Five Guns West (1955)

I love this movie so much

As Good As It Gets

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

As I watched this Roger Corman production, I could see that westerns were not his forte. While this is a very good film considering it's tiny budget, it's really not that great a film. However, for cinemaniacs like myself, it's still well worth seeing to see what Corman could do with only $60,000. And, in light of the money spent, it's a decent picture. How did he manage to do it with so little money? You get a couple B-list stars (John Lund and Dorothy Malone) and a bunch of unknowns (including Mike Connors well before be gained stardom). And, you use very simple sets--in this case, just a few western buildings.The plot is VERY reminiscent of the later film, "The Dirty Dozen"--but in this case it involves just five misfits who are given a choice--go on a mission for the Confederacy or have their sentences carried out immediately. The two youngest are clearly psychos, the gambler is a sociopath (Connors), there's a grizzled older man who is a bit of a cypher and a seemingly nice guy (Lund) who is quite out of place. Their job is to ambush a stagecoach carrying gold and use it to fund the South in the Civil War--but as the film progresses, it seems pretty obvious that several of them have no intention of giving up the gold. And, when they arrive at their destination, they find they are early and the two young sociopaths are mostly concerned with raping a lady at the stage office (Malone) and it's up to Lund to keep these creeps in check. What happens next? See the film.The acting is fair, though it was hard for me to see Lund as a heroic type. He just didn't have the macho persona you'd expect and I kept thinking of him as the greasy sharpie from the "My Friend Irma" films! But he was game and a professional. As for the rest, they were also decent. The film does NOT have the ultra-cheap look of Corman's more notorious horror films (like "Wasp Woman" or "Little Shop of Horrors") but it still isn't great by any means. Watchable and mildly interesting, that's about all I can say for it. But, considering I've seen tons of Corman's films as well as a recent biography/filmography of the guy, it was worth my time. As for you, it's at best a time-passer.A low point in the film is the guy running and yelling "I'll get 'em!" and getting shot. This scene made absolutely no sense whatsoever and seemed to just be an excuse to wipe out one of the baddies!

Five Guns West (1955) ** (out of 4) Fairly typical Western has the distinction of being the first film directed by Roger Corman. In the film, John Lund, Mike Connors, Bob Campbell, Jonathan Haze and Paul Birch play convicted men who are given a shot at a full pardon if they sneak into Union territory and hold up a stagecoach carrying $30,000 in gold. If you've ever seen a movie dealing with outlaws given a shot at redemption then you've pretty much already seen this thing. There's certainly nothing Oscar-worthy here but at the same times it's decent enough to serve well as a 78-minute time killer. I think what works in the film's benefit the most is the cast. Again, there aren't any major names in the bunch but all five men make for good performances and the characters are so detailed that you'll have no problem liking them. It was great fun seeing Campbell and Haze playing the brother team. The two are so good together than you can easily believe they are brothers. Most Corman fans will recognize Haze from countless future films including A BUCKET OF BLOOD. Dorothy Malone plays the female who works at the stagecoach office where the men end up staying. She's not too bad here even though that Southern accent is constantly going in and out from one scene to the next. The film really doesn't contain any new twists on the old story and this here is the biggest problem. Going in its easy to tell who will end up doing what and everything plays out just like you'd expect it to. For the most part the film is all dialogue as the men just sit around waiting and waiting for this stagecoach to show up. They talk, threaten one another, talk some more and continue to wait for the coach to show up. With the low budget you sort of expect this but Corman does keep everything at least moving at a good pace.

Mediocre story about 5 southern prisoners given pardons in exchange for intercepting a Confederate spy using an alleged gold shipment as an inducement. John Lund is the good guy while all the others are the bad guys. This has some good acting concerning the participants involved, but the story is ridiculous and the premise is wildly implausible. Why trust a bunch of criminals to do this kind of a job? Good grief!This is Roger Corman's first attempt at the directors chair and it shows, but at least he filmed it outdoors instead of on cheap Hollywood soundstages. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Or the box lunches, for that matter. (laughs) It also has Dorothy Malone as the love interest who not too long afterwards, would earn an Oscar for WRITTEN ON THE WIND. Talk about a career jump!3 out of 10

What was good for westerns was equally bad for the horror genre...and that was Roger Corman's leaving one and going to the other. What a goofy idea this was for something called entertainment. The Confederate Army was in such bad shape it had to recruit a group of scumbags from death row to bring in a traitor and 30K in gold. They couldn't find a few men in the ranks who could do the job? Just couldn't make it without employing a handful of untrustworthy thieves and killers? Way beyond stupid. Seldom have I seen cornier more overblown performances. And those fight scenes! A class of sixth graders could have been more convincing. Avoid this claptrap.