Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

ResoluteGrunt Perhaps a little historical perspective might assist some of today's viewers of this film. (Those viewing the film in 1939 would have been naturally much more knowledgeable of that history than most viewers today.) The film "Stand Up And Fight" (USA, 1939) depicts a fictional story within a complex and multi-faceted historical background. The story is set in 1844 Cumberland Maryland, which became a key east-west point along the westward settler route through the Appalachian Mountains, and a key north-south point along the underground railroad assisting escaped slaves -- when the B&O Railroad opened in 1842, the nation's first Telegraph lines went operational, and the C&O Canal opened in 1850 -- all using rights of way along the same Potomac River that flows past Cumberland and on down past Washington DC.Within this context the story concerns a pre-Civil War racket involving the capture and reselling of fugitive slaves in a key border location between abolitionist North and slavery South just as the railroad was beginning to compete hard against the stagecoach and wagon trains, and the canal was about to move huge quantities of coal out of the mountains. Most of the laborers building the railroad, the canal, the telegraph and the coal mines were uneducated and impoverished recent escapees from the British-oppressed serf plantation of Ireland.Mid-way along that 120-mile Potomac River route between Cumberland and Washington is strategic Harper's Ferry, where the Shenandoah river meets the Potomac and where John Brown's Raid on an armory in 1859 began to galvanize large portions of the nation's public opinion on each side of the slavery/secession issue. At the time of Brown's raid, Harper's Ferry was in the big slavery (Confederate) state of Virginia, which was also the state just across the river in Cumberland in the abolitionist (Union) state of Maryland.The American Civil War began in April 1961. West Virginia became a state a few months later following the Wheeling Conventions of 1861, in which abolitionist delegates from 30 northwestern Virginia counties decided to break away from Virginia. West Virginia immediately became a key Civil War border state and was formally admitted to the Union in June 1863. West Virginia was the only state to form by separating from a Confederate state, the first to separate from any state since Maine separated from Massachusetts in 1820.The north-south terrain of the Appalachian Mountains is what enabled General Lee to move a huge Confederate army through the Shenandoah all the way north into Pennsylvania to meet a similar huge Union army at Gettysburg – far behind Northern "lines" – during the first three days of July in 1863.

alexandre michel liberman (tmwest) When you see a film made in 1939 like this one you can be sure, with few exceptions that some of it will age and look ridiculous, some of it will age but will be interesting because of a certain historical value, and some of it will not age at all. What did not age in this film is the charismatic performance of Wallace Beery, playing a kind of likable bad guy, rough and unscrupulous . What aged? The fistfights of Beery and Robert Taylor that look like the film was sped up. Also the good guy Taylor showing his kindness by selling his slaves only as a family when he goes broke. The real kindness would be to let them go free. Interesting are the scenes that show the race between the train and a stagecoach, reminding us of "Dodge City", released in the same year and also the train being pushed on a hill by the passengers, because the engine is underpowered.

MartinHafer Before I start, I would like to point out that the film was set in 1844 and practically everyone uses revolvers--even though this sort of gun was super-rare at that time. Revolvers would become more common in the 1850s-1860, but in 1844 you just didn't see them because they were so new. Yet, oddly, EVERYBODY seems to have one in the shootout near the end of the film! The revolver was NOT a reliable weapon and few could afford them if they could even find one back then! Oh, well, there are worse historical mistakes I've seen in other films...and I notice them, as I was a history teacher.The story is one of the stranger ones I've ever seen concerning slavery. It isn't really bad...just very, very unusual--especially in its way of portraying the fugitive slave trade. The film begins with Robert Taylor selling off his plantation and slaves because of his debts. It's obvious that he's pretty attached to his slaves and makes sure the families aren't separated--but he STILL sells them like they are property. So, seeing him working for the abolitionist cause later in the film is a bit of a surprise.A bit later, officials with the B&O Railroad try to hire Taylor as an agent to investigate the illegal slave trade and how it might relate to a local transportation company. I liked seeing the old fashioned trains from the 1840s that you see in the film, but Taylor wasn't as impressed nor was he willing to take the railroad's offer. However, oddly, investigating this trade is EXACTLY what Taylor ends up doing--and it hits close to home when one of his old slaves is killed by the scum behind the scheme.Taylor's nemesis throughout the film is the mean and blustery Wallace Beery. His acting, as usual, is far from subtle and he chews up practically every scene in which he appears. As a result, Taylor's good acting is all the more obvious! Overall, an interesting film--mostly because other films made around the same time didn't seem to care much about the plight of slaves. By comparison, think about the way Blacks are portrayed in "Gone With the Wind" which also came out the same year. Sure, it's a great film, but it also made slavery seem not so bad! So "Stand Up and Fight" should at least be given some credit for its rather progressive theme. The only major complaint I had about the film was the ending--it seemed a bit weak.

bkoganbing In casting Robert Taylor in Stand Up And Fight, MGM was trying to broaden his appeal. His first few films established him as a handsome, but callow youth. Camille was a typical part for him. In doing this film, A Yank at Oxford, and Killer McCoy, MGM was trying to create a more masculine image for its heart throb.Taylor plays the impoverished heir of a plantation in Maryland who is forced to sell his assets which of course in that society included black slaves. He's forced to go to work for a living and he gets a job with the new Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The B&O's main competition is a stage and freight line which does a side business in capturing runaway slaves and returning them to their masters. The guys doing this are Charles Bickford and Barton MacLane with a wink and nod from manager Wallace Beery.It's quite a culture shock for Taylor. He's grown up believing that blacks might be human, but of an inferior brand. The business that Bickford and MacLane are in disgusts him. Taylor and Beery got good notices for this film. Starting out as antagonists both in business and generationally, they gain a grudging respect for the other.The depiction of blacks as menials is the reason Stand Up And Fight is not broadcast too often. You run into a peculiar conundrum in dealing with movies about slavery. Because of the position they're in blacks have to act as subservient simply to survive and that in itself becomes offensive.Roots changed all of that, but by that time Robert Taylor and Wallace Beery were gone as was director Woody Van Dyke. Stand Up And Fight surely isn't Roots by any means, but considering the era it was probably groundbreaking for its day, as was Paramount's Souls at Sea a few years earlier. Not many films dealt with slavery at all.