Surprisingly incoherent and boring

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

The acting in this movie is really good.

This could have been an excellent western movie had they not tried to be so cheap in production. Instead of filming on location with vaulting mountains and wide open scenes, we are left with filming on a back lot with very little scenery and projected background landscape. And with such gifted actors in most parts it was puzzling on why they put stiff actor Bill Elliott as the lead man. I know he has played the lead in many B-westerns but with the cast of actors in this film, he stood out like a sore thumb.But passing on Elliott's mannequin performance, the rest of the cast seemed to flow effortless and made the story entertaining to watch. There was a few spots hard to watch but overall this film provided enough interest throughout to keep the viewer on the edge of the seat right to the end of the movie. Was actually expecting very little from this movie but was pleasantly surprised. This is a film that you ask yourself, What could have been?

You might want to take a peek at this Western.Here's what I liked:Very unusual appearance by Harry Morgan as a tough henchman. Morgan spent most of his career playing buffoons.Pretty well executed film noir technique, which is odd to see in the Western format. The film has an effective hard edge to it, especially considering how low budget it is.I always like watching Walter Brennan play against type.Here's what I didn't like:There's nothing really Western about that movie except costumes. This is an urban detective who-dun-it simply transposed to a Western setting.Cheap production, completely back lot, William Eliot is not a very good lead.Ridiculous stereotyping of Mexican character.

Artistic Western? That one reviewer must have been hitting the Hoppy Juice a bit too often. I guess he thinks any Western that's not a clash over water rights is "artistic." This piece of junk was obvious from the start (Surprise? You thought the girl did it?)Also "the cast was excellent , including Elliot?" He was stiffer than the oak tress in the background. I guess I can't take too much "Art" in my Westerns. Give me "Stagecoach" anytime.The Showdown. Bill Elliot. Was old Elliot Wooden School of Acting Guru a regular Republic leading man? Why was Walter Brennan playing that type of character at that point in his career?

Too bad budget-cutting Republic pictures spent all their money on the script and cast of this surprising little sleeper. It left them none for badly needed location shots, or failing that, at least to improve on some of the poorly done process shots. Note the number of times the horsemen stand statically in front of a backscreen projection instead of riding across a natural scene These cost-cutters count here, because otherwise this is an unnoticed little gem not usually expected from the likes of Saturday-matinée Republic. The script is excellent with a number of surprises, and holds interest throughout. The main cast (Elliot, Brennan, Windsor), along with supporting players (Morgan, Williams, Ching) are as good as could be expected from the major studios. Only Nacho Galindo's buffoonish comic-relief suggests Republic's usual fare. Actually, this is a noir Western produced at a time when film noir dominated many urban crime dramas. The atmosphere here, especially the stormy opening scene, reminds me of the fine Bob Mitchum Western, Blood on the Moon, which also made good use of brooding night-time sets. Then too, Elliot's revenge-obsessed "bad good-guy" strikingly anticipates Randolph Scott"s running character in Budd Boetticher's cult Westerns of the late 1950's. Anyway, this is a surprisingly good little drama, despite the shortcomings.