'49-'17 (1917) User Reviews

Predictable yes, enjoyable even more so

[mrschippy-1 · 7/10 · 31 December 2018]

I've just watched this on the "Pioneers: First Women Filmmakers" release and I have to say I found it really enjoyable. Yes it predictable, but it's not the first and won't be the last. But it was enjoyable. I especially liked Donna Drew, she was delightful to watch and it is sad that she didn't live for much longer to make more films, I think she was excellent in this one.

Some of the reviews on here are very negative, but they are old, so perhaps some of their confusions or concerns may be solved with this newer restored version. I wouldn't call this a western, in its true sense of the genre, but it is mostly set out in the west and there are the goods guys and the bed ones too, but it was more a moralistic tale.

I think with this new release this film can be seen as it is meant to be and I for one really enjoyed it.

Nugget Notch

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 31 May 2008]

Born and bred in the western United States, Joseph Girard (as Judge Brand) has never grown accustomed to life in the industrialized East. Mr. Girard reminisces, to young secretary Leo Pierson (as Tom Reeves), about his life in the old West. In flashback, Girard loses his romantic interest to a pal, who is deserted, after two years, by the woman. Later, Girard moves to the East, to care for his ailing sister.

In the present, Girard discovers the abandoned town of "Nugget Notch"; he wants to rebuild and re-populate the town in the style of his fondly remembered West. Mr. Pierson is assigned the task. Pierson, who shares his older boss' dream, finds a group of down-on-their-luck carnies outside San Diego: the "49 Camp". The '49-ers' western theme is not popular with city folk; and, they accept Pierson's invitation to Nugget Notch. So, Pierson joins the troupe as "Tom Robbins"; his identity is a secret to everyone except leader William J. Dyer (as J. Gordon Castle).

As "Robbins", Pierson falls for pretty Donna Drew (as Peggy Bobbett). But, gentlemanly Jean Hersholt (as Jim Raynor) maneuvers to keep the romance from blooming; he has knowledge about a dark secret from Ms. Drew's past. Distrusting Mr. Hersholt, Pierson writes boss Girard, who prepares his arrival…

All of the above happens within the first 25 minutes of "'49-'17"; indeed, it is a densely plotted movie. Don't miss a single title card, or you may be lost. The unusual title refers to the years 1849 and 1917. The year 1849 refers to character Castle's troupe of "'49-ers"; 1849 is the year noted as beginning the "California Gold Rush", which also evokes the spirit of character Judge Brand's western memories. The year 1917 is, of course, the film's release year. The film would have been better off with a title like "Nugget Notch".

Ruth Ann Baldwin is more than serviceable, if less than spectacular, as both writer and director.

****** '49-'17 (10/15/17) Ruth Ann Baldwin ~ Joseph Girard, Leo Pierson, Jean Hersholt

Simple tale, well presented

[LarryR · 6/10 · 24 August 2000]

With a few twists and turns, the story unfolds easily, occasionally predictably. Good use of cinematic narration, the titles only representing dialog and transitions. Generous use of appropriate flashback scenes filling in the story. A few story threads left untied, but generally an amiable plot. Sometimes you wonder if the old Judge isn't half-mad.

Interesting Old Western

[Schlockmeister · 10 June 2001]

A judge "out East" misses the days of his youth out west and hires a man to go out and find actors who will populate the old deserted town he once lived in. The man he sends ends up in San Diego (excellent scenery in the pigeon feeding scenes) and happens upon an old west show that is failing dismally. They are ready to take the judge up on his offer to populate "Nugget Notch" and the story goes from there.

Wildly improbable coincedences, an old mystery cleared up and on and on. Some of the story will have you scratching your head in confusion.

Nice diversion for a late night's viewing though. Early western by a rare woman director. Recommended marginally.

Old, very old movie, full of continuity mistakes, yet enjoyable

[gian_99 · 6/10 · 17 December 2020]

As many other reviewers noticed, the movie is full of cliches and some continuity errors especially relating to the age of the characters. Indeed the title is '49-'17, so some characters should be much older than you see in the movie. I wondered if the "49" might be related not to the real year, but to a sense of "westerness" as identity that the judge feels. I mention this because in "Roughing it" by Twain, "real" western people (he writes in the 1870s) define themselves as fortyniners - and shun the tender-feet who just emigrated... however the title kind of points out they literally meant the judge had been out west in 1849, in which case... the movies wasn't really so deeply thought of...

However, I strangely found it enjoyable. It was described as a parody, which some people doubt. I did think some scenes were indeed to funny to be intended seriously. I will not fully spoiler even a movie like this, but one characters uses gold nuggets as stones to chase a wolf away and he does not realize they are not simple rocks.

The story is weak or rather forces some deep suspension of disbelief. In any case it was a fun watch.

Nonsensical Western

[Cineanalyst · 2/10 · 14 January 2010]

I'd like to hear the story of how this mess of a movie came to be. The home video description goes out of the way to call it a parody, but a viewing offers no support of this. No, rather, this is the kind of film that deserves to be parodied. Part of the story is similar to another 1917 Western, Douglas Fairbanks's "Wild and Woolly", which was intentionally comical. In both films, a fake Western town is made to please the notions of a man from New York of the old West. As opposed to "Wild and Woolly", however, the old judge in this picture knows it's fake because he planned it--in an attempt to relive his youth as a '49er (that is, a gold digger in California's Gold Rush of the 1840s-1850s). The only seeming attempt at humor here is some gunplay by the judge that frightens the troupe of actors for his re-created town.

That "'49-'17" isn't a comedy or parody isn't the problem; rather, that was an unused solution to its mess. Instead, the filmmakers appear to have tried to cover the film up with a lot of title cards, which seem to have reworked the original scenario, as the titles and what we see don't always add up. There may have been some considerable editing done, too, as the resulting film today is choppy in places. None of this avoids what remains a sloppy, poorly-paced story, though.

Furthermore, the story's chronology and sense of aging is illogical. Through many flashbacks, the plot moves back and forth between the judge's days as a '49er to the present year of 1917 (hence the title). That's a time gap of 60 years or more, depending on when the judge took part in California's gold rush. The judge's aging between these periods is the closest to being plausible; the rest makes no sense. The baddie Gentleman Jim Raynor and his accomplice appear in '49 and '17 with the exact same appearance, as men somewhere around their 30s. Peggy is suggested as being a once-abandoned child from the gold rush, but she can't be any older than in her 20s by 1917. Additionally, the film is full of Western melodramatic contrivances and clichés, which just become boring when constructed so poorly and situated among such enormous continuity problems. F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre already took the fitting pun for an IMDb review title for this film: fool's gold, indeed.

One part I found interesting was Jean Hersholt's image as Gentleman Jim Raynor, who's clearly signified as the bad cowboy by his black dress and goatee, and he carried a mean look throughout the picture. Too bad such skillful character acting is wasted on this mess.

Kind of dumb...even for a movie this old...

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 12 March 2010]

I love silent films and have perhaps reviewed more than anyone. However, sometimes a silent is just bad--even if the print is pretty good. The plot for "49-17" is pretty stupid and the film never rises to the level of anything approaching good. Now I DO understand that films of the day were not as wonderfully written and executed a films just a decade later, but even for 1917, this is a pretty crappy film.

An old judge laments how he lost his daughter and wife many years the before--back in the "Gold Rush" days. It seems she got bored and ran off with his baby daughter. Ironically, he discovered gold soon after that and became rich--but still regrets losing them. After a very, very contrived portion involving the recreation of an old west town, the man responsible for breaking up his happy home returns and they have it out in a series of dastardly encounters. Whatever.

The bottom line is that the plot never seems convincing in the least and never makes much sense. You might not get that from my quick summary--but the film never becomes interesting, convincing or even worth your time. To top it off, it's bundled on DVD with "The Ocean Waif"--a highly deteriorated that lacks an ending--it disintegrated and you are just provided a written description of several HUGELY important climactic scenes! Save your money!

surprisingly good

[schneiderhannah · 10/10 · 31 May 2019]

I put this movie on as a joke and I literally could not stop watching. Sure, the plot's kind of cliche but there's something about it that's so entertaining that I was entranced for the entire film.

An odd, clumsy story from a simpler era, HOWEVER...

[waes-hael · 5/10 · 2 November 2018]

If you are familiar with San Diego's Balboa Park, you will want to watch the first half, at least, as the Botanical Building and Lily Pond are the setting for one scene.

Fool's gold

[F Gwynplaine MacIntyre · 31 August 2002]

The plot of "'49-'17" is as bad as its unfortunate title, and it betrays a poor sense of time. The action takes place primarily in modern times (1917) with flashbacks to the Gold Rush of 1849 (hence the title), with most of the main characters present in both eras. Unfortunately, the main characters (who were already adults in 1849) have only aged about forty years by 1917, whilst Peggy Bobbett (who was only an infant in 1849) looks to be only about twenty years old in 1917.

In 1849, J.R. Brand and his partner Bob Adams went prospecting in California, accompanied by Adams's wife Beatrice and their infant daughter Lorena. But Beatrice died and Lorena Adams disappeared. A few days later, near the mining camp of Nugget Notch, Brand strikes it rich in the goldfields. He feels obligated to share his new fortune with Adams, but is temporarily unable to do so.

Fade in to 1917. Brand has invested his own and Adams's wealth wisely, and he's now a respected retired judge. Nugget Notch is now a ghost town. Brand buys the town and populates it with the cast of a bankrupt wild-west show. Bankrolled by Brand, Nugget Notch is now a tourist attraction, recreating a sanitised version of Gold Rush days. The town attracts the attention of "Gentleman Jim" Raynor, a crooked gambler. (Raynor is played by Jean Hersholt, an actor who is still fondly remembered for his philanthropic activities offscreen, but who usually played slimy villains. In this film he plays one of his slimiest roles.)

Brand hopes to locate Lorena Adams (who must be an adult by now) so that he can give her the fortune which Brand feels belonged to her father. The infant Lorena was found by the homespun couple the Bobbetts, who named her Peggy and raised her as their own child. Peggy Bobbett has no memory of her past life as Lorena Adams. (Why don't they just call her Lorena Bobbett?)

Eventually, Raynor learns the truth about Lorena, and he blackmails the Bobbett family, threatening to expose their daughter Peggy's true identity. (It's not clear why they should seek to conceal this, especially as Lorena Adams is an heiress.) When the blackmail scam fails, Raynor decides to rob the town hall. The film degenerates into incoherent chases and showdowns.

I really wanted to like this film, but it makes no sense and has many lapses in logic ... not least the fact that the characters age inconsistently, and none of them age plausibly. The film looks as if it was shot without a script, and then the dialogue and intertitles were written afterwards in an attempt to create a storyline for the footage. In fact, many silent films (mostly bad ones) were created this way. Thar's not much gold in these hyar hills. Too bad.

Predictable, Confusing, and Pointless

[GLSmyth · 4/10 · 16 September 2001]

The movie appears to have been written during production, with lose ends dominating the plot. An example comes when Gentleman Jim Raynor gently lowers Tom Robbins into a rocky area, whereupon Tom easily escapes and returns without incident. Very confusing motivation.

Certainly, this movie was intended for the preschool set, where the primary intention was to protect the child's emotions. Outside of this age group, this movie is not recommended.

An underrated piece of cinemá

[bernardogarcia-06766 · 10/10 · 5 January 2018]

Saw this in theaters it's opening weekend, gotta say there wasn't a dry eye in the house. Don't listen to the other reviewers - this movie is a gem.

The level of performance from Joseph W. Girard and his naturally lubricated on screen chemistry with Mattie Witting as Ma Bobbett (the most complex character in the flick) was a delight to behold. Moviegoers haven't seen anything of that caliber since Brad and Angelina made Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and keep in mind, those two were banging at the time so it only elevates Matt and Joe's performance like further.

The part where they were smashing watermelons was dope as hell man, the people in the store didn't know how to react. One of my favorite moments in movie history.

Very Good Silent Movie

[EdgarST · 9/10 · 30 June 2019]

102 years after its original release, I was impressed by this feature, that was tightly directed by talented Ruth Ann Baldwin. Based on "The Old West Per Contract", a short story written by William Wallace Hook (who wrote several science-fiction novels), the frame story is quite original: in 1917 a judge wants to revive his happy days as a gold prospector, during the gold rush of 1849, and orders his secretary to stage a fake Old West town where he can spend his last days. However, the following events are a string of common places usually found in the melodrama genre, spiced with lust and greed. Fortunately Baldwin handles the whole show with energy, stages many outdoor scenes, and adds a welcome dose of humor and villainous actions provided by Jean Hersholt as the baddie. I found interesting how life and death are treated in this film, compared to movies of these days. This has nothing to do with the movie, it is just a reflection of mine, after watching how the script avoids acts of extreme violence or killing the characters. It seems as if life had more value in those cinematic days, and I hope that we come back to reason and start respecting other people's lives. Watch it.