Disturbing yet enthralling

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Quite often us Western fans will see the cast list of an old 1950s Western and reasonably expect it to at the very least be a time waster. So instantly we (yes it's the Royal we) notice that Sterling Hayden and Lee Van Cleef star in it, and Ted de Corsia on villain duties as well, and feel quite confident. While when you got a title proudly promising a gun battle it's not outrageous to expect maybe just a little bit of bang bang bangery.That Carl K. Hittlemen's film doesn't deliver any goods is not really his fault, he's a director for hire working with a lazy screenplay and a cast who know it's a lazy screenplay! Cleef escapes criticism, but it's really not a badge of honour to shine in this sea of mediocrity, but he at least makes time spent with the pic tolerable: Just! Come the hopelessly weak finale you are unlikely to care or consider this as being worth another look in some alternate future. Key word is lazy, so this is an appropriately lazy review. 3/10

Hayden made a number of cheap Westerns at a time (late '50's) when Drive-in's were a booming business and in need of fare. Unfortunately, none are very good, including this one, though a number of talented people were involved in each. As could be expected, most suffered from poor production values and sub-standard scripts, leaving the talent little to work with. That's very much the case here. As others point out, only Van Cleef looks motivated. And too bad that great bad girl Mary Beth Hughes (Cleo) is not given more to work with. No need to repeat negative points made by others, except for two observations. Note that the film has two directors listed. According to IMDb, this was Franklin's only directorial effort, which suggests producer Hittleman didn't like what he saw and so took over the directing himself. Thus the film lacks an experienced director's hand. Also, the ending is indeed startling for a picture of this type. It's so abrupt and unexpected, it's almost like the company suddenly ran out of film and had to wrap up immediately. Certainly, nothing else in the production shows the kind of imagination or nerve that would produce such a startling break with convention. Too bad this remains the only good reason to stick around for this surf-to-turf oater.

Don't watch this. Honest, you'll be bored.I saw it because the description of the plot on my guide grabbed me by the lapels and shook me awake. Something like, "A thief is shot by his partner who runs off with the loot. Saved by a Mexican girl, he sets out for revenge." "Gun Battle in Monterey"? It sounded like "One-Eyed Jacks." But it's not. "One-Eyed Jacks" may have had its longeurs but they were nothing compared to this one, a standard-typical Western into which no one involved seems to have put the least effort.Yes, Sterling Hayden is betrayed and left for dead by his cowardly partner, Ted DeCorsia, and plots revenge but is saved by the moralistic preaching of his Mexican girlfriend. That's about where the similarity ends.Hayden must have done this for the money. He was an actor of limited range but no one ever asked him to deliver very much except Stanley Kubrick. Hayden brought a touch of real pathos to the role of the delusional General Jack D. Ripper in "Doctor Strangelove." Here he doesn't give an inch. He was a much better writer and sailor than a Western hero. Ted DeCorsia is simply Ted DeCorsia, more of a coward than a sadist. The women are perfunctory. Possibly the best performance is given by Lee Van Cleef, a really shifty looking heavy with a strong baritone. The script also gives him one or two lines suggesting he's human a little as well as feral a lot.The supporting players, aside from Byron Fulger who should know better, are sadly unendowed with talent. Not a believable line from any of them. And the director adds absolutely nothing to the Grade-B shenanigans we see on the screen.This could have been a John Wayne western from Poverty Row in 1935. One of those masterpieces where Wayne rides full tilt after the stagecoach along a dusty road lined with telephone poles, past parked trucks. The budget for this movie must have been nearly non-existent and the shooting schedule, I would guess, ran somewhere around 2 hours and 13 minutes.Pathetic.

This movie wastes the talents of Sterling Hayden (who obviously made this movie to fund his famous off-screen pursuits) and Ted de Corsia, who was a great Western villain. A movie about two bank robbers who escape, but one Reno, played by de Corsia, betrays and shoots Hayden's character. Hayden's character is rescued, recovers, and seeks vengeance. It was cheaply made in the coastal California area, and has beautiful scenery, but the script is horrible, and wastes the talents of everyone involved, including Lee Van Cleef, who is an additionally villain. This is a grade-Z Western. Don't watch unless you want a laugh.