It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

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.

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

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I wish to add this slice of information on actor Jimmy Steward because of several reasons - a/ since some critics allude to the fact that there was not enough manhood in him to be film hero, he rather looked like a University associate or even Nobel laureate with his intelligent face; b/ because Western cinema is synonymous with American cinema which is not perceived well by some activists in Europe that still hang to their national film industry; and, also for some other reasons ... Now filmography entries for James Steward are quite substantial and given elsewhere, we can't make easy choices about his almost 100 feature films and long life-span of 90 years (plus-minus the professional attrition). He was also Brigadier General with US Air Force, a rare privilege for Hollywood star, etc.Let's look at his Oscar winning performance in "The Philadelphia Story" (1940). Steward established himself as actor very quickly in the 1930s and while unexpectedly for some this seems quite logical for me because he is both whimsical and eloquent. His English speech comes like a music and is specially impressive for foreigners with customary hearing. Then I should say that his acting, while no acting classes taken, imply an inborn snobbishness that is characteristic for classics such as William Thackeray heroes. What else to say, besides the fact that his play was highly appreciated by Hollywood directors Frank Capra, Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford and others, also his versatility should be remembered with women whom he partnered as real gentleman. Partly true, his counterpart in this film Katharine Hepburn which holds all times record for women (4 Oscars) was seldom tempted to lie - as all women love to do. She said that she didn't suffer from Parkinson disease while she did so in a mild form. Her intentional head tremor is evident in "Rooster Cogburn" (1975) and as late as "Grace Quigley" (1984) she remained on stage with no serious mental disturbances.On "Cheyenne Social Club" (1970) I should retort his gunman abilities at age 62. His friendship with Henry Fonda was remarkable, much unappreciated I think. Both enjoyed their film popularity because of their non-traditional, so to say, congenital sophisticated manners that is difficult to imitate. Such people are not easy to lure in cinema now-a-days. I don't want to say that cinema today is poor but it just have other values.Last word on manhood of the actors. I am not a specialist but before cinema was invented 100 years ago there was something else that made people popular in the societal aspect. And I don't speak here of theater because the latter is nothing without technicality. So I speak here of the science of Physiognomy which has roots largely in the past times and history can give best examples. Lastly this science have been equaled with Eugenics that was banned by official authorities in the 20th centuries. However, many truths remain written on the face of living people. After all "Greek Fire" was invented before Gunpowder and thus allowed the conquest of the New World. Thank you!

Despite the fact it had Gene Kelly (of all people) as director, this western comedy-drama is incredibly tired and stale. James Stewart plays a cowboy in the late 1800s who inherits an upscale brothel; Henry Fonda is Jimmy's talkative partner; Shirley Jones is the resident madam. Everyone does their best with the tepid material, although Stewart has rarely looked this drained. The spirit of the piece seems lost on Kelly, whose set-ups and comedic asides are charmless, accenting all the inherent western-genre clichés without adding anything fresh. Perhaps the script is the main culprit: screenwriter James Lee Barrett, working from the novel by Davis Grubb, must have been raised on old western serials, for his scenario is cluttered up with hammy folks and the type of movie-prostitutes who can't wait to jump into the sack. *1/2 from ****

I don't know about you, but the thought of a Jimmy Stewart movie where he is the new owner of a brothel just seems wrong. Would Elwood P. Dowd or Mr. Smith do this? Certainly not.It's sad, but in the late 60s and early 70s, there a string of "modern" westerns that featured amoral leads--Gregory Peck, Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart, among others, made them. Now it was nice to see movies that tried to be different, but these westerns generally weren't very good. And, it was very hard to really care about the movies as there no heroes and no sense of right or wrong--or at least a rather warped sense of right or wrong.While this movie isn't bad, it wasn't terribly good and was full of clichés--especially the "hooker with a heart of gold" cliché. Just once, I'd like to see a movie where a prostitute is a selfish alcoholic or has an STD.The film has decent writing and the dialog between Fonda and Stewart is good. The movie itself is pretty predictable and forgettable.

After an interminable journey across the plains, two itinerant cowboys (the two Hollywood legend Stewart and Fonda) reach Cheyenne, where Stewart has inherited the noisiest bordello in town, which is well-managed by pretty Shirley Jones... From this moment, the two friends run into assorted problems with the townspeople, specially when one of them kills a guy who has beaten Jones… The murdered man's family becomes an implacable enemy... Shot on location near Santa Fe, New Mexico, the film is neither good nor bad, entitled neither as farce nor Western… Some of the jokes about the bordello are labored and repetitious, and there was some complaint over Stewart compromising his clean cut image when he confronts one of the prostitutes in a see-through negligée… Stewart wanted the scene cut out, but the company overruled him…The film's director was a surprising choice… Stewart's reasons for wanting to use Gene Kelly, whose reputation was scarcely associated with Westerns, remain obscure… Perhaps he felt Kelly would sly1y inject more tongue-in-cheek elements, given the bordello angle, than an action-oriented director like Andrew, McLaglen would have…Fonda seems to have had a solid affection for "The Cheyenne Social Club," especially as it gave him and Stewart a chance to really co-star in a movie with some human dimensions...