Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Edgar Allan Pooh " . . . corrupts absolutely," Governor Penn, the Quaker Oats guy, can be paraphrased to sum up the message of ALLEGHENY UPRISING. As World War Two's Winning General\U.S. President Eisenhower said, "Beware the Military\Capitalist Complex." It is exactly these forefathers of Today's Kochs, Buffets, and Trumps that John Wayne wars against in the person of "Ralph Callendar," a Capitalist who'd scalp his own Grandmother to make a quick buck. Wayne shows us that the roots of the Revolutionary War were nourished by the rot of Heartless Capitalism, with heroes such as Nathan Hale, Molly Pitcher, and Sam Adams originating primarily from Blue Collar America. Unfortunately, some lazy, tag-along states such as Virginia stunk up the country with Racist Black Slavery, the epitome of Capitalism. After being repudiated by Abe Lincoln and 300,000 Grand Old Army Martyrs, the Confederate or Red States have slunk back to a position of a diseased tail wagging the U.S. dog. If Wayne had remained true to his "Jim Smith" ALLEGHENY UPRISING role, he'd be out to stomp Trump Today (as much as a 109-year-old geezer could stomp)!

edalweber I think that this movie has been very much underrated and over criticized.As far as they way the actors speak, it is simply not practical to give them all lessons in how people spoke in those days.And many of the audience would't understand a lot of the dialog. After all, movies about Rome aren't made with everyone speaking Latin. As far as the way Claire Trevor dressed, well there is plenty of evidence that women on the fringes of civilization often dressed "practical",particularly young tomboyish ones Some people have referred to George Saunders as a "villain". Which he is not,Brian Donlevy and his men are the villains. He does cause trouble by his obvious contempt for the "yokels", and his insistence of going strictly by the book. But there is no doubt that if he had known Donlevy was violating the law by carrying forbidden goods,misusing his permit, that he would have arrested him on the spot. That is the one weak point in the plot. If when the fort surrendered, instead of having the troops march out and grabbing Donlevy and his men, Smith had exposed the whiskey kegs in the flour barrel and other frauds, the farmers could have left the fort and left Saunders in charge. Once Saunders had seen that Donlevy had deceived General Gage, and was desecrating the Royal permit in that way, he would never have protected the culprits.He was an honorable man, just stiff necked. He would have swallowed his pride and done his duty. This is a rousing movie about its times,and well captures the spirit that the colonials showed in those last days before the Revolution,and I think that it should not be judged too harshly on some of its technical shortcomings.

MartinHafer The idea of placing John Wayne in the Colonies during the final years of the French-Indian War (called the "Seven Years' War" in Europe) was an inspired idea. Few films have focused on this era and it was nice to see something different. The problem was that although it was a change of locale, the film itself seemed all too much like a typical cowboy and Indian film. So much of the dialog was actually identical to stuff you'd see in films set a hundred years later--only the tribes' names were changed. As a result, the film just tended to blend into the huge pile of John Wayne westerns--and not with the great ones like the Cavalry Trilogy or THE SEARCHERS but instead the mediocre ones made in the 30s and early 40s. Claire Trevor as Wayne's main squeeze was in some ways very good (it was nice to see a less passive style of woman) but in other ways she was a 1930s gal transported to 1758! Women in that era simply did NOT run around in men's clothes, out-shoot men and insist on being treated like "one of the guys". Since I am a history teacher, I found the film frustrating and completely anachronistic. For a much better film made around the same time about Colonial America, try watching the usually overlooked HOWARDS OF VIRGINIA--a Cary Grant film better in just about every way.

aimless-46 John Wayne had been making low budget movies for almost 15 years when he starred with Claire Trevor in the William Seiter directed "Allegheny Uprising". He must have felt his career was going backwards as the production values here are second rate even by the marginal standards of his earlier films. Cast before the release of "Stagecoach", he and Trevor were given a more central role in "Allegheny Uprising" as it is not an ensemble piece like "Stagecoach". The new popularity of the two B-Movie actors required P. J. Wolfson to alter his adaptation of Neil Swanson's novel "The First Rebel". In place of his straight historical fiction action- adventure tale (based on the Smith's Rebellion and Fort Loudoun in southern Pennsylvania) Wolfson was forced to add a romance and pad Trevor's role. Unfortunately adapting a novel to the screen is difficult enough without having to insert a character utterly irrelevant to a story already too expansive for easy adaptation. Contemporary viewers will find the forced insertion of Trevor into most of the scenes rather puzzling, at least in part because she has little going for herself as an actress or a screen presence. The younger John Wayne was much better when paired with talented leading ladies like Ella Raines and Cecilia Parker. Set in Pennsylvania's Conococheague Valley in 1759, Wayne plays title character James Smith who returns to the valley with a friend called The Professor (John Frank Hamilton). They find the local British commander (George Sanders) a martinet and a local civilian (Brian Donley) trading contraband goods (whiskey and weapons) with the Indians, in league with some corrupt soldiers. Trevor plays Janie MacDougall, a loud tomboy who loves Smith and manages to insert herself into his affairs at every turn. 1939 was not a good time for a movie which portrayed our soon to be allies (insert the British here) as stupid and corrupt. And southern California was not a good location for shooting a film about colonial America. There are far too many shots of grassy, almost treeless, California valleys to maintain the necessary geographical illusion. Also jarring is the contemporary dialogue which leaves you expecting Mickey Rooney and Lewis Stone to pull up outside the fort in the family sedan. When not painful, the inattention to period detail is unintentionally amusing. My favorite scene involves the British soldiers laughing at the idea of the settlers taking over the fort. It will remind you of the "Robin Huck" episode of "Huckleberry Hound" where he exhorts his merry men to "yuk it up a bit" and they respond by going "yuk, yuk, yuk". All in all, a weak example of the B-movie product. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.