I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Blistering performances.

I am happy to report that there is nothing politically incorrect about this film - even though it is considered to be politically incorrect. What is so politically incorrect about little people finding work in the film industry OR for little people to have a western film? The film is no different than watching regular sized people in an older B western.Back then little people were called midgets and that term was used happily at the beginning of the film. Midget was used until the later half of the 20th century when the term became short person or little person. Today the term midget is considered to be politically incorrect and offensive. You have to remember that the term was fine during the time this film was made.The film itself is fine! There is nothing wrong with the movie - it's a cute comedy western - no different than other B comedy westerns of it's time era except it's an all little people cast. It's a cute movie like any other cute movie full of regular sized people.I like The Chef in this movie... some of his stuff is funny.4/10

I watched this in preparation for Herzog's dwarf film. He requires some time in the wilderness.In the early 30's there were some precode films that copied already established genres but with toddlers playing the roles. I commented on two: "War Babies" and "Runt Pages." Recently, I saw "Baby Geniuses," which borrowed heavily in spirit — but without the sex jokes.This is also modeled in a way on those, but is schizophrenic.It was the same year that "Wizard of Oz," used little people in a serious way to introduce the distorted magic of Oz. (This was before we could rely on Dr Suess.) Nearly all of these actors were in that scene, with its grueling shoot. The actual story is played almost perfectly straight. A standard script is used: cowboy romance, "Romeo and Juliette" family feud and romance, cattle rustling, corrupt sheriff, barroom moll... the whole works. These actors and the director take the movie seriously.On the other hand, a different director managed the musical numbers. There are a half dozen, and the novelty of little people is played to the hilt, using some actual children I think where cuteness is required. The shift in stance is radical. You can see that distributor realized that they had a problem, so here is what they did:At the beginning, an announcer comes on "stage" to announce that we would see a "novelty picture" with "midgets." A one of a kind, first ever, he effuses. But he is interrupted by the actor playing the hero, who assures him that the movie is not a novelty but a real film. Then he and the film's villain engage in a bit of scripted verbal slapping that someone thought was a successful synthesis of worlds.Here's what interests me: mainstream movies have only a few seconds to work with the viewer to establish where what the world is they are entering and where they stand in it. It is critical to the success of a film that this is right. It is why genres are so strong film; there is no relief from the moving forward of the narrative. Big films today can do that by showing a synopsis of the whole movie in the long trailers we have. And title sequences have become extremely effective: an art in itself.By here in 1938, they took those few precious minutes for this strange dialog.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

The standard issue plot consists of the title villain rustling cattle and sparking a range war between two rival ranchers, who each suspect the other.This is the first and only all little person musical western film. Once the novelty wears off though, The Terror Of Tiny Town starts to look like a typical 1930's poverty row programmer, of which director Sam Newfield is strongly associated.Billy Curtis, who went on to co-star alongside Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter, makes an appealing hero. The musical numbers (some of which were dubbed) are well done and the climax is surprisingly good.The producers should have cast Mickey Rooney as a giant!

Reading the postings here it does appear that one will either hate this offering as insulting and/or laughable or come to appreciate it as something quite unique.Admittedly the dialog and much of its delivery is B movie tedious, yet examining other scripts and performances of the time we find that this is rather standard fare. The acting could certainly have been much more refined (Billy Rhodes, the villain, looked uncomfortable through most of the film), but I have traveled all through the United States, seen plays and musicals put on by more trained actors that were so much worse than this. Some version of this script could have easily found its way into Roy Rogers weekly show.The worst part, for me, was the second musical number in the saloon; sung by Johnnie Fern as Diamond Dolly. I had seen it as a separate clip long before seeing the entire movie - feel free to fast forward here - it is truly embarrassing.Charles Becker as Otto the cook, is a joy to watch.Bill Platt as Jim 'Tex' Preston, was the senior of this group and had been performing for several decades before being well cast as the wealthy loving uncle.Billy Curtis as the hero Buck Lawson, cuts quite a dashing figure, especially during the stagecoach chase; which is dangerous for even a larger stunt man.Two things I found distasteful. First, Yvonne Moray as Nancy Preston running under the desk out of the jail. Second, the swinging doors at the saloon. The top of the doors were placed at the usual height for the period, but length had been reduced (obviously on purpose) to half. These are insults to both the viewer and the players.Not the most horrible thing on screen. I will watch "The Terror of Tiny Town" rather than that audio-visual vomit, "Moulin Rouge!" (2001), any time. What ever your personal opinion of this film please allow that everyone should see it at least once. The greatest question here may not be "who thought that this movie would be a good idea?", but, "why is there a penguin in a barber shop of the old west?"