I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

As I watched this Roger Corman production, I could see that westerns were not his forte. While this is a very good film considering it's tiny budget, it's really not that great a film. However, for cinemaniacs like myself, it's still well worth seeing to see what Corman could do with only $60,000. And, in light of the money spent, it's a decent picture. How did he manage to do it with so little money? You get a couple B-list stars (John Lund and Dorothy Malone) and a bunch of unknowns (including Mike Connors well before be gained stardom). And, you use very simple sets--in this case, just a few western buildings.The plot is VERY reminiscent of the later film, "The Dirty Dozen"--but in this case it involves just five misfits who are given a choice--go on a mission for the Confederacy or have their sentences carried out immediately. The two youngest are clearly psychos, the gambler is a sociopath (Connors), there's a grizzled older man who is a bit of a cypher and a seemingly nice guy (Lund) who is quite out of place. Their job is to ambush a stagecoach carrying gold and use it to fund the South in the Civil War--but as the film progresses, it seems pretty obvious that several of them have no intention of giving up the gold. And, when they arrive at their destination, they find they are early and the two young sociopaths are mostly concerned with raping a lady at the stage office (Malone) and it's up to Lund to keep these creeps in check. What happens next? See the film.The acting is fair, though it was hard for me to see Lund as a heroic type. He just didn't have the macho persona you'd expect and I kept thinking of him as the greasy sharpie from the "My Friend Irma" films! But he was game and a professional. As for the rest, they were also decent. The film does NOT have the ultra-cheap look of Corman's more notorious horror films (like "Wasp Woman" or "Little Shop of Horrors") but it still isn't great by any means. Watchable and mildly interesting, that's about all I can say for it. But, considering I've seen tons of Corman's films as well as a recent biography/filmography of the guy, it was worth my time. As for you, it's at best a time-passer.A low point in the film is the guy running and yelling "I'll get 'em!" and getting shot. This scene made absolutely no sense whatsoever and seemed to just be an excuse to wipe out one of the baddies!

During the Civil War, five condemned Southern prisoners conscripted already destined for death row are freed to execute a risked mission . The desperate outlaws are drafted to go on a near-suicide aim and attempt to capture a traitor throughout Indian territory . They must carry out the objective in several days with the understanding that if the Confederate don't murder them, the Union Army won't, either . The ambitious confederates commanded by Sturges (John Lund) , join forces to rob a lot of money at a stagecoach . In the hands of hardboiled director Roger Corman and a tough-as-leather cast headed by John Lund and Mike Connors , that's all the plot that's needed to make one rip-roaring Western flick. The mission is displayed in ¨Dirty dozen ¨ style and promised pardons on the condition that they undertake an assignment to head west and bring back a double-crossing Confederate spy who has a stagecoach full of Confederate gold . Meanwhile ,Shalee Jethro (Dorothy Malone) helps her uncle run a desert stagecoach station. The confederates arrive in the station to await a gold shipment they scheme to steal , and Shalee becomes their hostage bait and then the outlaws start to confront among themselves .This is an average Western with crossfire , action , thrills , shotdown , pursuits but some boring and slow-moving . It's made in low budget , however well played by two major actor as John Lund and Dorothy Malone . The secondary actors , technicians ( cameraman Floyd Crosby , musician Bregman ) and writer ( Wright Campbell who wrote various Corman's scripts ) will repeat with Roger in subsequent films . Passable support cast as Paul Birch , Wright Campbell , Jonathan Haze who acted in ¨Little shop of horrors¨ and Mike ¨Touch¨ Connors ( His Touch nickname comes from his college basketball playing days) who worked in ¨The Oklahoma Woman¨ , ¨Day the world ended¨ and many others Corman products. Furthermore , brief acting , almost extra , of James B. Sikking . The motion picture is regularly directed by Roger Corman . During the 50-60s Roger Corman directed Western as ¨The Oklahoma Woman ¨ ¨Apache Woman¨ and ¨Five guns West ¨ , but his specialty were the terror movies , Edgar Alan Poe saga, and monsters movies as ¨Attack the crab monsters ¨, ¨ It conquered the world, ¨ Beast with a million eyes¨, ¨ Wasp man ¨, ¨ Viking women and great serpent ¨ , ¨ Little shop horrors ¨ though Corman also produced several films as ¨ Night of the blood beast ¨ and ¨ Attack of the giant leeches¨ . Rating : Mediocre , only for Roger Corman aficionados .

Five criminals, some smarter than others, are pardoned by the Confederacy in order to rob a stagecoach of Union cash and capture a Confederate traitor. The five make their way to the rendezvous, where some of them menace a young woman and her elderly uncle, leading to in-fighting and the eventual battle with the US Army.It's surprising to discover that the directorial debut of Roger Corman is not only a western, but is in color as well, with good photography by Floyd Crosby and some decent outdoor locations. On a technical level, this looks better than some of Corman's later, shoe-string black and white productions.On hand is frequent collaborators like actor Jonathan Haze, Crosby, and writer R. Wright Campbell, as well as it's distributor, the soon-to-be renamed American International Pictures.As far as the actual movie goes, it gets a bit talky at times, but it's a solid enough B-picture. Also, it's easy to see why villain Mike Conners went on to bigger and better things.

This was a fairly typical "formula" western. Since I grew up on this sort of western, I rather enjoyed it. One must concede that it could never have been considered a contender for any sort of award, but it was entertaining enough to keep me watching until it was over (of course, most any movie can do that LOL).Actually, I really enjoy the old western movies -- I don't even mind the corny ones. I believe that one must remember that these movies were made for entertainment (and mostly entertainment for kids at the Saturday afternoon matinée showings, I suspect). Given those sorts of parameters, Five Guns West doesn't seem so bad. It is entirely possible that I first saw it on a Saturday afternoon back in Franklin, NE during the mid-1950s.