Gun Battle at Monterey

This movie came on the Western Channel last night after two very good, if not great westerns. The contrast was huge. I couldn't make it half way this one it was so bad. Don't watch this movie unless you have a weird sense of humor.

This is one of the worst western movies I have ever seen in my life. I gave it a 2/10 because I save a one for bad and evil. This didn't qualify in the evil category, just bad, bad, bad. Cheap and bad is probably more accurate

Sterling Hayden is much better than this. I can't believe his poor performance. I expected much more from this actor. Lee Van Clief was no better.

This movie must have been made over a long weekend. The beach scenes didn't work, but they were probably cheap. A surf western?

Bad directing.

Bad camera.

Bad music.

Bad bad, bad and cheap surf western movie.

While this film purports to be a western, it feels more like a 1950's gangster flick. Its biggest problem is that it's not a good example of either!

The cast is lacking in range and the script and characters are cliches. Its best selling point is that it isn't completely lacking in visual interest.

Hayden made a number of cheap Westerns at a time (late '50's) when Drive-in's were a booming business and in need of fare. Unfortunately, none are very good, including this one, though a number of talented people were involved in each. As could be expected, most suffered from poor production values and sub-standard scripts, leaving the talent little to work with. That's very much the case here. As others point out, only Van Cleef looks motivated. And too bad that great bad girl Mary Beth Hughes (Cleo) is not given more to work with.

No need to repeat negative points made by others, except for two observations. Note that the film has two directors listed. According to IMDb, this was Franklin's only directorial effort, which suggests producer Hittleman didn't like what he saw and so took over the directing himself. Thus the film lacks an experienced director's hand. Also, the ending is indeed startling for a picture of this type. It's so abrupt and unexpected, it's almost like the company suddenly ran out of film and had to wrap up immediately. Certainly, nothing else in the production shows the kind of imagination or nerve that would produce such a startling break with convention. Too bad this remains the only good reason to stick around for this surf-to-turf oater.

Quite often us Western fans will see the cast list of an old 1950s Western and reasonably expect it to at the very least be a time waster. So instantly we (yes it's the Royal we) notice that Sterling Hayden and Lee Van Cleef star in it, and Ted de Corsia on villain duties as well, and feel quite confident. While when you got a title proudly promising a gun battle it's not outrageous to expect maybe just a little bit of bang bang bangery.

That Carl K. Hittlemen's film doesn't deliver any goods is not really his fault, he's a director for hire working with a lazy screenplay and a cast who know it's a lazy screenplay! Cleef escapes criticism, but it's really not a badge of honour to shine in this sea of mediocrity, but he at least makes time spent with the pic tolerable: Just! Come the hopelessly weak finale you are unlikely to care or consider this as being worth another look in some alternate future.

Key word is lazy, so this is an appropriately lazy review. 3/10

This movie wastes the talents of Sterling Hayden (who obviously made this movie to fund his famous off-screen pursuits) and Ted de Corsia, who was a great Western villain. A movie about two bank robbers who escape, but one Reno, played by de Corsia, betrays and shoots Hayden's character. Hayden's character is rescued, recovers, and seeks vengeance. It was cheaply made in the coastal California area, and has beautiful scenery, but the script is horrible, and wastes the talents of everyone involved, including Lee Van Cleef, who is an additionally villain. This is a grade-Z Western. Don't watch unless you want a laugh.