Echec aux tueurs

A band of bad men rustle a man's cattle and then frame him for the murder of their brother. He is sent to a New Mexico prison, but the walls couldn't hold him. Once he escapes, he heads for Laredo where the men who wronged him are. Extremely corny and badly acted story that was so phony I could barely watch it. Don't corral this sway backed nag.

As someone who grew up watching B westerns during the 1950's from that point of view not a terribly bad movie. Some of the fight scenes could use a little more realism, but Robert Knapp gave a decent performance. However, there isn't much surprise with the plot as this is standard for most B westerns. The return of the hero for revenge. Good supporting cast. My biggest complaint would be the sets, they really looked cheap and the sound editing could be better. For a 1950's western it wasn't the worst I've ever seen. Mention was made about the actress who portrayed Rosita...very pretty and it was explained that she was Mexican not Indian.

Gunmen from Laredo is directed by Wallace MacDonald and written by Clark E. Reynolds. It stars Robert Knapp, Jana Davi, Walter Coy, Paul Birch and Don C. Harvey.

Out to avenge the murder of his wife and friend, Gil Reardon (Knapp) hurries into Laredo to confront the culprits. Forced to draw on one of the thugs, Gil is set up for murder and sent to prison. Escaping, he meets up with a Mescalero woman who aids him on is journey through the wilderness. If they can survive the terrain and Indian attacks? Then Gil is heading back to Laredo to clear his name and get his revenge.

Straight from the bottom rung of the "B" Western ladder, is this Columbia offering filmed in Columbia Color no less! It's a poor effort, a basic case of film makers stringing a number of scenes together to pad out a movie. The acting is poor, the set design around the town of Laredo is hardly convincing, while the location photography around Bronson Canyon is decidedly flat.

However, I find myself in the unusual situation of having watched a bad Western yet feel the need to grudgingly admire it! MacDonald and Reynolds cram all they can into their picture. Shoot-outs, prison escape, chases, fist fights, sandstorm and a smouldering romance in waiting. The choreography isn't up to much, mind, but the sheer gusto and willingness to entertain is to be applauded.

It's the sort of Oater that Dad can plonk the kids in front of the TV and know they will have fun and be occupied, while he sits in his armchair relaxing with a glass of wine. 4/10

It's odd that Columbia would be marketing this cheap 60-minutes in the middle of TV's cowboy craze, (1959) . Really, who's going to pay to see something they can get for free on Bonanza or Wagon Train. My guess is that the oater was done for drive-in's as a Technicolor second feature. Conjecture aside, the movie's a pretty dismal product. The locations never leave greater LA, while the acting goes from terrible (Rosita) to journeyman (the marshal) to somewhere in between (Reardon). Then too, the script meanders all over, like the writer's afraid he might leave out some western cliché, which goes from revenge to Indians to showdowns to romance, to a windstorm thrown in. Trouble is they're more cobbled together than successfully blended. Anyhow, Knapp tries hard to bring off his tough-guy role, but frankly his slender frame is anything but imposing, especially when he wrestles the brawny Colorados. He'd really do better as a college fraternity man. About the only reason to catch the hour are the nicely photographed colors of the San Fernando Valley at its most verdant.

In rating Westerns, it's natural to expect more from the Westerns of the fifties with their more identifiable, credible, and interesting characters in an era of "credible motivations in incredible circumstances'".

That's obviously due to a time when people dealt more with harsh realities of survival. Modern Westerns (beginning with the pathetic Leone spaghetti garbage) were geared for bubble boys who felt that they would act the same way as the stereotypical Hollywood "demigods" that the hacks shoved down our throats sometime about after 1965.

Here, we have a case where the two leads are not nearly as recognizable as the villain and the lawman. Walter Coy, of course, is the most recognizable, as the good brother in "The Searchers".

This is a tale of revenge, and of people who wisely tell the hero not to seek revenge. Many of the characters are surprising for Hollywood, but the fifties did have more surprising and more iconoclastic stories.

Birch gets the best role as the lawman here, and kind of steals the show, mostly because it is written for him to steal it, and he does a terrific job. He's the opposite of the usual Hollywood lawman character, a very iconoclastic character who is not the usual "outlaw turned lawman".

That's a risk that few directors or producers would take after 1965, thanks to a more "bubble boy" audience.

If there is a weakness in the story, it's the lack of development of the outlaw brothers. Even Coy doesn't get to do a lot other than be a villain. Not that they aren't credible. They are like real villains. It's just that they aren't given a lot to do other than their evil acts.

A good film. Not the usual Hollywood story.