I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

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 American Civil War has ended four years earlier and Texas valiantly still refuses to join the Union . Carpetbaggers from the north dominate the economic landscape sticking their talons in to the population of Texas . Rebel Ben Westman becomes a folk hero fighting both the carpetbaggers and army of occupation . Texas born federal army captain David Porter is ordered to hunt Westman down Carpetbagger is a word I've heard of for a very long time but it it's only recently that I've found out that it's a noun and derogatory term given to Northern businessmen who moved south to make a fast and cruel buck in the reconstruction of the South . You can rely on Americans to cheer the underdog and Westman is referenced in the opening narration as being a modern day Robin Hood so the audience quickly know whose side to takeOne thing that sticks out is that watching THUNDER OVER THE PLAINS in 2013 is that the entire story could easily be made today as a war drama set in Iraq or Afghanistan with very little modification where an Iraqi/Afghan born US army officer finds himself set against a childhood friend waging a war of resistance against American occupiers . Of course from a moral point of view the audience would then be on the side of the United States and the Westman character would be the standard Hollywood bad guy rather than the noble freedom fighter . On second thoughts it wouldn't be the same story at all That said THUNDER OVER THE PLAINS does have a rather timeless quality to it where audiences are allowed to cheer on someone who isn't necessarily a villain , just someone who is fighting for what he believes in and getting framed for something he didn't do . The film also manages to paint Porter as a man who has a dilemma of being part of a new America which means putting aside earlier friendships while having to do what a man has to do . Add to this the Technicolor cinematography and you've got a film that's far better than what could have been another B movie Western

Randolph Scott plays it perfectly straight as a post-war captain in the Union Army, stationed in Texas and a Southerner himself. He and his wife, Phyllis Kirk, are uncomfortable with their duties. Scott is supposed to protect the civilian authorities from the depredations of a gang led by Charles McGraw. But the civilians -- the wide-eyed and trembling Elisha Cook, Jr., and his dominant partner, the sneering and treacherous Hugh Sanders -- are worse than the gang. They overtax the locals, buy cotton for one tenth what they sell it for after they ship it to New York. For Scott, this is known as "role conflict," when a person is caught between two non-concordant roles -- loyal Texan and loyal Army officer. For the South, this is known as "reconstruction."Nobody knows how Lincoln might have handled reconstruction since he was assassinated at the end of the war. (He'd said the Southern states would be welcomed back into the union "as if they'd never left.") His successor, Andrew Johnson, was an unregenerate racist and a barely literate ex tailor who mismanaged the deal as best he could. His earnest hope was that the white aristocrats of the South, being gentlemen, would reestablish order and the slaves, now free, would assume their accustomed place as subordinates and servants. It didn't work out. Reconstruction was a disaster and order was maintained by the presence of Army troops for years. Seven years after the year of this movie, 1869, Rutherford B. Hayes found himself in a controversy concerning the electoral college and the popular vote, and apparently made a deal to withdraw the Army from the Southern states in return for the presidency. For the next ninety years the South would remain solidly Democratic and segregated.It's in this historical context that the movie's particular interest lies. It's not just another Western with a good sheriff against a band of evil outlaws and cattle rustlers. The role conflict that Randolph Scott was in was very real and generated by political circumstances. No nonsense about who's the fastest draw around here.It's one of Scott's best performances, full of complexity. The villains are clearly identified -- Cook and Brand, that scurrilous duo of miscreants. The movie's sympathy is obviously with the native Texans, most of whom are men of principle, including the gang leader, McGraw. He holds up the shipment of that tainted cotton all right, but he doesn't keep it for himself. He evidently returns it to those who rightly own it or he burns it.Scott is joined by an arrogant officer, Lex Barker, who does everything wrong and who puts moves on Scott's wife. He's another unlikable villain. (You can always tell the villains because they have no sense of humor.) Lex Barker does not perform celluloid magic but he's stolid in the part. As Scott's wife, Phyllis Kirk must have been genuinely uncomfortable. Stuck out there on the Texas plains, with her elegant accent and aristocratic features. She must have wondered what life was all about, how to cope with it all, how to live in the unfolding moment. (Her birth name was not Kirk but Kierkegaard.) It has its Western conventions but it's an attempt at a serious movie about a serious subject and Scott handles it well.

I love Randolph Scott Westerns as they usually manage to rise above the many, many mediocre and derivative films in the genre. Throughout the 1930s-60s, Hollywood churned out a bazillion of cowboy films and after a while, they almost all look the same to me--with the same clichés and myths about the West and the same general story lines. Yet, due to his excellent acting and believable persona, Scott was able to make a long string of these films and they almost always managed to be a bit better--and some even went on to become classics.Sadly, THUNDER OVER THE PLAINS is no classic. Part of it has to be because the story line is so familiar and unexciting. I've seen a ton of films about the Reconstruction era and this one isn't much to speak of--especially since it is so historically inaccurate. I am an American History teacher and understand that the Reconstruction era is highly misunderstood. Starting with such films as BIRTH OF A NATION, several decades of Hollywood films followed a fictitious Southern revisionist version of history. In this revisionist world, the Southerners were all gentlemen (forget that many owned slaves) and the dreaded "dang Yankees" in the form of "Carpetbaggers" flooded the South to take advantage of everyone. In D.W. Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION, these evil swine were only eventually put in their place by the brave men of the cloth. No, not the clergy, but the Ku Klux Klan--a hate group! While there is thankfully no Klan in this film to save the day, there certainly are the evil carpetbaggers and it's up to good Union officer Scott to save the day for the poor Southerners. Folks, this didn't happen--never did.Even if the story weren't a lot of historical hogwash, the film is tepid and ordinary throughout. The characters seem too often "black or white" and Lex Barker seemed more like a psycho than an officer (and probably would have been hanged for his actions). Please, give me a film without the one-dimensional characters AND Randolph Scott, such as RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, RIDE LONESOME or THE TALL T--not this mediocre and tepid film.

This just became one of my favorite Randolph Scott movies.First, there's an intelligent script by Russell Hughes, who wrote for some good radio shows like "Nightbeat" and Alan Ladd's "Box 13", as well as such films as Anthony Mann's "Last Frontier", Delmer Daves' "Jubal", and even the best of the giant-bug movies, "Them".Then, there's the look and feel of the film. Director Andre De Toth and his great cinematographer Bert Glennon (who had done remarkable work with the likes of Josef von Sternberg and John Ford) light and shoot for realism and emotional impact. Glennon had also shot "Man Behind the Gun" (available on the flip side of this DVD), so I suppose director Felix Feist could be blamed for that film's phony-looking stage sets. Here, in "Thunder... ", a barroom scene looks like it was shot in a real barroom (foreshadowing Clint Eastwood's "natural lighting" technique by decades) and exteriors are shot outdoors. To be fair, the Feist film may have had budget or producer issues, but given that film's potential (dealing with water rights, corrupt politicians, the possible secession of southern California, even the semi-legendary Joaquin Murrietta as a supporting character) it still seems like a typical, entertaining, 40's-style B-movie. "Thunder...", released the same year, 1953, seems more forward-looking, more compelling, more of the age of the "adult" Westerns, even though the literally flag-waving ending with its narrative paean to the great state of Texas kind of pulls us back to B-movie-land.