However, the story is a bit too disjoint for me-with the ending not fitting in terribly well with the rest of the film. Additionally, while Van Heflin is young, he already shows his abilities as a supporting actor (he later received an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor).

While Preston Foster is pretty much forgotten today, he was a leading man in the 1930s-and you can see why. The best thing about the film are some of the actors. What's next for all these characters? See the film for yourself. But, he also sees that change is inevitable-especially when he meets up with a nice lady, Helen (Jean Muir), and the preacher (Van Heflin). He is a gambler and his bar is the center of vice in town. One of the forces pushing BOTH directions in the film is Oakhurst (Preston Foster).

However, with growth comes the forces you'd expect in bigger cities-churches, government, lawmen and folks looking for a civilized lifestyle. In the earliest days, law was pretty much nonexistent and life was tough. This film is set just after the famed Gold Rush began and concerns growing pains that town experienced. And, to me it LOOKS like two separate stories as you watch the film-one excellent but familiar one and one that left me totally flat and didn't see to fit. It's based on two stories by the famous old west author, Bret Harte. 'The Outcasts of Poker Flat' is a classic film that was originally made in 1919 and was remade several times-and this 1937 version is just one of them.

The outcasts of poker flat questions