shane". However, here in "Arizona", she plays a completely different sort of role. She's a tough-as-nails broad--one who is the equal to any man....and don't you forget it!!

The film begins in Tucson, Arizona about 1861. It's a wild town--and not even much of a town at that. The only non-Indian or Hispanic woman there is Phoebe (Arthur) and you are introduced to her when she enters the cantina and holds all of men working for Lazarus Ward (Porter Hall) at gunpoint! It seems some of them stole from her and she's going to blow their heads off unless they return the money! Watching all this is a newcomer, Peter (William Holden) and, bizarrely, he's smitten!! She soon falls for him, too. However, there's a glitch in their romance-- he's a wandering soul and is only stopping by on his way to California. When he eventually leaves town, it leaves Phoebe to deal not only with the skunk Ward but his secret partner, Jefferson Carteret (Warren William). The two weasels plan on ruining Phoebe's budding freight business and when that attempt fails, Carteret plans on something even more devious. When Peter returns from California, he sees right through Carteret and you know by the end of the film one of them will be pushing up daisies!

This is a rather sprawling film with a little bit of everything in it. While the film isn't easy to believe, the acting is quite nice. I particularly liked William--who was magnificent in playing slimy rogues. And, here he's at his slimiest! Well worth seeing if a bit silly in places--it's the sort of western that's fun to watch but difficult to believe. Plus, too often the film relied on intertitle cards scattered throughout the film instead of actually SHOWING things they should have shown instead. Good but not great overall.

Very good period piece

[perfectbond · 7/10 · 16 March 2004]

At the risk of sounding jingoistic, this film shows in microcosm how the greatest nation the world has ever known, the United States of America, came into being. It was literally carved from the wilderness by brave frontier men and women who are played as archetypes of those heroes and heroines by screen legends William Holden (one of my favorites) and Jean Arthur (Mr. Deeds, Only Angels Have Wings, The Talk of the Town). The very precarious existence of America's pioneers is presented with stark realism in this entirely plausible film. For those who only celebrate the Fourth of July by enjoying the fireworks, let them understand the hardships (and triumphs) their ancestors faced . Terrific period drama. 7/10.

Ordinary oater with a quality cast

[jjnxn-1 · 7/10 · 11 October 2013]

Ordinary oater with a quality cast. Jean Arthur, always more at home in a business suit or city wear, seems uncomfortable in her role. She tries too hard to be at home in the western setting and therefore sticks out like a sore thumb. William Holden, still 10 years away from his mega-stardom, is more at home on the range and while callow makes a believable cowpoke. The rest of the cast is full of reliable supporting players, Edgar Buchanan is a standout, and the script isn't bad although it blows the climax by having it happen off screen. It also runs a little long, it could have been a half hour shorter with no loss to the story. For fans of the stars or westerns it's worth catching but nothing special.

Cast is great in a curious quasi-feminist western

[Spuzzlightyear · 6/10 · 4 August 2005]

The more unusual thing about this movie first of all, is that it presents a female character as the lead in a Western. You don't really see that happening too often (Oh OK, now that I think about it, Johnny Guitar, Way Down East, heck even Broken Blossoms). Jean Arthur is here playing the toughest gun slinging, hell raising Pie baker in the wild west! (well, OK, Tucson). Soon a wagon train heading to California comes into town, bringing William Holden with it. Arthur immediately gets goo-goo eyes for Holden, while Holden rather interestingly makes up an excuse about wanting to see the sun go down in California and finds a convenient reason to leave. Actually, it was quite funny watching Holden come and go all the time, making me believe that he was, excuse the expression, sowing his oats somewhere else. While Holden is who-knows where, Arthur has to put up with the advances of Warren William, playing a slimeball opportunist who, in something that really wasn't made totally clear, is clearly out to ruin Arthur's enterprise. Somewhat funny in it's sexism ways (Arthur just seems to become feminine in an instant whenever Holden is around) but a grand adventure nevertheless, Arizona is a good popcorn movie.

Authentic touches and unique characterizations

[grybar · 8/10 · 1 May 2013]

This is a refreshing western saga with well-defined performances of some unique characters. Adding to the overall quality, there is a strong current of authenticity in the staging, with both the gritty desert west (the scene is 1860's Tucson) and the settlers of that land making a strong showing. William Holden plays against type as an aw-shucks, boyish adventurer who is smitten with a bold, outspoken pioneer businesswoman played with gusto by Jean Arthur. Both characters have clearly-defined development arcs. While the plot is generally typical western fare, the narrative tends to bounce out of those well-worn ruts, including being mostly true to the period depicted and in the motivations of characters and groups. The video I watched was crystal-clear black & white. This is a western tale with a rich flavor.

"Eat your pie."

[utgard14 · 6/10 · 28 July 2014]

Fun but overlong western with a dynamite turn by Jean Arthur as a feisty pioneer gal that's as rough and tumble as any man you'll meet. She fights corruption and villainy in the form of Porter Hall and Warren William. She also finds time for romance with handsome (and considerably younger) leading man William Holden.

Arthur's the primary reason to see this. She dominates every scene. Also some good performances from Edgar Buchanan as a drunken judge and Warren William as a slimy crook. Holden's fine but he wasn't quite ready to be an A-lister yet. The romance element is one of the weaker parts of the film. Victor Young's Oscar-nominated score is excellent. It's an enjoyable western but, like I said, it goes on too long for such a simple story.

Letter from the set of Jean Arthur's "Arizona".

[sws057001 · 8/10 · 11 April 2013]

I have been a fan of Jean Arthur for many years, and the reason for this post is not so much to review the movie (which I enjoyed), but to share some trivia about the production. I have a letter from a man associated with the production, Charles Bimbo, and in his letter he describes working on the set and how Jean Arthur gave him the job of taking care of the farm animals that appeared in the film. His letter has the name of the film, and directors name on the envelope itself. On the back of the letter is a studio stamp from the picture.

It's just a nice piece of history, and I'm glad to own it. I have submitted an additional crew member to the cast and crew list, as he was not listed and I have historical proof of his role. It still is in excellent shape even after 73 years. Apparently he was a friend of my family and sent them an update of his life and times; just wanted to share.

Feminist western gives Arthur one of her grittier roles...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 30 January 2007]

"Well done, but seems to go on forever," was Leonard Maltin's verdict. Same here. It's a feminist's western, with JEAN ARTHUR strutting around like she thinks she's still playing Calamity Jane and striking an occasional male pose while discussing her business plans with good man WILLIAM HOLDEN and bad guy WARREN WILLIAM. It serves the role well enough but doesn't seem completely natural.

Her particular talents were better served by good comedy roles, in my opinion. What's more, she seems too mature to be a plausible leading lady for a 22 year-old--and very youthful looking--Holden. I recall reading that she didn't want Holden to be her leading man, and I can understand why. Gary Cooper wasn't available, according to Robert Osborne and Arthur finally consented to Holden's selection.

Arthur plays a pioneer woman with a lot of backbone, ordering men around, making plans that include a hubby and a good piece of ranch land and a future--always spunky and up to the challenge, whether it's a petty thief or a downright criminal trying to take over her business.

She never quite convinced me that she was completely at home on the range, while WILLIAM HOLDEN is very engaging in one of his less cynical roles and is refreshingly natural in a western role.

***** POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD *****

WARREN WILLIAM, too, is expert as a con man posing as a helpful friend to Arthur while in reality leading a gang of swindlers, and not above shooting his partners in the back.

It's a well mounted western with plenty of shooting and riding, lots of Indian extras and cattle herds--but some draggy spots before a climactic showdown between hero and villain, after which our hero and heroine head for the proverbial sunset as a married couple.

Fans of Jean Arthur and William Holden should enjoy this one.

Queen of the wild frontier

[Prismark10 · 5/10 · 11 September 2018]

Arizona is a sprawling and overlong western of the pioneer community in Tucson. It is handsomely produced and has unusual feminist subtext for the time.

Phoebe Titus (Jean Arthur) is the only American woman in the frontier in 1861. She is setting up a freight company but we first see her holding up some men at gunpoint who have stole from her.

Phoebe is a tough no nonsense woman. Peter Muncie (William Holden) is the young man on a wagon train who catches her eye.

Jefferson Carteret (Warren William) is the hissable villain. A secret partner with the smell of a pole cat to Lazarus Ward who are hellbent on destroying Phoebe's business by stealing her money and then giving it to her back as a loan. When the heat gets too much Carteret shoots anyone who could finger him in the back.

The film has good production values, a great villain but it needed to be tighter and shorter.

An Arthur Showcase

[dougdoepke · 5 October 2011]

Those opening scenes of a bustling Arizona frontier town are evocative as heck. Old Hollywood seldom came up with staging as realistic as this—the squalid shacks, the unwashed crowds, the pall mall front street. All provide a riveting sense of laying down roots of some kind, which, of course, is the premise of the movie. In fact, staging is a real pillar of the production (catch the crude little boardwalk over a rainy runoff that passes by quickly but shows the attention to detail).

The story amounts to a Jean Arthur showcase as she moves from hard-driving businesswoman to cattle ranch housewife in the pre-feminist style of the day. Still, she brings off the aggressive, dynamic side in convincing style. It's a demanding role and I came away with a newly found respect for her talents.

It's a pretty good story, mainly about freight haulers out-maneuvering one another to get in at the bottom of a new territory. Holden helps Arthur, while the slippery Warren William operates behind the scenes against them. He's a delicious top-hatted villain; however, the movie loses impact by finessing the showdown off-screen. It's a bold move focusing on Arthur instead of the boys shooting it out. But that way we lose the satisfaction of seeing the oily William get his just deserts.

All in all, it's an enjoyable A-western, generally underrated, but oddly lacking in memorable impact.

Worth seeing! Make that 7.5!

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 20 February 2018]

NOTES: The character played by Paul Harvey, Solomon Waters, was originally called Solomon Warner in the script. The name was changed for obvious reasons. Jean often calls him Sol or Wat in the actual movie. Also changed was a bit of dialogue in which Jean refers to him when overcharging her 25 cents for a needle as "an old Jew". This became "an old Scotsman". (Mind you, in my opinion the film would be improved a whole lot if most of the Harvey-Arthur material, which is dull both in the writing and in the acting, were cut out completely). Norman Deming, who is billed here as assistant director, co-directed with this movie's 2nd unit director Sam Nelson, two Columbia 1939 serials, Mandrake the Magician and Overland With Kit Carson. (I'm glad to say that the action material in Arizona is a vast improvement over Mandrake. I particularly like Nelson's pleasing habit of riding horses and wagons over the camera).

COMMENT: An attractively rolling title introduces this long, lavishly-budgeted epic western in which the players do wonders to overcome their somewhat cliched dialogue and formularized roles (though in 1940 they were probably less familiar as stock types of western characters).

It's good to see George Chandler in a fair-sized part as Hall's henchman. William plays the villain with his usual smooth assurance and Porter gives us his delightful characterization as a small-time crook. Holden is effective too and even gets to sing "I Dream of Jeanie" (which is then used as a romantic theme throughout) right through and a few bars of "Kiss Me Quick and Go" in a pleasing light tenor all his own. Miss Arthur repeats herself from The Plainsman.

There's plenty of action superbly directed by Sam Nelson with lots of running inserts as Indians bite the dust. Ruggles makes a commendable attempt to spice up the over-talky Jean Arthur scenes with tracking shots and often lots of extras milling around in the background. In fact, the opening series of tracking shots as Holden and his wagon train come into Tucson is a classic sequence which belongs on anyone's list of memorable scenes. No expense has been spared to recapture the epic sweep of Cimarron, though non-Arizonians might well be bored by the constant plugs for the ideals and aspirations of the Arizona Territorians.

It all comes to an effectively directed shoot-out climax though many western fans may feel cheated that it is shown through Miss Arthur's eyes and not through that of the protagonists. I thought it effective anyway. Paul Harvey has a major role which he plays somewhat indifferently. Addison Richards does not seem to be in the 127-minute release print. However, it is most attractively photographed, with realistic sets that convey the primitive squalor of the early west.

(Tucson) Arizona ~ yee-haa!

[jtsmithh · 6/10 · 30 May 2020]

Since I call Tucson home, it's fun to see this actual Sonoran Desert locale west of town, replete with its actual iconic saguaros, on the big ~ or small, where I saw it tonight, 5/29/20 ~ screen.

It's also fun to see screen icons Jean Arthur and William Holden, in this black & white period piece of a period piece. Haven't been out to Old Tucson Studios since a Gay Pride event some years back honored an iconic NYC Board of Education pioneer same-sex couple, Ruthie, and Connie z"l, whom I'm proud to call friends. How things have changed since 1940, not to mention the 1860's.

But am not into cattle raised and driven to be slaughtered, nor demonizing the Native Americans who were here first. Nor mustachioed bad guys doing the evil deed of stealing the little Western pioneer gal's land and business. That's more the domain of laughter as presented by another Tucson icon, the ever-popular Gaslight Theatre on the opposite side of town. And, the filming should never have been scheduled heading into Summer, with our merciless 105+°f temps. That had to have caused nasty problems for many if not most involved in the filming, such as actually dangerous dehydration and sunstroke.

But, a generous 6 stars thanks to Arthur's portrayal of an independent, feisty, self-respecting, pants-wearing (at least virtually) woman in that ante-bellum world. And it has that unique scenery. And it has horses; this pants-wearing little gal originally from Brooklyn, NY, has always loved horses.

The pies have it!

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 3 July 2017]

Arizona is directed by Wesley Ruggles and adapted to screenplay by Claude Binyon from a story by Clarence Budington Kelland. It stars Jean Arthur, William Holden, Warren William, Porter Hall and Edgar Buchanan. Music is by Victor Young and cinematography by Joseph Walker, Harry Hallenberger and Fayte Brown.

It's 1860 and feisty Tuscon frontierswoman Phobe Titus (Arthur) has grand plans to ignite a freight business. But when romance with drifter Peter Muncie (Holden) leaves her off guard, she could loose all to nefarious town competitors.

It was a much troubled shoot blighted by weather, cast decisions and suit executive expectations, add in budget issues and some bloke called Hitler being a looming menace, and the end product is not as envisaged by all. Yet in spite of it all, and with a weak plot not strong enough to carry a two hour film, it's not a half bad Oater saga.

Pic isn't bogged down by the central romantic thread, this is because it's nicely played and is merely one slice of Phobe's whole pie (she is a pie maker in the beginning of story). In the mix is the constant of Apache threat, who are duly on hand for action duties. There's the on-going fall out from the Civil War ticking away, the North/South rivalries given thought, the villainy - though not hard to spot - is sturdily played, while there's a host of colourful characters filling out the play. Finally, as a historical piece it earns its corn, the formation of Arizona's formative year most interesting.

It's old fashioned, but in a good way, and if not expecting an ebullient actioner then this has worth to the Oater loving crowd. 7/10

THE DRY HEAT WAY BACK WHEN...!

[masonfisk · 7/10 · 7 June 2021]

An offbeat 1940 Western starring Jean Arthur & William Holden. Arizona is in the process of being populated & the vendors who have staked businesses are kings (or in Arthur's case a queen). She happens to run a popular pie table & she doesn't take any guff from anyone (in a telling scene she bursts into a bar & confronts a pair of desperadoes who have stolen from her w/a shotgun, she gets her money back & then forces the duo to whip each other as punishment). Holden, on his way to California, happens to be a witness to that skirmish & over a pie they get to know each other w/Arthur proposing a partnership whereby he'd be her transport for goods (her competitor in town sells at exorbitant prices & she thinks she can give him a run for the money by selling cheaper). He leaves & returns sporadically while Arthur has to contend w/a nefarious supplier who hopes to run her out of business. Showcasing a refreshing feminine bent to a Western gets undermined by the notion that Arthur still needs a good man in her corner in order to win out the day but as it is, this film marks an interesting milestone in the history of oaters w/that rare female lead. Also starring Edgar Buchanan as the town judge.

Western lover's dream movie

[segstef · 10/10 · 27 May 2001]

This movie has every thing a western lover wants-shoot-out,cattle drive,Native American conflict,Calvarymen,strong leading lady character who is independent,but falls for the hero. and a hero who takes a supporting role,but grabs my attention every time he is on the screen. Different from most characters that William Holden plays, not cynical. The suspense at the end was so real; I could feel the same emotions as the character played by Jean Arthur.

One of the best black & white westerns I've ever seen

[BigJohnPilgrim · 10/10 · 24 February 2012]

I don't normally write reviews, but this movie really caught me up watching it on TCM. Jean Arthur, though older, is such a sympathetic character, a tough old gal whose heart is captured by a younger William Holden. I watched it for a while before checking out the credits and it struck me that the young man's voice sounded so much like William Holden but his youth had me fooled. Edgar Buchanan's Judge Bogardus was a nice change from the tool of the bad guys to a simple town drunk full of himself as the 'chosen' judge passing judgment on the streets for a drink at the bar.

I just loved the plot and dialog in this movie, and the way it stuck to the actual history of Arizona through the Civil War from the goods to the weapons. After reading the Trivia section, I was surprised to see it was also later on the set for Rio Bravo, one of my favorite John Wayne westerns.

Just a wonderful and authentic treatise on the early days of Arizona, everyone in it did it justice. Nothing was wrong with it, everything was right.

Elephantitis

[malcolmgsw · 3/10 · 9 June 2008]

It is reassuring to see that even in Hollywoods Golden period they could churn out overblown epics in the manner they to do today.Maybe i am old fashioned but i like a lot of action in westerns not interminable talk.There are only 2 worthwhile action scenes in the whole of this turgid boring 125 minutes.If you are looking forward to the final gunfight between Williams and Holden well forget it.the action takes place off screen.Ruggles seems to have no idea of pacing.It is sow slow it took me 2 attempts to watch this film right through.On the second time it vied with Switzerland v Czech Republic as to being the most sleep inducing.6 years later Ruggles went to London to make London Town which a musical weighed in at 126 minutes.It was a total disaster and effectively spelt the end of Ruggles career as a Director.So if you like westerns my advice is give this a wide berth.

A Western movie worth watching!

[sadenoo · 10/10 · 1 February 2007]

If you are a Lover of Cowboy movies as I am, you find this to be one of the best! When watching these kind of movies, you will find it more interesting if you look at the little things. The costuming is outstanding. The revolvers are right for the period. You can see that the money spent on sets was well worth it. This is not the Gene Autry 'soapy' kind of western. The characters have holes in their shirts; their clothes are worn; the hats are beat up. Had this film had a stronger male lead, like a Randolph Scott, or Errol Flynn rather than a very young William Holden, and been in color... In color you could then feel the heat and smell the sage brush, it would have been one of the most watched westerns ever. Jean Arthur is wonderful as she usually is in her movies. Edgar Buchanan is very funny. The casting is really great. William Holden does do a very nice job, but having him try to sing, must have been something expected at that time. No Sex, No bad language, amazing that today they make up for a weak script and acting with those two items. My thought is that it is too short at 121 minutes. I would like to have it go on for ever. A remake of this movie would be a treat.

A Magnificent Western

[jazerbini · 9/10 · 11 January 2018]

This is a great value western. It is worth to review Arizona, especially Jean Arthur, beautiful, and William Holden early in his career, in a nostalgic and authentic Western. The film shows the colonization of the American West with the intense conflicts between cattle ranchers, cowboys, gangsters and all sorts of adventurers who have moved to that wilderness of the USA, many paying dearly for their daring: with their own lives. What we see in Arizona is certainly no different from what has happened in the vast majority of American states. The images are perfect, people dress with what was possible in a backward and resourceless region. The physical types, all indications, are perfectly displayed, dirty, with ragged clothing. Violence prevailed in a region without law and without a minimum of justice. Everything here was very uncertain, one never knew if it would be possible to return to the place where one was and even if there would be a day after. Relations were too superficial and life too short. But it also shows the spirit realized of the people of the Wild West, and the character of Jean Arthur fully incorporates this spirit of struggle, of achievement. It is a magnificent film, worthy of being among the best westerns of all time. I believe that if it had been produced in color, surely today it would be appearing among the great westerns.

Too Much "Chick Flick" Shtick

[StrictlyConfidential · 5/10 · 27 August 2018]

Set in the year 1860 - "Arizona" (from 1940) was, pretty much, just a typical Hollywood "Chick Flick" cleverly masqueraded as a rugged, he-man Western.

The best moments within Arizona's 2-hour running time were, of course, when the chick character, Phoebe Titus was not on screen.

But, unfortunately - Since Phoebe's plight was the main focus of this tale's drama, she was present in the action more often than I would've liked her to be.

Anyway - Yes. Yes. Yes. There were some very satisfying scenes in "Arizona".

I mean - This production was filmed on a $2 million budget so it was bound to offer the viewer some good entertainment-value for their dollar.