The first six minutes of The Baron of Arizona is a ponderous exposition about Arizona by a small group of dignified actors congratulating each other on Arizona's new statehood. They're in evening clothes, all white haired, all sipping brandy and all puffing on big cigars. Among them is one of the most stilted of voice-over narrators, Reed Hadley. It's a terrible start to what could have been an exceedingly clever movie. After Hadley gives us the secret of James Addison Reavis (Vincent Price), the screenwriter and director Sam Fuller moves us back from 1912 to 1872. Here, we meet Reavis at the start of his great scam to win the territory of Arizona for himself through forged Spanish land grant documents, self-created histories, great forgery skills, the placing of forged documents in a Spanish monastery, and the grooming of a little girl who he convinces her illiterate guardians is the heir to the phony Peralta land grant claim.
All this fascinating cleverness, perpetuated with a fine, serious performance by Vincent Price, has the air bled from its balloon by Fuller's tell-us-the-con-early structure and by Hadley's mannered way with a narrative. Fuller and Hadley wind up giving us a voice-over narrative that does little more that tell us what we're already watching.
As marred as the movie is, how does James Reavis' story hold up as the tale of a great ambitious con? Fuller brings us into the con by showing us the detailed preparations Reavis took before he made his move. Reavis spent years preparing his con, three of them as a monk in a monastery seeding the old archives with his forged documents. And of course, there is the manipulation of young Sophia, whom he has groomed and trained, and now intends to wed and bed...not because he loves her, but because she will inherit all of Arizona thanks to his plans. Naturally, now as a young woman she loves the guy. He loves the con and the riches to come. It's a nice setup. And when, 46 minutes into the movie, he and his wife show up in Phoenix with all the "documents" to claim title, all hell breaks loose. Our old friend Reed Hadley, now a young investigator from the Department of the Interior, is convinced it all is a scam. He intends to prove it. Does he succeed? Does James Reavis, now calling himself the Baron of Arizona, former clerk in the Sante Fe land office, become in the 1880s one of the wealthiest men in the world? In the year 2009, is the nation of Peralta- Reavis now a close ally of Mexico or of the United States? One thing Sam Fuller shows us: The native Arizonians have become violently restless. I don't want to give way any spoilers so I won't tell you if James Reavis succeeded with his scam and his heirs now control Arizona.
Vincent Price and the Reavis scam is what the movie is all about. The scam's potential keeps us interested. Price makes Reavis a complicated and intriguing character who captures our interest and a good deal of our sympathy for his hard work. The movie, however, is flawed by its flashback structure, it's jumbled first 40 minutes, by some standard B movie acting and by Hadley's limitations as an actor and as a really irritating narrator. This was Fuller's second movie, a Poverty Row effort he shot in15 days. If the director had been a guy named Vic Mikle, would anyone care about it now?
If you can get past this, Vincent Price's performance will probably make it worthwhile for you. When a role fit his style, his actorly mannerisms and his limitations, Price could be much better than the memory we have of him now as a deliberately hammy, good-natured specialist in cornball horror. Of those movies of his I've seen, I like him a good deal in this one and in Laura.
All this fascinating cleverness, perpetuated with a fine, serious performance by Vincent Price, has the air bled from its balloon by Fuller's tell-us-the-con-early structure and by Hadley's mannered way with a narrative. Fuller and Hadley wind up giving us a voice-over narrative that does little more that tell us what we're already watching.
As marred as the movie is, how does James Reavis' story hold up as the tale of a great ambitious con? Fuller brings us into the con by showing us the detailed preparations Reavis took before he made his move. Reavis spent years preparing his con, three of them as a monk in a monastery seeding the old archives with his forged documents. And of course, there is the manipulation of young Sophia, whom he has groomed and trained, and now intends to wed and bed...not because he loves her, but because she will inherit all of Arizona thanks to his plans. Naturally, now as a young woman she loves the guy. He loves the con and the riches to come. It's a nice setup. And when, 46 minutes into the movie, he and his wife show up in Phoenix with all the "documents" to claim title, all hell breaks loose. Our old friend Reed Hadley, now a young investigator from the Department of the Interior, is convinced it all is a scam. He intends to prove it. Does he succeed? Does James Reavis, now calling himself the Baron of Arizona, former clerk in the Sante Fe land office, become in the 1880s one of the wealthiest men in the world? In the year 2009, is the nation of Peralta- Reavis now a close ally of Mexico or of the United States? One thing Sam Fuller shows us: The native Arizonians have become violently restless. I don't want to give way any spoilers so I won't tell you if James Reavis succeeded with his scam and his heirs now control Arizona.
Vincent Price and the Reavis scam is what the movie is all about. The scam's potential keeps us interested. Price makes Reavis a complicated and intriguing character who captures our interest and a good deal of our sympathy for his hard work. The movie, however, is flawed by its flashback structure, it's jumbled first 40 minutes, by some standard B movie acting and by Hadley's limitations as an actor and as a really irritating narrator. This was Fuller's second movie, a Poverty Row effort he shot in15 days. If the director had been a guy named Vic Mikle, would anyone care about it now?
If you can get past this, Vincent Price's performance will probably make it worthwhile for you. When a role fit his style, his actorly mannerisms and his limitations, Price could be much better than the memory we have of him now as a deliberately hammy, good-natured specialist in cornball horror. Of those movies of his I've seen, I like him a good deal in this one and in Laura.