The Stand at Apache River (1953)

Hardy's Encyclopedia of Westerns describes this as "routine fare". I think that's a little unfair. It's clearly a cheaply made affair, with basically one location (after the opening scene), and some very bad matte paintings to "enhance the scenery", but the script tries (partially successfully) to set up interesting conflicts and weaknesses in the characters.

Stephen McNally plays a Marshal who's bringing home a prisoner when he gets holed-up in a river way-station by a party of Apache. Here he comes into conflict with a Colonel played by Hugh Marlowe who wants to punish the Apache, and romances Julie Adams. The Apache are treated fairly even-handedly, although I'm not convinced historically accurately. The acting is generally of a reasonable standard, although probably limited slightly be the script. Julie Adams is good, as always, although Western romantic interests rarely have a great deal to do.

The script makes a decent attempt to be more interesting than the "standard B Western", especially with the conflict between the Marshal and Colonel. However, the characters are let down by being based mostly around one defining characteristic: the Marshal's is his stubbornness (linked to his belief in his prisoner's guilt) while the Colonel's is his hatred of the Apache. The attempts to draw parallels between the unhappy marriage of the way-station owner and Julie Adams' unhappy engagement also comes across as a little simplistic.

The final weakness in the script is that some the action makes little sense, especially an attempt to escape across to river with the women, where it didn't seem clear what they were trying to accomplish. In summary though: it's generally an interesting low-budget Western that tries to stand out, but doesn't always quite succeed in what it's aiming for.

http://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/the-stand-at-apache-river/the-stand-at-apache-river.html provides a slightly harsher review than mine.