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

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

RELEASED IN 1968 and directed by Vincent McEveety, "Firecreek" stars Jimmy Stewart as a farmer living on the outskirts of a small town of 'losers' where he's the 'honorary sheriff.' When a group of ne'er-do-wells comes to town he's compelled to take action. Henry Fonda plays the leader of the rabble-rousers while Inger Stevens appears as the quiet woman who sparks his interest. Gary Lockwood plays the top troublemaker with Jack Elam & James Best in tow. BarBara Luna is on hand as an irresistible squaw and Robert Porter as the "stable boy," the catalyst.The director was a reliable TV director of shows (e.g. Star Trek) & movies, but "Firecreek" was his first theatrically-released film. While his oeuvre includes a handful of other theatrical films, he mainly stuck with TV. I point this out because "Firecreek" has a bit of a TV Western feel to it, which isn't to say it's not a solid Western, it's just not on the level of the contemporaneous "Bandolero!", also starring Stewart. The build-up is long and low-key, but the dialogues are good for the most part and you get to know the characters and their situation in a remote town of 'losers,' as Dean Jagger's character humbly describes them.Speaking of the town, this is a decidedly town-bound Western, with some scenery shots at the beginning. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as the celebrated "Rio Bravo" (1959) was a town-bound Western, but this limits the movie. In other words, don't expect a wilderness Western with numerous breathtaking scenic shots in the background, e.g. "Jubal" (1956).Stevens plays the notable intelligent lady that trips the trigger of Fonda's character. Unfortunately, she'd be dead less than two years after the release of "Firecreek" from (supposedly) intentional overdose. She was only 35; what a shame.The producers made a good decision to NOT make Fonda's character a one-dimensional villain. Actually, the man's nothing of the kind, but he has to fulfill his part, his duty, in order to maintain the respect of his men. The success of the movie all depends on if Stewart can deliver the goods when the protagonist is finally forced to make a stand, come hell or high water. And he does so superbly.THE FILM RUNS 104 minutes and was shot in North Ranch, Agoura Hills, California, as well as Warner Brothers Burbank Studios with establishing shots in Sedona, Arizona. The screenplay was written by Calvin Clements Sr. ADDITIONAL CAST: Morgan Woodward, Ed Begley, Jay C. Flippen, Jacqueline Scott & Brooke Bundy.GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

I don't know how I have missed this one! I cannot think of a human dilemma that is not sensitively addressed in this film. never been a James Stewart fan, but I've never seen him pull off his one trick so well. but the real stars are the supporting cast, and the evocative screenplay, along with imaginative direction. I have always thought of jack elam as the prince of baddies, but here he is almost shaded by his compadres, whose personalities are much more developed than in an average western. henry Fonda puts in another fine turn, as the world-weary outlaw leader. his eyes in the final scene are alone worth the price of admission.even minor players are allowed to contribute significant lines. all -in -all, a very refreshing change from the spaghetti westerns of the time, and harking back to classics such as "the gunfighter", and my personal all-time favourite, "gunfight at the OK corral".

The plot is really rather simple, but has lasted as long as the western: Henry Fonda and his band of rugged, uncouth outlaws ride into a "farm town", ran by a "farm sheriff", up to no good. Jimmy Stewart is the sheriff, just a mind-his-own-business, genial, wise and respected member of his little town who doesn't want any funny business or trouble, but the beauty of this western is he'll get it regardless. When we get a good look at Stewart (as Johnny Cobb), the film goes out of its way to portray him as a non-violent man who doesn't seem like the kind of person capable of drawing a weapon opposite gunslingers more than willing to shoot or harm anyone that crossed them. Bob Larken's (Henry Fonda) bunch is a nasty brood, each actor blessed with interesting faces and able to convey a dark streak making them wholly unpleasant. They interrupt a sermon preached by "fire and brimstone" preacher Ed Begley (whose voice carries gravitas and bluster), with disgruntled Gary Lockwood (as the always-looking-to-pick-a-fight Earl) sawing away inside, visibly eager to put a bullet in somebody, leaving the "church" (basically a store used as a place of worship) just gnawing on some way to get even with the preached word aimed in his direction. A complaint: Why is it that in most westerns, the gospel song sang is "Bringing in the Sheaves"?!?! When James Best (Roscoe on Dukes of Hazzard and a few memorable Twilight Zone appearances) tries to rape Meli (secretly Cobb's brother's half breed wife), Cobb's "limp brain" stable boy, Arthur (a sympathetic Robert Porter, who looks to Cobb for guidance and wisdom) shoots him as a means to protect her, spurning the wrath of Earl and his colleagues (including sleazy Jack Elam and scar-faced Morgan Woodward who hardly speaks but produces a menace that talks for him). Because he has remained peace-minded and willing to tolerate Larken's gang of irritating galoots, Cobb is finally pushed over the edge when Arthur is a victim of their rage. The final twenty minutes, after a grueling night where his pregnant wife suffered through a difficult labor not yet producing birth, has Cobb, belly full of distaste and anger towards the outlaws plaguing his town, decides to pack a pistol and face off with Larken. "Firecreek", plot-wise is unremarkable and we have certainly seen better westerns starring Fonda and Stewart. Still these pros are sincere and have conviction (conviction for where they stand, criminally or honorably depending on their ideals and principles) in their parts. Seeing Cobb enter, hesitantly and reluctantly, into the town bar as Larken's gang tears up the saloon, Stewart subtly informs us that his character is in a very precarious, uncomfortable situation. You often here in the dialogue that by morning these cretins will be gone, if the town can just outlast their uncivilized, obnoxious behavior throughout the night. The results of the film, that violence will erupt and the outlaws pay for their sins, is unsurprising and expected. Fonda is close, although a bit of humanity shows itself when on screen with Inger Stevens (as a local woman tending to his bullet wound) as he recovers from injury, to the character he portrayed in "Once Upon a Time in the West", certainly in that he will stand behind his boys, regardless of how they act towards others, and use violence if necessary to be a "leader". I don't think we fault Stewart for taking a stand, although unlike "Firecreek", his Mann westerns weren't always as black and white as this film. Does show the Peckinpah approach to the 60s western in how vile and filthy the outlaws are, as well as, the level of violence presented on screen. Considerably aged, Stewart is even more effective, I think, because his character "gave up opportunities" in order to settle in this farm town in the middle of nowhere, with citizens all "running away" from life. Great part for Dean Jagger as a shop owner who speaks about the travails of unfulfilled life, not speaking favorably of the town he calls home. Stevens, a fine actress, proves here just how much a tragedy it was she would commit suicide just a few years later…it's too bad because, along with "Hang 'Em High", "Firecreek" proves she had potential (her best work was on Twilight Zone, I believe).

The low budget and 50-something Jimmy Stewart playing a 30-something farmer cause many people to dismiss this western. I saw it on AMC recently and they gave it only two stars. However, this is a taut character study where the acting is just wonderful. The two stars (Stewart and Fonda) are good, as usual, but the supporting players really bring out the flavor of the old west. Character actors the likes of Jack Elam, James Best, and Gary Lockwood are excellent, multi-layered villains. For my money, the best acting is an understated performance by Robert Porter as the simpleton Arthur. He plays the character with the just the right amount of childish dignity and enthusiasm, so that his portrayal is truly touching. A very nice way to spend an afternoon.