i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

A-maz-ing

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

This movie sucks. Frank Sinatra is pitiful. I tried to follow the plot and fell asleep: it was that boring.According to the recent series, "Feud", Robert Aldrich couldn't direct the movie. Sinatra did it his way; and his way came off as contrived and phony and flat. The fight scenes were so fake that they even were uneventful.I only wonder how the cast felt after making this bomb. I always felt Frank Sinatra was over-rated. This movie proves it beyond a doubt.I am relieved that Frank Sinatra cannot make any more of these bombs.

Not really a rat pack movie, but close enough. Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin are rival gamblers vying for possession of a riverboat gambling joint. It's a funny, smörgåsbord type of comic western with Sinatra & Martin in top form, supported by the likes of Victor Buono, Mike Mazurki and Charles Bronson. They're all great and Bronson gets plenty of laughs sending up his steely tough-as-nails persona; he's a real thorn in Sinatra's side. Buono is fun as a thoroughly corrupt bank manager. The very large supporting cast also includes Jack Elam, Ellen Corby, Nick Dennis as Angel and Dave Willock (you'll likely recognize the voice). The Three Stooges pop up briefly for a reasonably funny bit. Ursula Andress and Anita Ekberg provide love interests for Martin & Sinatra respectively. The great music score is by Nelson Riddle. The unexpected director is Robert Aldrich, who sandwiched this film in between his two grand guignol masterpieces WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? and HUSH HUSH SWEET CHARLOTTE.

It was great... for about 20 minutes.What this movie lacks is about everything you want in a western. a few minutes action and a whole lot of crap.A pampered cowboy and a thief who spent most of their time around two blond girls with skippy clothes and little brains.....add to that a fat banker and a riverboat and you have your story.Seriously that's about as interesting as it gets.If your highest wish is to see Frank Sinatra get pedicure.. than this is probably the movie for you. But if you're looking for an action filled western... then I propose you look somewhere else.

This movie has four stars, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Anita Ekberg and Ursula Andress, so I gave it four stars. Actually two stars are for Dean Martin's attempts to add humor. Anita and Ursula get one each, but Frank Sinatra gets no stars.When the movie opens a group of bandits are attacking a stage-coach. Frank Sinatra is shooting the bandits from the top of the coach, while Dean Martin is shooting them from out the window of the coach. Sinatra has a silly grin on his face as he shoots. There is no indication that he might die any moment or that he is actually killing human beings. He is smiling as if he is just playing a game. Dean Martin also looks totally relaxed and nonchalant, but he is not grinning the way Sinatra is. There is no acting going on here. It is as if the director said to Sinatra, "Smile and shoot the gun." Anybody above the age of ten could have played the scene more realistically.I understand that Aldrich was upset with Sinatra. He said that Sinatra worked a total of 80 hours over a 38 day period. In other words, he worked about two days a week, for five or six hours a day, over a seven week period. Nice work if you can get it. I wonder if Aldrich used the inappropriate footage in the opening scene as a way of getting revenge on Sinatra, actually purposefully making him look like a bad actor.While the Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra both have about twenty minutes of scene time in the first half of the movie, Sinatra only has a few quick scenes in the second half until he walks in at the end for the climatic fight scene. I'm also wondering if Aldrich cut down on Sinatra's scenes when he saw that Sinatra was just saying his lines and not acting.Anita Ekberg was paired with Sinatra, but there was no chemistry there. She is only on-screen for about ten minutes. I suspect that Aldrich cut scenes with her and Sinatra when he saw that they weren't working.On the other hand, Ursula Andress does connect with Martin and the scenes of him lusting over her may be sexist, but they are practically the only amusing scenes in the film. Just as in the first James Bond movie, "Dr. No." she appears only after the film is half over. Unlike the James Bond movie, she cannot save this film, but she does relieve some of the tedium.Aldridge is a fantastic director under the right circumstances. "Kiss Me Deadly," "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane," and "Emperor of the North Pole," are my favorites. I suspect that he really wanted to create tension between Sinatra's and Martin's characters, but Sinatra refused and only wanted the rivalry to be good-natured kidding between pals. Apparently, he sought to get Sinatra fired, but failed. The result is a movie that moves at glacier speed and has few surprises, unless you can call the pointless appearance of the Three Stooges, a surprise.I think only Ursula Andress fans will enjoy this one. She wears some great dresses and appears quite self assured, relaxed and sexy. If you are one, just watch the second half. You won't miss anything.