Five Guns West (1955) User Reviews (23)

Five Guns West

[hrkepler · 6/10 · 5 June 2018]

'Five Guns West' is legendary Roger Corman's debut as director, although he had produced couple of movies before. The film was shot in nine days on $60.000 budget. It shows that the film was made by first time director with being little uneven at places, but it is still entertaining piece.

Turing the Civil war, South desperately is in the need of men, so Confederate States gives pardon to five hard criminals and sending them behind enemy lines to capture the traitor and bring back the stolen gold. Sending criminals to do official government business is always interesting premise and the film doesn't disappoint at that department. The characters are interesting, and quite well developed (this is probably due to the low budget - not enough action, but plenty of interesting interactions between characters), so even with the low amount of shooting, the film is entertaining enough to keep the viewer interested - with five hardened criminals and stolen gold in the game, it can't be any other way.

Quite well written screenplay, good acting, and filmed in Pathe color, 'Five Guns West' doesn't feel much like rushed low budget independent production. Nothing spectacular, but should interest hardcore Corman (and Western) fans enough.

Not so great, but I've seen worse

[lynnetrue · 5/10 · 2 January 2008]

This was a fairly typical "formula" western. Since I grew up on this sort of western, I rather enjoyed it. One must concede that it could never have been considered a contender for any sort of award, but it was entertaining enough to keep me watching until it was over (of course, most any movie can do that LOL).

Actually, I really enjoy the old western movies -- I don't even mind the corny ones. I believe that one must remember that these movies were made for entertainment (and mostly entertainment for kids at the Saturday afternoon matinée showings, I suspect). Given those sorts of parameters, Five Guns West doesn't seem so bad. It is entirely possible that I first saw it on a Saturday afternoon back in Franklin, NE during the mid-1950s.

Considering its minuscule budget, it's not so bad.

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 8 April 2012]

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!

A bunch of ¨Death Row¨ Confederate inmates are assigned a deadly mission into Northern territory

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 22 September 2011]

During the Civil War, five condemned Southern prisoners conscripted already destined for death row are freed to execute a risked mission . The desperate outlaws are drafted to go on a near-suicide aim and attempt to capture a traitor throughout Indian territory . They must carry out the objective in several days with the understanding that if the Confederate don't murder them, the Union Army won't, either . The ambitious confederates commanded by Sturges (John Lund) , join forces to rob a lot of money at a stagecoach . In the hands of hardboiled director Roger Corman and a tough-as-leather cast headed by John Lund and Mike Connors , that's all the plot that's needed to make one rip-roaring Western flick. The mission is displayed in ¨Dirty dozen ¨ style and promised pardons on the condition that they undertake an assignment to head west and bring back a double-crossing Confederate spy who has a stagecoach full of Confederate gold . Meanwhile ,Shalee Jethro (Dorothy Malone) helps her uncle run a desert stagecoach station. The confederates arrive in the station to await a gold shipment they scheme to steal , and Shalee becomes their hostage bait and then the outlaws start to confront among themselves .

This is an average Western with crossfire , action , thrills , shotdown , pursuits but some boring and slow-moving . It's made in low budget , however well played by two major actor as John Lund and Dorothy Malone . The secondary actors , technicians ( cameraman Floyd Crosby , musician Bregman ) and writer ( Wright Campbell who wrote various Corman's scripts ) will repeat with Roger in subsequent films . Passable support cast as Paul Birch , Wright Campbell , Jonathan Haze who acted in ¨Little shop of horrors¨ and Mike ¨Touch¨ Connors ( His Touch nickname comes from his college basketball playing days) who worked in ¨The Oklahoma Woman¨ , ¨Day the world ended¨ and many others Corman products. Furthermore , brief acting , almost extra , of James B. Sikking . The motion picture is regularly directed by Roger Corman . During the 50-60s Roger Corman directed Western as ¨The Oklahoma Woman ¨ ¨Apache Woman¨ and ¨Five guns West ¨ , but his specialty were the terror movies , Edgar Alan Poe saga, and monsters movies as ¨Attack the crab monsters ¨, ¨ It conquered the world, ¨ Beast with a million eyes¨, ¨ Wasp man ¨, ¨ Viking women and great serpent ¨ , ¨ Little shop horrors ¨ though Corman also produced several films as ¨ Night of the blood beast ¨ and ¨ Attack of the giant leeches¨ . Rating : Mediocre , only for Roger Corman aficionados .

"You're gonna die lookin' like a brave man."

[classicsoncall · 5/10 · 2 January 2008]

I couldn't get over seeing Roger Corman's name in the opening credits as both producer and director of "Five Guns West", out the same year as another low budget flick that marked the beginning of his career - "Swamp Women". Oddly, both films featured a young Mike Connors in a lead role, but credited in each as 'Touch' Connors. In this picture, he's one of five outlaws pardoned by the Confederacy in exchange for undertaking a special assignment on behalf of the Southern cause. The entire plot becomes rather dubious because by the time the men intercept a stagecoach supposed to be bearing thirty thousand dollars in hard currency, neither their human target or the money is anywhere to be found. Dorothy Malone is thrown into the middle of the story as a bit of a distraction and something of a love interest for the nominal leader of the bad guys, Govern Sturgess (John Lund).

Probably the dumbest scene in the film was that shootout under the porch between Sturgess and John Candy, the Candy Brothers impressing me as the original Dumb and Dumber. Brother Will in fact was such a hothead that it was surprising he lasted as long as he did in the story; in the course of the picture he wound up picking a fight with each of his companions. I did however get a kick out of the scene where they cut off and shook the rattlesnake's tail, a gimmick visited some fifteen years later in "Two Mules For Sister Sara". My question still is - can you really do that with a rattlesnake tail?

There's really not a lot here to get excited about other than seeing an early Corman effort. From that standpoint, it's a lot better than a bunch of later stuff he did in the grade Z horror category, but at least flicks like "The Wasp Woman" and "Creature From The Haunted Sea" had some camp value. This one sets out with an interesting premise, but winds up being hijacked along with the Dawn Springs stagecoach.

Five ex-cons on a mission for the Confederacy

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 12 April 2021]

Near the end of the Civil War in Texas, five hardened convicts are pardoned to participate in a dangerous mission to apprehend a traitor and a gold shipment. Mike "Mannix" Connors plays one of the ne'er-do-wells while Dorothy Malone is on hand as one of two people living at the stage stop. John Lund co-stars.

"Five Guns West" (1955) is a B Western, known for being the directorial debut of trailblazing Indie filmmaker Roger Corman. It's not bad and thankfully shot in color. But the geography is disingenuous and the early reference to 1867 is laughable in light of the fact that the Civil War ended in 1865.

There are similarities to the earlier "Hangman's Knot" (1952), but it's different enough to stand on its own, although it lacks the budget and isn't as good. The movie focuses on the bickering social dynamics of the five former convicts and which one will get the woman.

The film runs 1 hour, 17 minutes, and was shot at Jack Ingram Ranch (in Woodland Hills) & Iverson Ranch (in Chatsworth), both in northwest Los Angeles.

GRADE: C+

A Dirty Dozen prototype out West

[lorenellroy · 7/10 · 6 June 2002]

This was Roger Corman's directorial debut and was a good indication of his ability to produce a brisk formula movie although it is also clear that the Western was not his real forte and that it was not until he turned to genres more suited to the youth exploitation market that he really found his niche.It is not without significance that in The Variety Book of Movie Lists neither Joe Dante or Martin Scorsese who contribute "Best of Roger Corman" lists mention any of his Westerns . The movie under review here is a version of the theme he returned to in a Second World War setting in The Secret Invasion and was used by Robert Aldrich for the bigger budget extravaganza The Dirty Dozen-this time given an American civil war setting.Five men are recruited from the criminal element to rescue confederate gold and apprehend a traitor.One is not however what he seems .The group is riven by internal tensions especially when waiting for the stage bringing their prey to a way station inhabited by Dorothy Malone and James Stone as her alcoholic and cowardly uncle .The group disintegrates and turns on their leader as played by John Lund

Good performances especially by Paul Birch(not the Lambchop and solo alternative country genius)as the grizzled veteran J.C

It is crudely done but never outstays its welcome

One of the worst movies ever

[helpless_dancer · 3/10 · 26 May 2002]

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.

watchable

[RanchoTuVu · 7/10 · 25 January 2004]

A group of five condemned confederates are sent west to find a stagecoach carrying a southern spy and $30,000 in confederate gold. The highpoint comes when they reach the stage coach station to await the arrival of the targeted stagecoach. Working there in the isolated station are Dorothy Malone and her alcoholic uncle. The interesting interaction between her, her uncle and the five men isn't half bad, with much of the attention sharply focused on the men and Malone, the highpoint being an interesting scene where they share dances with her. While the story is full of potential, it seems to avoid it more than not, though it is notable as Corman's first directorial effort.

Roger Corman's first flop

[westerner357 · 3/10 · 23 September 2003]

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

Not at all bad, though the villains didn't look too villainous

[Marlburian · 6/10 · 13 April 2015]

I'm surprised that the rating for FGW is only 4.3, as I thought it compared reasonably well with other Westerns of the period.

The implausibility of five villains being pardoned and then being trusted to fulfil their undertaking to capture the absconding traitor and gold and return both to the Confederacy has already been remarked on. Getting the date wrong (the officer mentioning "1867" when the Civil War is still being fought) was astonishing. And the villains don't look that villainous, despite their crimes.

But the plot canters along well enough, the factional aligning and re- aligning of the five is interesting, and the final shoot-out quite original.

But I do wonder how much better the film would have been with Randolph Scott starring, Budd Boetticher directing and a couple of real heavies (Jack Elam, Skip Homeier, say).

A Promising Start

[Arnold-7 · 5/10 · 23 April 2000]

This early film by Roger Corman was a promising start to what turned out to be an extraordinary career as a director and producer. It demonstrated his ability to tell an interesting story without much to work with. The story was interesting, it moved right along, and there was a bit of a surprise at the end.

The Dirty Five.

[hitchcockthelegend · 4/10 · 26 May 2013]

Five Guns West is directed by Roger Corman and written by R. Wright Campbell. It stars John Lund, Dorothy Malone, Mike Connors and Jonathan Haze. Filmed in Pathecolor with cinematography by Floyd Crosby and music by Buddy Bregman.

Desperate for men during the last days of the war between the States, the South found it necessary to offer pardons to outlaws to carry out special assignments. Strange dark figures rode under the flag of the Confederacy.

Well the central idea of the story formed the basis of better films to come further down the pipe, but outside of Malone's perky performance, there's not a great deal to sing about here. Corman was a master of the cheap production and he does well to keep this from total damnation, but excitement is rare, there's a lot of wood propping up the acting and the predictability of it all renders the finale a damp squib.

Its worth in the history of independent American cinema is at least notable, and once the film reaches the stagecoach station and Malone enters the fray; thus the ruffians have something to get in a pickle about, the pic just about holds interest. But come the end you realise it's the sort of Western that achieves the minimum it can to get released and is quite simply the first rung of the ladder for one Roger Corman. 4/10

Corman's first

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 5 March 2020]

FIVE GUNS WEST is a western cheapie directed by Roger Corman; it just so happens to be his first movie. It shares many of the similarities with his other fare of the 1950s, with a brisk pacing, straightforward plotting, and a kind of leanness that works throughout. It was shot in nine days by all accounts, but you can't really tell. The story is a variant on the hostage scenario, with members of a stagecoach station held up by escaped convicts, and the usual twists are enough to sustain the narrative.

"I wouldn't call that boy 'Shorty' anymore."

[alminator1 · 5/10 · 21 October 2018]

Ok story, good acting mostly, not terribly engaging.

A collection of murderers and malcontents is assembled by the Confederacy in a desperate attempt to rob a stagecoach to help fund their final war efforts. The members of the band are predictably uncooperative and untrusting. Trouble ensues.

Decent formula Western.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 2 March 2013]

The legendary Roger Corman began his impressive directing career with this entertaining Civil War era Western. It's not memorable in any way and it doesn't really hint at any future greatness but it served to show how Corman was able to work with limited budgets and brief shooting schedules (a mere nine days in this instance).

The performances are basically good in a tale of five outlaws hired by a Confederacy desperate for personnel. Their job is to intercept the path of a traitor named Jethro (Jack Ingram) and deliver him to the authorities. Adding incentive is the fact that Jethro is in possession of a substantial amount of gold. The stoic, low key Govern Sturges (John Lund) appoints himself leader of this group, and he finds that it's hard work dealing with the strong personalities of his accomplices. Complications arise when he takes a liking to Shalee (lovely Dorothy Malone), who runs a stagecoach station with her uncle Mime (James Stone).

The action is unfortunately a little underwhelming as the story plays out; clearly, Corman wasn't very well suited for the Western genre and had yet to find his voice as a creator of entertainment for the youth market. Still, the scenery (reverently photographed by Floyd Crosby) is beautiful, the music (by Buddy Bregman) is nice, and some of the performances are colourful. Lund is a little TOO low key in the lead, but Malone is feisty and appealing, and future 'Mannix' star Mike Connors is fun as lusty, greedy gambler Hale Clinton. Co-starring are Corman stock company player Jonathan Haze, screenwriter R. Wright Campbell, and Paul Birch (the evil alien in Cormans' "Not of This Earth") as the rest of the gang. A young James Sikking, future co-star of TV's 'Hill Street Blues' and 'Doogie Howser M.D.', makes his film debut as a Union sergeant.

Overall, "Five Guns West" is reasonably engaging, if understandably not too well known. It is worth a look for those who want to see the earliest efforts in Cormans' career.

Seven out of 10.

A Yellow Sky Remake

[januszlvii · 5/10 · 7 February 2021]

There is absolutely no doubt that Five Guns West is a remake of Yellow Sky ( especially the character of Mike Connors ( Hale Clinton) who is an obvious ripoff of Richard Widmark's Dude). You even see John Lund (Govern Sturges) playing Gregory Peck's Stretch Dawson and Dorothy Malone (Shalee Jethro) as Anne Baxter's tomboy Mike (complete with an alcoholic uncle ( instead of Baxter's grandfather)). You even see one of the Candy Brothers having the hots for Shalee and attacking her like John Russell ( Lengthy) did in Yellow Sky. It is even about the pursuit of gold. $30,000 here and even more in Yellow Sky. The biggest problem is none of the actors here are on the same level as Peck, Widmark and Baxter. This is particularly important because both Peck and Widmark are in the Western Performers Hall of Fame because of their work in Westerns. This is not to say Lund, Malone and especially Connors (who is the best one in the movie) are bad, it is simply they are not on the level of Peck, Widmark and Baxter. Spoilers ahead: Does Lund end up with Malone? Of course he does. He says at the end after he completes his mission to return Confederate Gold " I am coming home." ( Malone and her uncle live on a ranch). But he does not end up with gold like Peck and the other survivors of Yellow Sky. One more point: The dominant one in Yellow Sky is Baxter ( who has Peck wrapped around her finger), but here Malone does no such thing ( Lund has her wrapped around his finger). There is also no scene that sticks with you like after the shootout between Peck, Widmark and Russell you see a running Baxter (after finding out Peck survived ( unlike Widmark and Russell) yelling "Grandpa, grandpa). I should also mention Baxter was pretty handy with a rifle ( even saving Peck's life). Basically Five Guns West is an okay Western; Not great but not bad either. While Yellow Sky is one of the best westerns ever. Simply put the original gets 10/10 stars while the remake gets 5/10 stars. If you have seen neither film, I recommend actually seeing this movie first ( it is in color) then go on to the black and white Yellow Sky. You will enjoy this movie more if you do.

Just Cautious

[richardchatten · 7/10 · 10 August 2020]

Most people don't realise Roger Corman's debut feature as a director was in colour, or that like several of his early films was a western; in this case with a plot reminiscent of 'Yellow Sky'

Like most of Roger Corman's later exploitation films it boasts an arresting title sequence, a strong female lead and suggests better production values than it actually possessed through good use of locations. Like Robert Towne, alias Edward Wain five years later in 'Last Woman on Earth', Corman also economised while out on location by including the writer in the cast.

The agent and the gold

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 7 April 2015]

Done on a dental floss budget Five Guns West tells the story of the Confederate Army recruiting five outlaws and pardoning them from sentences of death to help recover several thousand dollars of gold bullion. It's kind of a different slant on the plot of the much bigger budgeted Virginia City. We learn that the Confederacy is much interested more in getting their traitorous agent back to stand trial as he has a lot of contacts to give the Union and pretty much blow up their spy system.

The five recruited are Michael Connors, John Lund, Paul Birch, R. Wright Campbell, and Jonathan Haze and they're about what you would expect from outlaws. The mission is to intercept a stagecoach at a particular station that will be carrying the agent and the gold.

That station is operated by Jack Ingram and his niece Dorothy Malone. Remember these guys are outlaws and haven't been with a woman in a while. As that line from Casablanca would read transfered here, Dorothy constitutes a second front all her own.

There are a couple interesting twists in this film involving the characters and the film was Roger Corman's directorial debut. If Corman didn't have a penchant for other genres he might have made some more interesting westerns like Five Guns West.

Alright, Nothing Special

[FightingWesterner · 6/10 · 26 March 2010]

Five criminals, some smarter than others, are pardoned by the Confederacy in order to rob a stagecoach of Union cash and capture a Confederate traitor. The five make their way to the rendezvous, where some of them menace a young woman and her elderly uncle, leading to in-fighting and the eventual battle with the US Army.

It's surprising to discover that the directorial debut of Roger Corman is not only a western, but is in color as well, with good photography by Floyd Crosby and some decent outdoor locations. On a technical level, this looks better than some of Corman's later, shoe-string black and white productions.

On hand is frequent collaborators like actor Jonathan Haze, Crosby, and writer R. Wright Campbell, as well as it's distributor, the soon-to-be renamed American International Pictures.

As far as the actual movie goes, it gets a bit talky at times, but it's a solid enough B-picture. Also, it's easy to see why villain Mike Conners went on to bigger and better things.

Well Made and Roger Corman's 1st

[sixshootersonny · 7/10 · 2 March 2021]

Five prisoners are pardoned right before they are to be hanged so they can join the Southern Army and go after a traitor and $30,000 in gold. As you guessed it these are five men you would never turn your back on let alone trust. They are all working on deals on how to keep the $30,000 for themselves with the assistance of another member of the gang. Led by John Lund as Govern Sturges the group also includes, baddie Hale Clinton played by Mike Connors, Paul Birch as J.C. Haggard and the sour Candy brothers John (no not the SCTV comedy legend, but played by screenwriter R. Wright Campbell) and future Roger Corman favourite Jonathan Haze as Billy. When they reach a homestead a hard-nosed country girl Shalee Jethro (Dorothy Malone) and her elbow bending Uncle Mike (James Stone) are in for a surprise.

This was Roger Corman's first film he ever directed and it is kind of interesting it is a western to me, because he is not known for that genre really. I thought it was good and really enjoyed how all the characters were quite different from each other. I would thank Campbell's script for that and he went on to write a few more films for Corman including the great MACHINE-GUN KELLY. Not sure if I really just wanted to watch a western that night or not, but I recommend this one to anyone who likes 50s westerns.

With such a plot, Budd Boetticher would have given us a jewel

[searchanddestroy-1 · 21 August 2023]

This is an ordinary western for me, not better nor worst than an another one. And nothing here could announce the future career of the genius Roger Corman, for whom western will never be the best work. I although prefered GUNSLINGER from him, his best western for me. Corman showed his skills more in low budget science fiction but also some bigger budgets: ST VALENTINE SAY MASSACRE, VON RICHTOFFEN AND BROWN. But please, don't misundertsand me, this western is Ok, and if you are a Roger Corman fan, mainly for his sci-fi material, don't hesitate to see this one too. As we say in France, it won't break three legs to a duck, but it is worth watching. Such plot and character symphony is not so far from Budd Boetticher's westerns starring Randolph Scott, but here the character study is far from being so powerful, so outstanding as the Scott - Boetticher's movies.

Decent B Picture from Corman

[Michael_Elliott · 19 June 2010]

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.