Cathardincu
Surprisingly incoherent and boring
CrawlerChunky
In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.
ChicDragon
It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.
Benedito Dias Rodrigues
It was one early western DVD release around 2003 and l got my copy right way,this movie l'd watched in 1981 on TV and the possibility to have it eternally amazed me,this solid and tense western have all elements to make a good picture,a strong reason to make justice even against his best friend...a fine supporting casting and a pretty woman who decided to do a right choice...suspenseful and remarkable western compatible the High Noon! Goof: When the boy was running back home,sometimes he is up river and sometimes down the river...pay attention..Resume: First watch: 1981 / How many: 4 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 8.25
dougdoepke
Despite the big names—Quinn, Douglas, director Sturgis—the western's nothing special. The story starts off powerfully with the assault and murder of Matt's wife; at the same time, the suspense is built into the soured friendship between Craig and Matt since it's Craig's son Rick (Holliman) who's perpetrated the assault. Now Matt wants to bring him to justice despite dad's opposition. On the other hand, Carolyn Jones' shady lady fits in somewhere. Trouble is that like too many A-oaters of the time, this one suffers from bloat as producers load up with stars and extended runtime, likely to compete with TV. Then too, the plot's clearly derivative from the preceding year's 3:10 To Yuma, as other reviewers point out. And that's even down to the extended hotel scene, which unfortunately sags the middle part. All in all, it looks like the production may have been a hurry-up since the action is mainly confined to Paramount's backlot.That's not to say the movie is devoid of positives. Douglas brings his usual intensity, while Quinn makes a persuasive adversary. But I especially like the underrated Earl Holliman who was so good at callow youth. Then too, it's the most glamorous I've seen Carolyn Jones who usually got supporting roles. Anyhow, the suspense is dragged out not too effectively right down to the clichéd showdown. Frankly, it's oaters like this that make me appreciate the small-budget Ranown series of tight, taut, Randolph Scott westerns, e.g. The Tall T (1957). Perhaps that's why-- unlike the Ranowns-- this A-List effort has since drifted into obscurity, despite the big names.
dsewizzrd-1
In the Wild West, Kirk Douglas is a man whose wife is raped and killed by the son of a local big man. He vows to bring the young man to justice. His father is an old friend. Holed up in a hotel, Douglas asks the girlfriend of the widower for a shotgun, although he has no need for it as he has a handgun already. This plot device is used purely to create dramatic tension between the three. A goon of the big man sets fire to his hotel, even though Douglas has to leave anyway to catch the only train out that day.This is largely a run of the mill Western except for the early scenes, which don't really add any more than the nuanced plot in earlier Westerns would have done. It's all surface and uncomplicated, which won't bother the typical Western fan, or the lack of plot sense.
Jeff (actionrating.com)
See it – A man with high ideals stands alone in a town that's sitting around, waiting for him to get killed. We've seen this premise before with movies like "High Noon" and "3:10 to Yuma." But each one has a unique plot in its own right, and the similarities that exist are the vital basics that make a western great. In this western masterpiece, Kirk Douglas plays a sheriff who seeks vengeance against the men who murdered his wife. When he tracks them down, he discovers that one of them is his best friend's son. His friend, played beautifully by Anthony Quinn, owns the town and will do everything in his power to make sure Douglas doesn't get on the last train from Gun Hill.
