The most inexplicable lapse in this fine film is the casting of a kind of dull 'slob' for Frank Miller. He wasn't scary and he should have been 'commanding', handsome or haughty or SOMETHING. He was just blah....
shareYeah, he could have been a little more bad ass. I thought his pock-marked face was menacing though.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsM/59664-8521.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.imgmob.net/ian-macdonald-actor.html&h=240&w=320&tbnid=zHnQTvkZHhr6NM:&docid=fzllLsXiATvfzM&ei=D6q2VuuQEMicjwOj5p3IAw&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwir1J3jy-TKAhVIzmMKHSNzBzkQMwgeKAEwAQ
I don't know. I think he looks okay for the part.
Check out Billy the Kid's photo. He was fairly young, and a decent looking fellow, but had a real mean streak in him. I think the idea for the movie was that anybody could be a bad guy and wear a black hat in a western.
Agreed; he didn't live up to the expectations that had been built up throughout the film (kind of like Kurtz in Apocalypse Now). Jack Palance would have been better; he was only 5 years younger than the actor cast as Frank Miller, and was sinister in Shane in the next year.
________________________
This signature has been deleted by the poster
Totally. This film has Bob Wilke, Lee Van Cleef, Jack Elam and Sheb Wooley and they make Ian McDonald the lead villain?
The past is a series of presents. The present is living history we are privileged to witness