Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

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!

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.

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.

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.