Hey, what's up with James Bond being a criminal and, for that matter, an American? Oh wait, that's "Thunderball"; I get these two film mixed up, though "Thunderball" has aged a little more gracefully, seeing as how it was intentionally silly. No, this film isn't so much cheesy, like I expected it to be, but just more along the lines of boring, yet at least it's not as cheesy certain parts in "The Night of the Hunter", let alone as cheesy as this film's theme song sounds nowadays. I actually like the song just fine, but 55 years later, "The Ballad of Thunder Road" is starting to sound about as cheesy as Bruce Sprinsteen's "Thunder Road", and I know that when you say, "about as" when negatively comparing something, it doesn't quite sound as bad, but come on, this is Bruce Springsteen we're talking about, so you know that thing's corny, and yet, not quite as cheesy as some of his other songs. Well, at least this film's theme song has better lyrics, because if there's nothing else you can say about '50s ballads about a crime being committed and the Devil being somewhere in the works, then it's that they were all pretty much the same song, yet next to that, you can say that they did have some pretty good lyrics. The writing in the theme song is certainly better than the writing in the actual film. Okay, now, this film isn't at all that bad, ultimately being a fairly enjoyable picture, yet it is still decidedly a bit of a mess, so much so that annoyingly nostalgiac critics don't love it, even though it's, like, 79 years old, and that should tell you just how messy this film is. The film is a product of passion, and that is perhaps a little too palpable, as the film feels rather self-indulgent, not in that it feels overbearingly arrogant, but in that the inspiration behind the story is greater than the very execution of that story. Well, either that's reason why the resonance in the film is borderline bone-dry, or because Robert Mitchum could have picked a better director than Arthur Ripley. Now, it's not that Ripley is bad, yet he is decidedly underwhelming in his telling of this story, dragging it down with limited exposition and plenty of dryness, making for a film that's, at times, rather dull and often completely disengaging. The film just doesn't do enough to grip you, as far as the direction is concerned, through long periods of time, yet that's not to say that the script is clean of its own sins, as it will, as I said, often lapse in exposition, with the occasional descent into conceptual style over substance broadening the emotional distance within this film. To make matters worse, the story structure is just simply unkempt, with repetition breaking up hurrying in the story, until the final product comes out with only so much kick to it. The film is not bad, nor even mediocre, yet it is an ultimately fault in ambition, boasting sloppy structure and execution within the story to where it's ultimately rendered not all that memorable. However, note that I said that the film, while faulty as all get-out, remains not mediocre, for the film, with all of its faults in ambition, still wins you over by the end. While betrayed by a spotty structure and execution, the concepts behind the film are fairly interesting, and enough to earn a degree of investment. This is helped by quite a few nifty set pieces and bits of relative-to-the-time decent cinematography, either of which are terribly upstanding, yet still have enough juice in them to keep the film from completely running dry. Outside of that, as well as the giggles from thinking about how this film features Robert Mitchum's son playing his brother, what really keeps you going with the film is simply the charm in its ambition. That is obviously not enough to carry this film past simply average, yet at the same time, the charm is among the biggest things keeping this film afloat, as it does earn attention more than the faulty direction loses it, leaving you to absorb enough of the story to be able to stick with it. The performers certainly help in getting you to stick with the characters, or at least one certain performer manages to pull that off, seeing as how most people in the film are simply just fine, with the occasional person falling about as limp as your attention towards this film here and there, particularly Mitchum's wooden, expressionless brother-son. Anyways, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out just who is the real spotlight-owner, as he himself pretty much built the spotlight. This was a dream project of producer, story writer, theme song artist and lead actor Robert Mitchum's, and while his dreams go hurt by the executions through third-parties, no one is holding Mitchum back when it comes to acting, for although he's nowhere close to being given enough material to really knock you out of the park, he's still as charismatic as always, doing a fine job of bringing the Lucas Doolin character to life and to the point of helping you stay with this film and ultimately find genuine enjoyment. At the end of the road, you're, well, not having the easiest time looking back, as the film is rendered rather forgettable, being plagued by a bone-dry atmosphere to exacerbate the lack of kick within the messily structured story, thus leaving the film often distant in emotional resonance, yet with the story having enough juice in it, made all the sweeter by some nifty stylistic choices, a charismatic performance by Robert Mitchum and a general charm in ambition, "Thunder Road" ultimately carries on as an enjoyable effort, let down in some areas though, it may be. 2.5/5 - Fair

Boring, droll and self-indulgent. It's funny to hear backwoods diction without the painful-sounding accents even if it's not believable. Even though I fell asleep halfway through, I could bitch about it for an hour.