Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Panamint Yes its just a routine B western. But its above average and worth your viewing time.The villain is a rotten creep as portrayed by Zachary Scott. Randolph Scott is of course stalwart and solid in the lead role. Lloyd Bridges provides solid support.But I really like this film because Ruth Roman is not your typical pretty b-western actress here. She is tough, forceful, physical and believable as well as very beautiful. She really pops in Technicolor wearing that fringe buckskin. Absolutely gorgeous and she out-acts every male in the movie.The immortal Stanley Andrews, the stentorian-voiced ultimate Sheriff of all Western movies and later TV's Death Valley Days, contributes his dignified screen presence.This film is a triumph of great casting over what could otherwise be routine.

xtine926 Randolph Scott stands tall and stately with a smile dancing on his lips throughout much of this semi-moving movie, even though it's not a comedy.Dapperly dressed, Scott pitches pistol features and benefits, befriends native Americans, and does his darnedest to make the old West a better place to sell repeating revolvers in this shoot-em-up flick.Some interesting points center around the other actors and characters in this two-and-a-half-star 1950 western extravaganza.Watching Alan Hale (Sr.) as the wayward sheriff is positively intriguing. There are a couple of scenes where his resemblance to his son is so apparent that it seems as though Gilligan's familiar cry of "Skipper" might pierce the dusty air of Bonanza City at any second.In one somewhat intense bad-guy scene, Zachary Scott's pinkish flower-sprouting pajama-esque shirt is accessorized oh so tastefully with a sandy brown neck scarf, and a deliciously dazzling silver belt with a sterling home-on-the-range flair. It doesn't necessarily detract from the scene, but this pastel ensemble worth raving about doesn't necessarily enhance the uber masculine character he portrays in this film. Maybe the wardrobe staff forgot the film was in color, and not in the more commonly used black-and-white format.Meanwhile, Ruth Roman learns the hard way why it's important to avoid marrying a guy who rides roughshod on the wrong side of the law. And speaking of odd couples, who would have guessed that she'd end up cinematically wed to Lloyd Bridges? All in all, this classic tale of the old west warrants one solid uninterrupted viewing as it is at least worth its weight in lead.

Robert J. Maxwell I kind of like Randolph Scott as a cowboy. He relied on two expressions. One was a slight frown signifying determination and an awareness of danger. The other was a good-natured smile bespeaking satisfaction and self confidence. (Sam Pekinpah added a note to impending treachery to that smile in "Ride The High Country.") Scott's minimalist acting was put to use in dozens of Westerns around this time, and sometimes put to very good use indeed.So it's a disappointment to find that "Colt .45" is such a stinker. It's not Randy's fault. He does his usual schtick. The responsibility for the failure lies with the writer and the director.The director, Marin, seems to have encouraged all his principles to overact. Of course he could get nowhere with Randolph Scott, who had the range of a Soviet era steel statue, all muscle, upraised arm with a fist on the end. But Ruth Roman looks as if she's taking acting lessons. And Zachary Scott, as the outlaw who steals two of Scott's Colt six shooters and becomes feared throughout the cinematic West, goes well beyond a community college drama class into some overacting stratosphere. Many movies are as good as their villains. And Zachary Scott's villainy would sink this effort, even if nothing else did. He never utters a kind word -- not from the very beginning. He doesn't smile. He sneers and scowls. His eyes bulge with malevolence. He hisses between snarls. The director needed to rein him in, along with just about everyone else, extras included. If only Z. Scott had had a dog or a stamp collection -- or something!The writer must share some of the blame. The film opens with a prologue that tells us that guns don't kill people. People kill people. Then it goes on to demonstrate the opposite. On top of that, a good deal is made of the Colt .45s that Randolph Scott is selling at the opening in 1852. He explains that they're a revolutionary invention in that they can fire six bullets in sequence without reloading. He shows a client how it works. The revolver uses the cap and ball method, meaning that instead of a single cartridge, the user has to combine a paper cartridge and a lead ball, both of which must be tamped down, and then add a percussion cap. He must go through this procedure six times, once for every chamber.I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I hope I'll be excused if I feel this throws a knot into the plot. If, as the movie asserts, only the two Scotts have these revolutionary new six shooters, it means that everyone else must have lesser ordinance like muzzle loaders. Okay, except that the few other pistols we see are apparently Civil War Remingtons, which were also six shooters loaded by the same method. Did Samuel Colt have a lobbyist at work? Of course not.Well, so the movie sucks. It must be one of Randy Scott's worst Westerns. Yet, let me end on a positive note. Scott looks just fine, even if he doesn't exactly evoke 1852. He's handsome. He's weathered and tan. He's fit. Towards the end, he appears in black trousers, black belt, black shirt, and black cowboy hat, all properly accessorized by a canary yellow neckerchief. He strides. He exudes authority. He's charismatic. He collects his paychecks.

MartinHafer Sometimes it sucks to be a cowboy hero. In this film, Randolph Scott can't catch any breaks in the first few minutes of the film. First, when the evil baddie Zachary Scott escapes after killing the sheriff, the townspeople lock up Randolph--even though he did nothing and Zachary stole his prize revolvers. Second, after he finally is released because there is no evidence against him, Randolph jumps into the middle of a stage robbery and saves the day...only to have the lady on board steal his horse! Like I said, sometimes it sucks to be the cowboy hero! The rest of the film consists of Randolph trying to track down the gang and make them pay. The only problem is that practically everyone is too stupid to realize who is the real gang leader, so often it's up to our hero to do much of the hero-stuff alone or with the help of his Indian friends.The movie suffers from one too many cases of "he appears to be _________ but is actually __________". This happens four different times--a town sheriff who appears interested in law and order who is actually a member of the gang, a lady who appears to be working for the gang but is only interested in saving her husband, the husband who appears to be prisoner of the gang but is actually a willing member of the gang and Randolph who is accused of being with the gang but is actually a hero. This is just way too contrived and happens too often--making the film seem very sloppy. While you can always count on a Randolph Scott film to be entertaining and reasonably well made, this one is clearly one of his lesser films due to the improbable writing and predictability. It seems like I've seen the final scene with Zachary Scott leaving the jail about 157 times in the past!!!For fans of Randolph Scott, it's worth seeing. For others, it's really just another time-passer.