IMDb > Westward Bound (1944) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Westward Bound More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 3 reviews in total 

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

better than average

7/10
Author: tomquick from illinois
15 March 2009

By the 1940's the format for the 3 pals western was pretty well set, and here we have the Trailblazers. The budget values are pretty apparent, especially some stock footage of Steele at the beginning riding down a dirt road past telephone poles. The actors don't even bother with stage names.

The action is good. Battlin' Bob and Maynard each go more than a few rounds. Even Hoot Gibson does a little fighting. The shtick with him throwing lit dynamite at the villains reminds me a lot of Walter Brennan's turn in Rio Bravo. Both Hoot and Walter were getting up there in years, cackling away and neither very flexible anymore.

At 50 minutes in length, this was intended for Saturday afternoon matinée filler. It interests me how much these B westerns presage TV drama. The target audience has a short attention span, and are shocked into alertness every five minutes with some kind of a racket - shooting, galloping, fighting, whatever. These films create a mood. The plot and acting are incidental. While this one is a lot like all the rest, I think it's better than average as a mindless Saturday afternoon trip down memory lane.

Was the above review useful to you?

Only Mildly Interesting at Best

Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio
12 December 2002

This Western is too slow-moving and routine to be more than mildly interesting. It did have some potential, but it doesn't deliver more than an occasional good moment, and it just doesn't give you a lot of reasons to pay close attention.

It is set in the Montana territory, where a gang of politicians and other lowlifes has been using intimidation and legal tricks in an attempt to force some ranchers off of their land. As the movie begins, the ranchers call in the Trailblazers (Ken Maynard, Hoot Gibson, and Bob Steele) to match wits and fists with the bad guys. Quite a bit actually happens after that, but it never really seems to hit high gear. All three Trailblazers are likable, but here they lack energy most of the time, and neither they nor the crooks ever make you believe that they care all that much about what is going on. As a result, it's at best only a mildly interesting movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Painful to watch.

Author: lartronic from Akron, Ohio.
4 February 2001

If you want to watch a cheap western with absolutely no surprises or thrills whatsoever, you'll still have a hard time watching this. If I had to put the badness of this film into one word, it would be this: Monogram. Funny how Monogram stayed in business for so long churning out bad movies like this. To make things worse, this was at the tail end of Ken Maynard's career. Still, it's interesting to see Maynard along with Hoot Gibson and Bob Steele.

Was the above review useful to you?


Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history