Confession d'un tueur

This western with a message starts out fast with an early gunfight, but then slows down considerably & takes things at a leisurely pace for most of the remainder of the movie. Character development, especially of Bronson & his girlfriend, is very good, & meaningful issues are explored (e.g., "Is he a bad guy if he's a model citizen in his town, has helped his neighbors in important ways, but just happens to have killed three people elsewhere?"). The plight of short people is also explored to some extent. Overall, a solid story with some action. I rate it 8/10.

As with most films that "miss", it almost always comes down to a bad script...as it does here. The subject matter the movie tries to deal with is potentially interesting, and could have had some real emotional impact, but the slow, meandering pace and some goofy dialogue undermine what could have been a good psychological Western. It's really a shame because the directing is actually pretty good, the score feels just right, most of the actors hold their own, and the sets actually look remarkably authentic considering what an extremely low budget this movie clearly had.

Throughout the entire movie I kept thinking that it reminded me of another project, but couldn't put my finger on it...and then it dawned on me that the whole thing has the feel of a 1950s TV Western...it especially reminded me of the way the first season of "The Rifleman" was shot. Not sure if this movie was meant to be the second part of a drive-in movie double-bill, or (based on the quality and running time) if this might have actually been shot as a potential pilot for a TV series...Bronson looks fantastic here...he is young, fit, handsome, and would have made an excellent TV star had he been given the opportunity. This project might have passed as decent enough TV watching, but it misses the mark as a feature film, which is a shame considering its potential.

Not only did the film have potential, but you can see the potential Charles Bronson had if he'd chosen to become an actor instead of a silent-but-deadly action hero over the span of his career. His early work gave him some really good opportunities to emote, but I guess the other direction he went in paid a lot better. I suppose one can't argue with success, but it is interesting to think of what might have been.

"Showdown at Boot Hill" is certainly not worth paying money to rent or buy, but if it comes on cable, it is definitely a harmless enough way to spend an hour and change.

In the late 1950s and early sixties, Charles Bronson played character roles in big films, particularly westerns, both good (The Magnificent Seven) and not so good (Four For Texas). On occasion, he also picked up a leading role in some offbeat little movie. And while Showdown at Boot Hill is often listed as his 'debut' as a lead (in fact, it isn't), the minor western entry does rate among his earliest. It's one more of the low-key, adult westerns, with a psychologically troubled anti-hero, that were churned out after the success of first The Gunfighter (1950) and then on an even bigger scale High Noon (1952). In truth, the formula was wearing a bit thin by this time, which partly explains why Magnificent Seven hit as big as it did the following year - a new kind of western for a new decade. Meanwhile, though, Bronson comports himself very well as he rides into a small town, shoots it out with a criminal there, and then plans to head back to headquarters for his bounty money. There's only one problem: As the townsfolk all liked the outlaw, they refuse to sign affidavits attesting to Bronson's having killed the guy. Maybe they can't bring him back, but they can prevent Bronson from cashing in on what he did. This would have played far better if Bronson had been identified only as a bounty hunter, i.e. gun for hire. But the writers made the mistake of having him also be a federal marshal, and take it from me, no one would have messed with anyone who carried a U.S. government badge, no matter how they felt about him. One very intriguing element is that, in the western realm of tall men, Bronson is cast as an extremely short guy who is sensitive about his diminutive height. The female lead is played by the little known Carole Matthews, who is good but nothing more. Far better is John Carradine as one of his lanky old loner types. Not necessarily worth going out of your way to see, but if this rides by your trail, take a look, partner.

In his first starring role, Charles Bronson is a US Deputy Marshal who comes into a small western town, hunting Thomas Browne Henry. There's a bounty on him for killing three men, and when he draws on Bronson, Bronson shoots him down. The town doesn't like it. Henry was a popular figure, ready to sell a string of cattle below price, and wait for his money, so long as you didn't ask where he got them. No one will name him, and so Bronson waits around for a positive identification, so he can collect his bounty money. While he waits, he falls in love with Fintan Mayler, the shy daughter of the town's local bad woman, Carole Matthews. While he waits, there's lots of philosophizing from John Carradine, the town's barber, doctor, and fellow who reads over graves.

Gene Fowler Jr's movie makes its points about violence and loneliness, but does so in too obvious a manner, afraid to let the audience draw its own conclusion. There are plenty of swooping crane shots by cinematographer John M. Nickolaus Jr., straight out of HIGH NOON to make sure we realize this is an important psychological movie.

The performances are good, but everyone tries too hard to make this a superior movie.

Supposedly Charles Bronson's first starring role, this involves him playing a bounty hunter named Luke Welsh who has a warrant for a man named Con Maynor (Thomas Brown Henry). Maynor had killed two other men in another town so now he has to answer for that. Welsh meets up with Maynor in the local dining hall/saloon and out draws and kills him. It was all fair and square since Maynor drew first, and Bronson is later exonerated at a local hearing.

The only problem is that the town is not co-operating when Welsh tries to collect proof of Maynor's death in order to collect his bounty. It's seems Maynor was very popular in this town and the people resent Welch for what he did. They take pot-shots at him in the dark while the sheriff stands by and does nothing. See, the sheriff liked Maynor, too.

But Welsh won't leave until he collects that $200 bounty and in order to do that, he has to find out why this town is enamored with Con Maynor. It's later revealed that Maynor stole and killed in other communities and then did good things for this town with a lot of his stolen wealth. A kind of twisted 'Robin Hood' would be the best way to describe it. In other words, Welch is dealing with a corrupt, sleazy town that's in deep denial about Maynor and it's own past.

This oater starts off well, but then it engages in histrionics and psychological emotionalism, especially when Welch tries to 'find himself' while he falling in love with a local woman named Sally (Carole Mathews). It gets to be a bit much as we see the Bronson character do a lot of unnecessary hand-wringing while getting away from all the local action at hand.

At 73 minutes, it could have been cut to an hour which would have made the story tighter and not meander off into unnecessary directions. Besides, not much else happens at Boot Hill other than Maynor getting buried there.

With John Carradine as the barber-undertaker and Robert Hutton as the town foil.

5 out of 10