Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Richard Chatten In Technicolor and starring Bob Hope this story could have been hilarious if played for laughs; instead we get an extremely earnest black & white psychological western starring a 'serious' Frank Sinatra, with an appropriately moody score by Sinatra's regular arranger Nelson Riddle.Considering that he produced the film himself, Sinatra has strangely elected to play a complete louse in the title role. Johnny is with good reason hated by the entire town of Cripple Creek, with the inexplicable exception of Phyllis Kirk (added to the script presumably to make us give a damn whether he lived or died). Moral salvation comes in the form of William Conrad and Keenan Wynn; the former is the one gunfighter even meaner and deadlier than Sinatra's late brother Red Concho, the latter an absolute blast in a late-appearing cameo as a macho gun-toting preacher who pep talks Johnny into finally finding his mojo.As the film was building up to the usual town square shoot-out, I was thinking to myself that now would be a good moment for the assembled townfolk to shoot Conrad while his attention was on Sinatra, when - ah, but that would be telling...! Despite being such a dead shot and with so little concern for human life, with his first shot Conrad naturally only wounds Sinatra by shooting him in the shoulder; if it had been other member of the cast than the star he would have been instantly dispatched to Boot Hill for the rest of eternity.

Ray Faiola Okay, Sinatra was pretty limp in his first oater. The wig was a mistake and a distraction. A cheater up front would have been enough. The script's vacillation between making him a villain and a hero was unfortunate. He should have remained a weasel to the end and been shunned for it. It took the killing of one of the townspeople to get the rest of the villagers to take matters into their own hand(guns). That said, this is still an enjoyable and sometimes engrossing play. There are several great radio players - Bill Conrad, Howard Petrie, Bill Bouchey, Russell Thorson and others who give gravitas to the script. Wallace Ford is a pathetic rabbit and Keenan Wynn is wonderful as the gunslinger-turned-preacher. The poker game is the centerpiece of the show and it is a perfect metaphor for the kind of soft tyranny that can encroach upon a community. The street set is deliberately stylized, making the film look more like a live television play than a motion picture. With some tweaking to the script this could have been a great film. It could certainly be adapted into a great play.

ragosaal I liked this film when I saw it as a kid. I've always enjoyed western with gunmen, quick draws, duels in the dusty streets, who's fastest and so on. And I still do. However when you grow older you get more demanding in some aspects about movies you didn't even notice as a kid.As I recall "Johnny Concho" I have yo agree with some reviewer here that says it's not believable that a whole town will just do what Johnny says and give him whatever he wants just because his brother is a top gunman. Nor it is believable either -and this is my own- that a cowardly man will push the things too far even if his brother is a top gunman. That's mainly what demerits this picture: the plot is hard to swallow.That aside -which is no minor item- "Johnny Concho" has good moments, adequate atmosphere, good photo and more than acceptable performances, that make it a film to see for western fans.

alexandre michel liberman (tmwest) Frank Sinatra was far from the ideal actor for westerns. He was a great actor, From Here to Eternity and The Man with The Golden arm are a proof of that, but he did not have the physique of a western hero, you identified him as an urban guy. But he tried to do his job well in Johnny Concho, the fact that the film was a failure at the box office was not his fault. I blame it on two factors: a) the story was too unusual, specially in the fact that Sinatra behaves more like a villain than as a hero throughout the movie. In a genre where people kind of expected a certain pattern, to break away from it the film has to be very good. b) the story is not convincing, it is hard to believe that a whole town will allow Sinatra to do anything he wants just because they are afraid of his brother. Also when a man shows him a special holster that will open sideways so he has not to draw the gun you wonder that if that will make him invincible, why all the gunfighters have not adopted it? I think that this film should not have been withdrawn, because any film with Sinatra is worth seeing, and in spite of its shortcomings it is still enjoyable