During the first fast moving 20 minutes of "One Foot in Hell," I was treated to a terrific performance by Alan Ladd. Ladd, one of the most underrated leading men of the 40s and 50s could easily carry a movie. Like the underrated Glenn Ford, it's uncanny how Ladd does it. Ladd's a better lead than ensemble player; his performances in "Shane" and "The Carpetbaggers" are practically colorless. However, in "One Foot in Hell," Ladd's performance hearkens back to his pre-alcoholic days of "This Gun For Hire" and "Chicago Deadline". Too bad the movie shifts gears till, by two-thirds of the way through, Ladd has become a supporting player in his own movie. Instead of Ladd, we are now subjected to the hammy dominance of Don Murray, one of the worst over-actors of the 50s. This decision seems to have been made mid-production, as the story could have certainly gone another way.

Ladd plays a husband whose life is irrevocably changed by the cynicism, suspicion and downright stupid actions of four prominent citizens of a small town over a 20 minute period. These actions collectively result in the death of Ladd's wife. While appearing to stoically accept this tragic situation, Ladd plots revenge against the citizens and the town.

WARNING: SPOILERS Instead of opting for the relatively predictable "good man turns bad" plot device, and making Ladd thoroughly reprehensible, a far better decision would have been for Ladd to have discovered at a late date from the doctor that the medicine denied his would wife would have only relieved her suffering, rather than saving her. This would have been more realistic, even given today's technology, and it would have left Ladd with a moral dilemma: should he go through with the gang's plans or save the town which had tried so hard to gain his forgiveness. Had the producers allowed such a storyline, "One Foot in Hell" would be remembered right up there with "Red River," "The Searchers," "High Noon" and "3:10 to Yuma," rather than dismissed as a run-of-the-mill western."

END OF SPOILERS

Dan O'Herlihy, another great 50s actor is wasted in what should have been a much more interesting role. The last third of "One Foot in Hell" appears rushed, again leading to suspicions the ending was not the one originally intended. Who knows? Maybe Ladd's alcohol demons were becoming too much of a problem.

Even as presented, "One Foot in Hell" has too many good elements to be casually dismissed. Rather than remaking "3:10 to Yuma" I'd much prefer they do this one with the ending I have suggested. Russell Crowe would be perfect in the Ladd role.

I give "One Foot in Hell" a strong "6".