Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

jimbo-53-186511 Drifters Gil Carter (Henry Fonda) and Art Croft (Henry Morgan) arrive back in Nevada (seemingly for Carter to pick up where he left off with an old flame only to discover that she has got married and left town). Carter & Croft soon learn that a farmer has been murdered and rather than bring the perpetrators in to face justice, the townsfolk take it upon themselves to dish out their own form of justice, but it seems that they are not entirely united on this matter...The Ox-Bow Incident is good as a concept and in many ways is probably ahead of its time. Thematically, it has, at the very least, probably proven to be influential on later film such as 12 Angry Men which focused on the notion of proving guilt rather than using suppositions or assumptions in order to reach a verdict. However, Hang Em High is probably a more recent film that shares much in common with the Ox-Bow Incident.Whilst its themes and ideology are worthy in themselves I sadly didn't find this film as compelling or involving as I hoped it would be. For a start, I found the narrative a little simplistic; everyone in the town is told that the farmer has been killed and they all believe it because someone told them that it's true?? I mean yes I can possibly believe it at a stretch, but with no real evidence it just seems a but dumb. Part of the plot has Carter coming back to meet his old flame and he does indeed bump into her later in the film, but what was the actual point of this meeting and what purpose did it have in the story??? Apart from giving Fonda the opportunity to practice his steely-eyed stare and give some more tough-talk I saw no real point to any of it. It's a waste of 5-10 minutes of screen time in my opinion, but given the film's short running time this only acts as a minor flaw.Once the bloodthirsty townsfolk catch up with our perpetrators then things do improve slightly; at this point we essentially get to the heart of the film here and some moral debating begins on how they should deal with these perpetrators. Whilst this in quite interesting, there's not really much depth injected into the script and you basically find a minority of people deciding that they want the perpetrators to face justice through the legal channels and others who want the perpetrators to face justice there and then. Unfortunately, it doesn't expand upon this and there isn't much input from the objectors or the bloodthirsty mob which for me would have added some weight to the film and made it slightly more satisfying.The acting is generally OK (although no-one really stood out for me) and at a shade over 70 minutes long it wouldn't take much time out of your life to watch this film, but given its high rating on IMDB I can't help but feel a little bit disappointed with what I got served up with here.

HotToastyRag This movie isn't really remotely similar to Rashomon, but it reminded me of it because it's the type of movie that really makes you think. The Ox-Bow Incident is a classic western about a lynch mob out for revenge for the murder of a local farmer. The murder isn't shown, and the deceased is never seen onscreen, but the characters in the film feel so passionately about their fallen comrade, they immediately form a posse. A couple of men, namely Henry Fonda, Harry Morgan, and Harry Davenport, are opposed to the movement, but even though they make their case that the townspeople should wait for the deputy to return-he's out at the moment-no one listens to them. But, since Henry Fonda gets first billing, he doesn't wait around while the angry mob tracks down the killers; he and the Harrys go with them to try and talk them out of it.While he'd have to wait another ten years before winning his first Oscar, this movie marked a turning point in Anthony Quinn's career. In the early forties, he was relegated to playing "ethnic parts", but in The Ox-Bow Incident, his character is written to be intelligent and cultured-as well as ethnic. Audiences took notice of him, and in the next couple of years he started getting bigger roles. However, it's Dana Andrews who really shines. The angry mob catches three men, Tony, Dana, and Francis Ford. Dana, a family man and the main spokesman of the three, maintains his innocence and gives a performance not many men would feel comfortable giving in 1943. He weeps and begs and shows enormous vulnerability; perhaps this movie was as much his audition for The Best Years of Our Lives as it was Henry Fonda's audition for 12 Angry Men.If you like movies that make you talk about it afterwards, like Town Without Pity or The Outrage, check out The Ox-Bow Incident. It's a pretty famous classic, but it's also very heavy. You might want to put the kids to bed before you press play.Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to adult material and violence, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

weezeralfalfa While its point is well taken that hot-headed vigilante justice is a more risky, if quicker and cheaper, form of justice than that achieved by jury trials, the screenplay has some significant problems, as reviewer edalweker, for example, pointed out:.....How did the false rumor that Kinkaid had been shot dead originate? This was the main reason for hanging the suspects. Certainly, the vigilantes(unofficial posse) should have checked to make sure this rumor was correct before they went out gunning for the perpetrator! The fact that one of the 3 suspects had a gun with Kincaid's name on it strongly suggested that he was killed and that the suspect, who claimed he "found" the gun, in fact had taken the gun from near Kinkaid's body. Since it turned out that Kincaid didn't die(was he wounded?), it's mighty mysterious that this suspect happened to 'find' his gun. If Kinkaid was badly wounded,"finding" his gun would be more understandable........The vigilantes had been told that some of Kinkaid's cattle had been stolen last night. A herd of Kinkaid's cattle was found near these strangers. Suspect Martin(Dana Andrews) claimed that they had bought them from Kinkaid yesterday, but hadn't been given a bill of sale. Mighty suspicious sounding!.....Thus, the vigilantes had seemingly strong suggestive evidence that these 3 had both killed Kinkaid and stolen his cattle. But, they hadn't checked out the truth of these rumors. It turned out that some of Kincaid's cattle had indeed been rustled, soon after the 3 bought their cattle, and that the rustlers had been caught, Thus, the unlikely claim that the suspects had bought the cattle without receiving a bill of sale, apparently was true. Otherwise, they might be a second group of rustlers! ....... Although many cases of lynchings involve little or no strong circumstantial evidence, this example purports to demonstrate that even multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence together can be misleading. Thus, an assumption of guilt should not be made without a thorough investigation......Of course, vigilante justice is more likely to be common where the judicial system is weak or corrupt, or too expensive and cumbersome. It was not obvious that any of these were true of this case, except that the sheriff happened to be away when these incidents supposedly happened, creating a temporary legal power vacuum......Is vigilante justice ever justified under the above conditions? I think so, but the participants should be held legally liable if they are proved wrong, and probably will be prosecuted even if they are right, if they can be identified.......I have an additional minor gripe. The character Rose Mapen should have been deleted, as she was only briefly present, and added nothing to the flow of the film. However, it was OK to mention her as the reason for Gil and Art coming to this small town, then being told she had left for San Francisco. See it at YouTube, at present.

John Brooks What this film manages to do in just over one hour, most films of the kind can't manage to produce all combined.After a little bit of a slow ordinary start, this film dives straight into its plot, development and ethical theme as the riders led by the anger of a couple of persuasive spearheads go on a quest to "find the killers". What ensues is the most excellently developed piece of Western/drama cinema, through an atmosphere of pure captivating intensity that never lets down. Nothing much is really happening and there is more discussion than actual event, and yet, it finds itself a way into the viewer's most careful attention, where there's a genuine sense of care for where the film will be going as it progresses. It's gripping, thought-provoking til the very end.The characters are very well written and the plot is full with a host of various characters, some of which are secondary but still important both to the general plot and their subplots that resolve on their own.There's a sensitivity and attention to detail here that aren't always easy to find in such films. It manages to be very grim and morbid and centered around death, and yet, not at all depressing to watch and instead very engaging and relentless.