Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Panamint Yes its just a routine B western. But its above average and worth your viewing time.The villain is a rotten creep as portrayed by Zachary Scott. Randolph Scott is of course stalwart and solid in the lead role. Lloyd Bridges provides solid support.But I really like this film because Ruth Roman is not your typical pretty b-western actress here. She is tough, forceful, physical and believable as well as very beautiful. She really pops in Technicolor wearing that fringe buckskin. Absolutely gorgeous and she out-acts every male in the movie.The immortal Stanley Andrews, the stentorian-voiced ultimate Sheriff of all Western movies and later TV's Death Valley Days, contributes his dignified screen presence.This film is a triumph of great casting over what could otherwise be routine.

Xjayhawker I am a big Randolph Scott fan..I really am..and Ruth Roman has always been good eye candy..but I cannot give my support to such a contrived plot..Zachary Scott plays a cowardly gang leader..he stands petrified when the guns are turned on him..he's big man with a pair of colts in his hands..but there is a terrified look in his eyes without them..and I'm not sure why Zachary ever made it in the movies ..he has the weakest chin in town..Alan Hale who played so well off of Errol Flynn is mis-cast as a crooked town sheriff..Randy may be mis-cast as well as a clueless hero who falls for every trick in the book..dirt thrown in your face..hit over the head by a girl..rope across the dark country road..the fight at the end is bogus..it is just a rather lame western..I wish it was better cast and better directed..the action was fairly well staged..but uneven..I also must add that Lloyd Bridges plays an over-the-top ??partner?? In crime with Zachary Scott..he actually believes he's an equal partner in this enterprise..Ruth Roman can't decide where her loyalties lie..but Alan Hale as well as all the townsfolk are just pathetic..there's supposed to be a lot of gold being mined..but I never see miners..just town people..just set dressing..the Indians? stereotypes and not done well..the tepees? Store bought canvas creations..again set decorations..it is watchable..barely so..but you may chuckle a few times inadvertently..like laughing on the inside and crying on the outside..this is a disappointment..enough said..5 out of 10..being generous..

Robert J. Maxwell I kind of like Randolph Scott as a cowboy. He relied on two expressions. One was a slight frown signifying determination and an awareness of danger. The other was a good-natured smile bespeaking satisfaction and self confidence. (Sam Pekinpah added a note to impending treachery to that smile in "Ride The High Country.") Scott's minimalist acting was put to use in dozens of Westerns around this time, and sometimes put to very good use indeed.So it's a disappointment to find that "Colt .45" is such a stinker. It's not Randy's fault. He does his usual schtick. The responsibility for the failure lies with the writer and the director.The director, Marin, seems to have encouraged all his principles to overact. Of course he could get nowhere with Randolph Scott, who had the range of a Soviet era steel statue, all muscle, upraised arm with a fist on the end. But Ruth Roman looks as if she's taking acting lessons. And Zachary Scott, as the outlaw who steals two of Scott's Colt six shooters and becomes feared throughout the cinematic West, goes well beyond a community college drama class into some overacting stratosphere. Many movies are as good as their villains. And Zachary Scott's villainy would sink this effort, even if nothing else did. He never utters a kind word -- not from the very beginning. He doesn't smile. He sneers and scowls. His eyes bulge with malevolence. He hisses between snarls. The director needed to rein him in, along with just about everyone else, extras included. If only Z. Scott had had a dog or a stamp collection -- or something!The writer must share some of the blame. The film opens with a prologue that tells us that guns don't kill people. People kill people. Then it goes on to demonstrate the opposite. On top of that, a good deal is made of the Colt .45s that Randolph Scott is selling at the opening in 1852. He explains that they're a revolutionary invention in that they can fire six bullets in sequence without reloading. He shows a client how it works. The revolver uses the cap and ball method, meaning that instead of a single cartridge, the user has to combine a paper cartridge and a lead ball, both of which must be tamped down, and then add a percussion cap. He must go through this procedure six times, once for every chamber.I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I hope I'll be excused if I feel this throws a knot into the plot. If, as the movie asserts, only the two Scotts have these revolutionary new six shooters, it means that everyone else must have lesser ordinance like muzzle loaders. Okay, except that the few other pistols we see are apparently Civil War Remingtons, which were also six shooters loaded by the same method. Did Samuel Colt have a lobbyist at work? Of course not.Well, so the movie sucks. It must be one of Randy Scott's worst Westerns. Yet, let me end on a positive note. Scott looks just fine, even if he doesn't exactly evoke 1852. He's handsome. He's weathered and tan. He's fit. Towards the end, he appears in black trousers, black belt, black shirt, and black cowboy hat, all properly accessorized by a canary yellow neckerchief. He strides. He exudes authority. He's charismatic. He collects his paychecks.

stevepb I'm amazed that it wasn't until the second page of these comments that someone pointed out that the title of this movie was just plain wrong. Did some studio people panic and think, "but what if nobody's ever heard of a Colt .44"? All the publicity posters, worldwide, showed Scott brandishing the much more familiar Colt .45 "Peacemaker". And none of this is mentioned in the "Goofs" for the movie, although it is pointed out that "Colt's first .45 caliber weapon was the Single-Action Army revolver, first made in 1871".Hilarious really.If you were a young boy in the 1950s, this one is for you. Lloyd Bridges, Zachary Scott and Ruth Roman all give lusty performances in traditional roles: The spineless, devious husband, the evil, sadistic outlaw and the ill-fated woman who tries desperately to stand by her man. Interesting to note that Ian McDonald plays a character named Miller in this movie, and was Frank Miller in High Noon. And on the the DVD I have it looks great, just as fresh and bright as it did 60 years ago. Just a few more reasons why I love this film.