Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Saw this film ran in the wee hours on TCM. Several problems with the film were apparent from what I saw. First, the adults did not age when the children did for 10 years. Several parts of the film had continuity problems & for some reason the actor who played the youngest son looked like the oldest when the 10 years passed.

The copy I saw was missing about 20 minutes or so, at least a huge gap with black screen appeared. It is too bad, because even though the script left something to be desired, Bergman & Russell both did fine in the film in their roles. It is a shame the large chunk is missing, but what is here is watchable.

I just wish it was all intact. The script makes little sense in that Bergman's character is sent away when the kids are small but then brought back to take care of them when they are adults? Some of the time lines don't make sense either. There is a stock market crash that resembles 1929 but the kids grow up to fight in World War 1. All the acting by the support folks in this film is fine. Just wonder what was in the 20 gap of film I could not see as it was missing.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: It's 1978, and yes obviously there are too many black players on the teams as well! Fans will be upset and certainly the 75,000 seats will be full, only less happy there are so many black players on the field! This made for TV Super Bowl movie is watchable. It's not much more, but it's really surprising the cast of talented actors that make an appearance (for the time), probably most notably Tom Selleck. Unfortunately any goodness Selleck brings to the screen, is quickly trumped by "actors" like Dick Butkus.

It's a silly story about super bowl betting. PJ Jackson is charged by "New York" (read mafia) for ensuring the game ends for their favor, in this case a $10,000,000 bet. PJ is innocent enough, and seems to have a loose grasp by buying off a few people here and there. But things seem to fall apart for him. Another person, the unsuspected Lainie, takes charge. For a while, the mystery of murders isn't known for certain, but is revealed rather plainly at the final murder that Lainie is the new antagonist.

It's a bad movie, but is watchable. The acting is decent, and the filming is OK. At least there weren't any silly typical 70s car chases (they have their place just not here). Just keep an open mind about past stereotyping and the cocaine era and you'll survive.

2/10 (maybe a 2.5)

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
Have no illusions, this IS a morality story. Granger is the troubled ex-buffalo hunter, tempted back to the plains one more time by kill-crazed Taylor. Granger can see the end is near, and feels deeply for the cost of the hunt-on the herds, the Indians and the land itself. Taylor, on the other hand admittedly equates killing buffalo, or Indians to 'being with a woman.' While Granger's role of the tortured hunter is superb, it's Taylor who steals the show, as the demented, immoral 'everyman' out for the fast buck and the goodtimes. There's not a lot of bang-bang here, but the story moves along quickly, and we are treated to a fine character performance by Nolan. The theme of this story is just as poignant today, as in the 1800s-man's relationship to the land and what's on it, and racism. Considering when this was made, the Censors must have been wringing their hankies during the scenes in the 'bawdy house', Taylor's relationship with the squaw, and much of the dialogue. Although downbeat, this is truly a great western picture.