I love this movie so much

hyped garbage

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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!

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.

I couldn't get over seeing Roger Corman's name in the opening credits as both producer and director of "Five Guns West", out the same year as another low budget flick that marked the beginning of his career - "Swamp Women". Oddly, both films featured a young Mike Connors in a lead role, but credited in each as 'Touch' Connors. In this picture, he's one of five outlaws pardoned by the Confederacy in exchange for undertaking a special assignment on behalf of the Southern cause. The entire plot becomes rather dubious because by the time the men intercept a stagecoach supposed to be bearing thirty thousand dollars in hard currency, neither their human target or the money is anywhere to be found. Dorothy Malone is thrown into the middle of the story as a bit of a distraction and something of a love interest for the nominal leader of the bad guys, Govern Sturgess (John Lund). Probably the dumbest scene in the film was that shootout under the porch between Sturgess and John Candy, the Candy Brothers impressing me as the original Dumb and Dumber. Brother Will in fact was such a hothead that it was surprising he lasted as long as he did in the story; in the course of the picture he wound up picking a fight with each of his companions. I did however get a kick out of the scene where they cut off and shook the rattlesnake's tail, a gimmick visited some fifteen years later in "Two Mules For Sister Sara". My question still is - can you really do that with a rattlesnake tail?There's really not a lot here to get excited about other than seeing an early Corman effort. From that standpoint, it's a lot better than a bunch of later stuff he did in the grade Z horror category, but at least flicks like "The Wasp Woman" and "Creature From The Haunted Sea" had some camp value. This one sets out with an interesting premise, but winds up being hijacked along with the Dawn Springs stagecoach.

Mediocre story about 5 southern prisoners given pardons in exchange for intercepting a Confederate spy using an alleged gold shipment as an inducement. John Lund is the good guy while all the others are the bad guys. This has some good acting concerning the participants involved, but the story is ridiculous and the premise is wildly implausible. Why trust a bunch of criminals to do this kind of a job? Good grief!This is Roger Corman's first attempt at the directors chair and it shows, but at least he filmed it outdoors instead of on cheap Hollywood soundstages. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Or the box lunches, for that matter. (laughs) It also has Dorothy Malone as the love interest who not too long afterwards, would earn an Oscar for WRITTEN ON THE WIND. Talk about a career jump!3 out of 10