High Noon

This is a 2000 made-for-TV remake of the 1952 classic Western with Tom Skerritt in the Gary Cooper role. Both films are based on the novel "The Tin Star" by John W. Cunningham.

Skerritt plays just-retired, just-married Marshal Will Kane. He and his bride are informed that a man Kane put in the slammer years ago has been paroled; this owlhoot swore he'd kill Kane when he got out and he's coming in on the noon train. His henchmen are even waiting for him at the train station. Kane and his bride are encouraged to flee for their lives and start their new life together. Why not? -- he's not even a sheriff anymore. But the new Marshal won't arrive for another day or so and something in Kane prevents him from running like a cur with his tail between his legs. He has about an hour and fifteen minutes to marshal up help to make a stand. In addition to all this, his wife is a Quaker who doesn't believe in violence and threatens to leave him if he insists on staying and fighting.

One interesting facet of this Western is that the story plays out in real time. The film runs 88 minutes and Marshal Kane has just over an hour to prepare for the confrontation.

Skerritt does a good job depicting an aging man who is about to face a fight-to-the-death, most likely alone. I'm sure Marshal Kane has better things to do, like enjoy his honeymoon with his beautiful wife (Sussanna Thompson), but his manhood and sense of duty force him to courageously make a stand. This reminds me of times back in High School where I was scheduled to fight someone (after school or whatever). I knew at such-and-such time I was going to face so-and-so and a bunch of people would be watching. The anticipation wasn't fun but my manhood wouldn't let me back down. Of course there's no comparison since Marshal Kane is anticipating a gunfight wherein he could very likely die, not a mere fistfight, but if the anticipation before a fistfight is intense, how much more so a gunfight?

Some criticize the story of "High Noon" on the grounds that it makes the citizens of the average Western town out to be a bunch of cowards but, really, there are no less than four people who are willing to help the Marshal. Many of the others who decline have valid reasons for staying out of the fracas, although some are just plain yella.

Since Kane's new wife is a Quaker the film brings up the idea of total pacifism. While the idea is attractive and I understand her reasoning, total pacifism does not work in this present world. The New Testament does not support the idea of absolute pacifism. It teaches, rather, that pacifism is proper in certain situations and not in others. Jesus' ministry team had a treasury box with loads of money and some of his workers carried swords for protection from thieves and murderers. Also, Romans 13 clearly states that the righteous laws of human governments are God-ordained for the purpose of punishing criminals, including the right to execute when appropriate. Even in cases where pacifism is called for a disciple is not to idly sit on his/her rump but to fight on a spiritual level and overcome evil with good. The vast majority of sane Christians realize this, but there are a few extremists who refuse to be BALANCED with the Scriptures on this subject and insist that conflict and especially armed conflict is NEVER appropriate. Kane's wife in the film is such a person, but perhaps she'll discover the error of her beliefs. In any case, "High Noon" makes an important point: Some people are so morally degenerate and evil that execution is the only just ultimate reaction (notice I said "ultimate").

There are quite a few good parts, e.g. Kane's brief talk with the wife of a coward, the church scene and, of course, the ending gunfight.

As for comparisons to the original film, I have no bias or nostalgia. It's been years since I saw it (the '52 version) so it's not fresh in my memory, but I don't see how this remake pales in comparison as many of the reviewers here contend. This rendition is in color, has a good score, good actors and locations (CL Ranch, Calgary, Alberta). What more do you want? It may not have the cinematic pizazz of modern Theatrical Westerns but, if given the choice between the two, I'd probably choose Skerritt's version over the original. Besides, I loathe black & white.

So, why not a higher rating? Despite the story's potential and the anticipation of the gunfight, something prevents "High Noon" (both versions) from being truly captivating. In fact, it almost has a laid-back vibe. Needless to say, those with ADHD should avoid like the plague. Don't get me wrong, I love great drama and intelligent dialogue-driven stories but something needed done to make it a bit more engrossing and emotionally stirring. Still, this is a very worthwhile Western.

GRADE: B

This one is worth watching but falls far short of the original. The absence of almost any music for much of the movie is disappointing. The intermittent injecting of Ritters singing and the distinctive "box drum" beat throughout the original is genius. The absence of the clock shots was catastrophic. That was the one thing that instilled the intensity of the moment. Remember, this story takes place in less than two hours, just a little longer than the play time of the movie. Michael Madsen, dressed as Woody from Toy Story, was hilarious. Tasselled gloves!!?? Good Lord..!! I did appreciate story line dedication. Set detail was perfect. Not sure why they chose mud instead of dust for the streets tho. All in all the characters were well portrayed.

This is a very good movie and Skerrit & Alonso give Cooper & Jurado a run for their money. But, it is not up to the drama, tension & insights into human nature of the original movie. Besides, what is High Noon without the song by Tex Ritter?

Michael Madsen is the definitive bad man. It is too bad his time on screen is so limited.

For what it is, this is a dandy and should be seen & enjoyed by all. Just don't think it will be taking over for the original! No way!

Is it possible to improve perfection? Why try? I saw the original HIGH NOON(1952) when I was six years old, and have seen it hundreds of times since. It is more than just a movie to me, it became the moral code for which I've lived my life. Making tough decisions, I would often (in my mind) hitch up my belt and walk out to face Miller and the old gang. So this new entry didn't have much of a chance with me, I guess. Legend says that the original was first produced without the quick shots to the clocks and the actors faces, and the great Tiomkin score and Ritter ballad. It was brought back in, re-edited and re-scored and a great movie was born. This one needed more than that. Too often in this newer version, the plot was tediously pre-chewed for us, and needless scenes inserted to let us know for sure what was going on. This new version cried out for someone to sing the ballad at the conclusion, but it was not there. However I did find some good points in the newer version. the casting was pretty good, and Madsen as Frank Miller was genius. Guess I'm stuck in the 50s, huh?

I was originally going to pass on watching this one, until I saw in the commercial that the climactic gunfights were filmed in Saving Private Ryan-O-Vision. (I know of no other way to describe this distinctive look--which I realize has been used well before Saving Private Ryan was ever released--and if anyone know how this style is achieved, please contact me via e-mail.) I'm kind of a sucker for that particular technique, so I figured I'd give it a try. Having seen the original only a couple days beforehand, I was fully prepared to be able to pick it apart like crazy.

I was immediately stricken by the opening shot. The silhouettes of Frank Miller's gang against the desert sky was a beautiful image that impressed me right out of the gate. Unfortunately, it became all too apparent that it was made for television, using the many simple, money-saving camera techniques seen in many made-for-TV movies. Aside from that, something just seemed missing from this film, and I just can't put my finger on it. It didn't have the spirit of the original film, nor did it involve me emotionally as the 1952 version did. The aforementioned gunfights were very well-filmed, and a tad bit more exciting than the original, but due to the emotional content, they were much less engaging. Still, though, it was an enjoyable movie.