alexandre michel liberman (tmwest) When you think this film was made in 1953, after "High Noon"(1952) and at the same year as "The Naked Spur" you might think the world was going though two different eras of evolution. Even though this film is in color, which was a characteristic of "A" westerns there are flaws in the script that make it laughable, like Randoph Scott showing his card to Philip Carey, followed by a complete reversal of roles. That scene was more appropriate for Gilbert and Sullivan. What is incredible is that Randy made his excellent western "Hangman's Knot" one year before and had so many great westerns ahead of him, specially with Boetticher. Robert Cabal as Joaquin Murietta is a caricature. Even the action scenes are second rate with people being killed with less fuss than you kill a mosquito. Poor direction and a poor script makes this one of Randy's worst films.

Spikeopath Randolph Scott is Major Ransome Callicut, who goes undercover as a school teacher in 1850s California to hopefully thwart separatist plotting as secessionist fervour starts to boil over.The Man Behind The Gun is directed by Felix E. Feist and adapted to screenplay by John Twist from a story by Robert Buckner. It is shot in Technicolor by Bert Glennon (Wagon Master) out of Bell Ranch, Santa Susana, California. Joining Scott in the cast are Patrice Wymore, Dick Wesson, Philip Carey, Lina Romay & Alan Hale Jr.It's true enough that material such as this, well more the themes and basic story, deserves a better movie than what this ultimately is. Yet to shout down this film for not being a finely tuned politico piece is a touch harsh one feels. This is after all, a modestly budgeted Oater out of Warner Brothers that comes at a time when Randolph Scott was knocking out Oaters for both WB and Columbia at a rate of knots! Scott was three years away from starting a run of films with Budd Boetticher that would finally realise his talents, whilst simultaneously giving the serious Western fan some gems to shout about from the saloon rooftops. So where does The Man Behind The Gun sit in the pantheon of 50s Westerns? Well a better director than Felix Feist would have helped since the material called for someone interested in the more psychological aspects of the characters. The afore mentioned Boetticher is a given of course, while another of Scott's 50s directors, André De Toth, would have enjoyed the intrigue and underhand core for sure.Still, given its short running time, Feist does manage to craft an action packed movie that's led by Scott's protagonist playing it rugged, sneaky and tough to get the job in hand done. There's gun fights, whip-cracking, chases, explosions; and even pretty gals scrapping it out in a crash of chairs, tables and pottery. For an 82 minute movie it doesn't fall short as an action piece. If viewed on those terms it holds up very well, even if there's so much going on it can be hard to follow at times. There's even nice dashes of humour, none more so than with the entertaining turn from Wesson. Be it whipping off some saloon gal's dress or playing it in drag, his Sergeant 'Monk' Walker gives the piece a lift when it threatens to be bogged down by good guy-bad guy character turns that come and go all too frequently. Scott is as ever straight backed and as cool as a cucumber, while Hale Jr, Carey and Wymore each leave a favourable impression.Yes it could have been a deep and potent piece, but that it's not does not make it a bad film. It's a ripper of an action movie backed up by a couple of strong turns from Scott & Wesson, even if the film that surrounds them is just a little chaotic at times! 7/10

Marlburian Oh dear! What a disappointment. I've been watching old Westerns on British TV for decades, and I wasn't aware of this one until its showing yesterday - most other Scott Westerns come around every few years or so and are usually worth watching again.The rich colour and outdoor sets were good, but that's all I can say about this film. I have to agree with most of the other negative comments already made. Several times I felt like turning it off, and finally I did, halfway through, something I hardly ever do.Scott seemed unusually oily in charming the girls, his two sidekicks were annoying and so was the Mexican bandit lad. And I've a feeling the army uniforms were 20 years or so too modern, not that this has bothered makers of many other Westerns.Perhaps it got better in the second half, but I couldn't be bothered to wait and see.TWENTY-TWO MONTHS LATER:Bit worrying. I sat down to watch this film and it took a while for me to realise I'd seen it, and less than two years ago. This time I did persevere and watched it all the way through, and still wasn't impressed. It's a bit like a stew into which everything has been thrown, with an unappetising result.I could forgive the stagecoach scene with so many key characters conveniently travelling together, but there were all sorts of curiosities: the attempt to hide the assassins' bodies in the opening scenes, was the charade really necessary of Scott being a disgraced officer, the reason for Hale's feat of strength (and how were Scott and co able to engineer it), the Mexican lad's sudden transformation into an admirer and associate of Scott and his ability to supply rifles in bulk (what did happen to him after he slipped away from the baddies?), the role reversals (already mentioned) of Scott and Carey, how did Scott get a nice new major's uniform, the way the two NCOs were tricked into what they thought was re-enlisting, the stubbled NCO posing as a woman and so on.

FightingWesterner Supposed killer and Army deserter Randolph Scott heads to Los Angeles sometime before the Civil War. Posing as a schoolteacher who can't shoot straight, he gets knee-deep in some intrigue involving a group of separatists, the assassination of a US senator, and their attempts to split California into free and slave states.Costumes and sets are lavish and there's lots of great old-California atmosphere. However, The Man Behind The Gun is disappointingly routine. It's really too bad, because this is really one handsome production!The actors are game and some of their characters are quite colorful. The filmmakers should have pumped a little more action and suspense into the script, or trimmed the final product to about an hour.