Battle of Rogue River (1954) User Reviews

Mighty Despicable Treason

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 24 December 2014]

Battle Of Rogue River is fought by George Montgomery as a newly arrived major in the Oregon territory who is charged to bringing the Indians under Chief Mike down and when that's done the path to admission as a state will be smooth. A very important issue for many reasons, those expressed in the film and with the Civil War looming another free state in the union. Curious that that fact was never brought up in the film.

Montgomery finds the discipline lax at the fort and soon puts that to right. As for the Indians and the tribe is never mentioned it is probably the Shoshone and they've been causing havoc the way Cochise and the Apaches were in Arizona. It's either beat them or deal with them.

His new orders opt for the latter, but some sinister forces have their own reasons for keeping Oregon wild and free. They pull some mighty despicable treason to do it.

Evenly matched against Montgomery is frontier girl Martha Hyer who's full of sass, she's the daughter of the post sergeant Emory Parnell. And leader of the civilian militia Richard Denning has more than a passing interest in her.

Battle Of Rogue River is produced by Sam Katzman who over at Monogram Pictures never saw the kind of budget this B western had. A good western it's still the kind of item that was showing up frequently on the small screen for free.

Fast-paced and enjoyable "B" Western

[herbqedi · 7/10 · 6 April 2003]

12 O'Clock High Meets Virginia City in Castle-directed "B" programmer. George Montgomery is adequately tight-lipped as non-nonsense Major taking over failed outpost. Richard Denning gives a marvelously multi-dimensional performance as Stacey Wyatt, as militia leader with a hidden agenda. John Crawford adds an interesting interpretation of the Hugh-Marlowe-type role of reformed reprobate. Martha Hyer provides eye candy and adds a bit of sass to boot. Good, clean, fast, and unchallenging fun.

Assembly Line Western Demands Nothing...Competent Not Compelling

[LeonLouisRicci · 6/10 · 7 January 2017]

There are a Few Things of Interest in this "Assembly Line" Picture that was made in the Middle of the Decade Long Love Affair with the "Western".

Directed with a Surprising Lack of Style by Horror Manipulator William Castle. It has a Strong B-Movie Cast Playing Cookie Cutter Characters. Nothing here Elevates but it is Competent, in Color, Widescreen and Short (71 min).

It is one of those Professional Only Entertainments that 1950's Movie Going Audiences were Offered that didn't Give a Hoot about Anthony Mann or Budd Boetticher. It's sort of a Pedestrian Escape and one of Many Traditional Following the John Ford Mantra.

Try and Catch all the Interesting Names of the Leading Characters. Slightly Above Average of its Kind and Plays it Safe all the way.

It Stars Middle Budget Stalwarts George Montgomery, Richard Denning, Michael Granger, as "Chief Mike" the most polite and even handed "Savage" You're likely to see, and Martha Hyer as the Only Woman in the Movie, a Feisty Female with Brains and Beauty.

Minor western with a decent cast.

[Poseidon-3 · 29 July 2004]

Probably the most distinguishing feature about this "B" western is the choice of names for the characters. One of the leading men is named Stacey, the leading lady is named Brett and their Native American adversary is named Chief Mike! Montgomery plays a zero-tolerence, by-the-book Major who comes to an Oregon fort with orders to solve the Indian problem. There have been skirmishes back and forth across the title river and he's been given instructions to end the conflict, one way or another, to pave the way for Oregon statehood. (It does complicate matters that his orders from headquarters change on a dime!) Denning is the head of a civilian militia who is also heavily involved in the fighting. Both men have their eye on a Sergeant's daughter (Hyer) who has a mind of her own. Finally, some misunderstanding and manipulation leads to a final stand off between the Cavalry and the Indians. There isn't a lot that's particularly special about this film, one of dozens of this kind, but it does entertain and is brief enough not to drag much. Montgomery is handsome, stalwart and charming, even through his icy exterior. Hyer is spirited and flirtatious. Crawford looks as if he's going to have a decent role (and it's great to see him looking young and handsome), but it only goes so far before he's lost in the shuffle. The Indians, aside from Granger as the Chief, don't come off as particularly authentic or menacing. At least the dialogue has a few decent lines. Other films have covered this territory better, but it's not a bad time killer. Directed by infamous showman William Castle just prior to his horror spree, it's a wonder audiences didn't get a clamp that looks like an arrow went through their head with each paid admission!

Treachery in Oregon Territory

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 30 December 2020]

This film begins in 1850 when Oregon was still a territory in which certain American businessmen are keen to prevent statehood as it would affect their profits. To that end they continue to stir up the native Indian tribes in that area as they figure that violence between them and the American army will at least prolong its territorial outlook. It's during this time that a new hard-nosed Army officer named "Major Frank Archer" (George Montgomery) arrives at one of the forts with a mission to defeat the warring tribes under "Chief Mike" (Michael Granger) and compel him to surrender. Helping him in this effort is a frontiersman by the name of "Stacey Wyatt" (Richard Denning) who happens to be romantically involved with one of the women at the fort named "Brett McLain" (Martha Hyer). However, their relationship changes upon the arrival of Major Archer as does the role that Stacey has assumed as well. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film started off well enough but then loses its vitality after the first 30 minutes or so. Admittedly, it isn't a bad Western as far as it goes but there are much better out there and for that reason I have rated this film accordingly. Average.

Step Up to the Mike!

[bsmith5552 · 6/10 · 11 June 2018]

"Battle of Rogue River" is another of the Producer Sam Katzman, Director William Castle collaborations. This one takes place in pre Civil War Oregon Territory where the U.S. Army is having trouble with the Indians who are continuously resisting their attempts to drive them out.

Major Frank Archer (George Montgomery) is assigned to take over the task. A hard nosed by the rules commander, Archer at first meets with opposition for his no nonsense command. Civilian Stacey Wyatt (Richard Denning) and his civilian volunteers fight along side the army against Chief Mike (Michael Granger) and his tribe.

Archer is at first, ready to attack the Indians but a change of orders comes in ordering him to negotiate a peace with the Indians. Archer meets with Chief Mike and a mutual respect develops. They eventually negotiate a 30 day armistice where neither side is permitted to cross from their side of the Rogue River.

Sgt. McLain (Emory Parnell) ia assigned to patrol the Army's side of the river during the armistice. One day Wyatt rides up and informs Mclain that his daughter Brett (Martha Hyer) has been taken by a group of maverick Indians and are holding her just across the river. Sgt. McLain thinking his daughter is in danger, crosses the river with his men who are ambushed and killed by the Indians except for McLain. This provokes Archer in to prepare an attack on the Indians.

Wyatt returns to the fort unaware that McLain has survived and continues his treachery. Unscrupulous businessmen including Matt Parrish (Charles Evans) have been using Wyatt to prolong the Indian crisis for their own gains. Sgt. McLain returns to the fort exposing Wyatt and Parrish .

Meanwhile, Archer has planned an attack on the Indians using his artillery when he learns of Wyatt's treachery, but it is too late to prevent the artillery barrage and...................................................

I have to admit that I was caught off guard with Denning's treachery,. He usually was a good guy. I was also awaiting the explanation of the name "Chief Mike" which is used in all seriousness. I expected some sort of humorous back story. It never came. Martha Hyer, tight leather pants and all, was just starting to emerge as a an "A" features player.

Castle gives us some exciting battle scenes and a few surprises. The color photography is excellent as well. Also in the cast are John Crawford as Captain Hillman the second in command, Willis Bouchey as Major Wallach who turns over his command to Archer, Steven Ritch as Chief Mike's right hand man and Kathleen Freeman with a nice little bit at the recruiting sequence.

Color photography disguising the fact that this is just an average B.

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 28 September 2023]

I'm certain that director William Castle was just biding his time with this just as he had been for the past decade at Columbia waiting for the opportunity to utilize his brain for the fun gimmicks of his much later campy horror films. It's entertaining, but if you're purusing a bunch of westerns made around the same time, you won't notice much difference. In fact, you could change the setting to the middle ages, change the costumes and make the native Americans peasant rebels, and it would resemble a ton of non-western adventures flooding the market as well.

George Montgomery and John Crawford are army officers dealing with nearby Indians threatening attack in the Oregon territory. Martha Hyer has a juicy role as sergeant Emory Parnell's daughter who objects to Montgomery's methods in dealing with the oddly named Chief Mike (Michael Granger), and of course, when man and woman are at odds, this leads to romance, and in the case of a feisty woman like Hyer, the beginning of her being tamed. Richard Denning has a major role as an army recruiter who becomes Montgomery's rival. Enjoyable as a time filler (and thankfully short), but it's a case of been there, done that, even if it's as colorful as a pastel jigsaw puzzle. A bonus for me was the presence of the delightful Kathleen Freeman in one scene.

Usual B Western, yet worth the watch.

[tcwaterford · 6/10 · 8 April 2022]

I was raised on such Westerns, as a child I would sit with my Father to watch the Sunday afternoon Cowboy movies.

In fact, in later years he would often tell girlfriend's of mine, this was the only time I was quiet and happy.

The majority were such cheaply produced films, with the occasional John Wayne or Audie Murphy movies as a treat.

The best comment of this movie happens between Miss McClain and the Major, when he attempts a compliment to the young woman and Miss MC Clain replies: "Easy Major, One campaign at a time!. "

It is good for a B - movie, no doubt. But nevertheless not up to Hollywood Western standards, for sure.

Like all B - movie Westerns, the story is poor and good script is replaced by the usual Indian Savages Versus the noble and righteous White folk.

Anyway, for those hoping to get a Western movie from their local TV stations, this will do.

Not great, poor script writing, and poor knowledge of the US uniform of the time.

Acting is average in general, yet somehow it gets by.

Trial by Comat

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 25 March 2024]

In this reminder of his journeyman days as a director of westerns for Columbia William Castle was already showing signs of the cynical sense of humour that soon became a feature of his exploitation pictures in his depiction of the US cavalry as an ill-humoured bunch; the Indians not being much better as the chief berates his braves for sustaining insufficient casualties during a raiding party

George Montgomery shows a natural talent for winding his men up the wrong way and certainly lives up to his admonition that "An officer's weakness is measured by every one of his men that likes him personally".

Martha Hyer, meanwhile, as a comely lass in a blouse and tight britches shows she has other fish to fry when she gazes longingly at him and coos "Did you ever notice what blue eyes he has?"; to which Montgomery's idea of banter when he tells Hyer "Not another word" and she replies "Fine!" is to respond "That's another word!"

Battle of Rogue River

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 21 November 2022]

George Montgomery is the hard-nosed "Maj. Archer", sent to command a frontier post that has been struggling to defeat a local tribe under the accomplished command of their Chief "Mike" (Michael Granger). Quickly disliked by those under command for his brusque manner, he must try to lick them into shape as battle lines are drawn with his shrewd foe. Sadly, though this has some decent action scenes now and again, there is an annoying romance between "Archer" and "Brett" (Martha Hyer) and the plot proceeds to follow a rather timid and predictable route as the adventurous elements give way to a standard tale of betrayal and, ultimately, a rather underwhelming degree of common sense. It's produced to a decent enough standard, but sadly the story and the efforts from all concerned are pretty unremarkable.

Average Western

[Michael_Elliott · 17 August 2018]

Battle of Rogue River (1954)

** (out of 4)

Set in Oregon, the Army and Major Frank Archer (George Montgomer) are ordered to make peace with the Indians once and for all. Archer manages to make a deal with the Indian leader but someone goes against both sides and gets a war started.

BATTLE OF ROGUE RIVER is your average Western that features a rather familiar story and in all honesty it really doesn't stand out in a very crowded genre. These type of stories go back to the silent days as you've got good Americans and bad Indians trying to make peace but of course something happens and the good guys have to rise to the fight.

Director William Castle was probably just trying to bring this film in on budget and on time. I'm going to guess that was much more important than actually delivering some sort of masterpiece. As it stands, the film is pretty much average on every level as the story isn't original, the performances are decent and the director at least keeps things moving at a decent pace but there's just nothing here that stands out. I will say that the cinematography was quite good and the final battle sequence was nice.

Only for western die hard fans

[searchanddestroy-1 · 15 June 2023]

It is supposed to tell the story of Oregon territory during thhe mid 1860's. It is supposed.... But with Sam Katzman as producer, I am wondering about the accuracy to the truth, actual events. Actually, I don't care. For me that's only one more western from William Castle and for Columbia Pictures under the money tyranny of Katzman. It is not bad, rather action packed but cheap, as you can easily guess with Sam Katzman. It tells however good elements, this time really true, concerning rotten white men taking financially advantage of the Indian wars, and those very same Indians are then not the villains they usually are. Not entirely, I mean.