HotToastyRag This is the perfect movie to watch if you don't like Frank Sinatra. I know, how many people don't like him, but I'm sure there's a few out there. My brother, for one. In Johnny Concho, Frankie plays the title character in his first western. He's catered to, allowed to buy and own things he doesn't pay for, and cheats at cards while everyone always looks the other way. Why? Because his brother is the feared gunfighter Red Concho, and everyone in town knows if they cross Johnny, Red will kill them. When Red is killed by a rival, suddenly Johnny is no longer feared, respected, or even tolerated. The entire town turns against him, including his girl, and when his brother's murderer challenges him to a duel, he can either face his death or run out of town. What will he do? I really like this movie, and the most interesting aspect is that besides the sets and costumes, it doesn't really feel like a western. It doesn't focus on horses, ranches, brothels, or cowboys. The power struggle and the dynamic of an entire town finally free to rear up against one man is very effectively captured by Don McGuire, in his directorial debut. Nelson Riddle's theme is compassionate and lonely, echoing how the audience feels about the story. Frank Sinatra gives a great against-type performance as a partial villain, struggling with the decision to be brave and die or be a coward and live. If you like internally driven westerns, or if you appreciate Frank Sinatra's acting career just as much or more than his singing career, rent Johnny Concho. It'll keep you on the edge of your seat!

chuck-reilly Most film critics agree that Frank Sinatra was a bit miscast as the titular character "Johnny Concho" (1956). That said, he does as much as he can with this thankless role of a coward who slowly comes to grips with his failings. Sinatra's Concho has the run of a small western town due to his older brother Red's reputation as a ruthless gunslinger. His misrule comes to a crashing end, however, when his brother is gunned down. Unfortunately for kid brother Frankie, he doesn't find out about Red Concho's death until the men who killed him (played by William Conrad and Christopher Dark) inform him nonchalantly during a poker game. For most of the film afterward, Conrad and Dark insult, degrade, humiliate, and in general, make utter fools out of cowardly Frank and the rest of the weak-willed townsfolk. Conrad, playing a cold-blooded enigmatic murderer, has a field day with his role while his terse partner-in-crime (Dark) is the perfect compliment. Shaking in his boots, Frank ends up riding away with his girlfriend (Phyllis Kirk) to start a new cowardly life in another town. All's well that ends well, however. After getting an earful of criticism and a much-needed wake-up call from a firebrand preacher (Keenan Wynn in top form), Frank decides to finally become a real man and return to face down Conrad and Dark. File the ending under the category of "a man's got to do what a man's got to do." Luckily for Frank, since he can't hit the side of a barn door with a load of buckshot, the townsfolk all pitch in to help him during the final shootout. In wrenching detail, Conrad and Dark end up writhing on the ground as their bodies fill up with lead. And it couldn't happen to two more deserving fellows.Not really much in this film except for Conrad and Dark's performances. Keenan Wynn also livens up the proceedings, but his screen time is all too brief. Sinatra, appearing embarrassed throughout, does the best he can with his weak character. Ms. Kirk, as always, looks like the best woman west of the Pecos.

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