ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

writers_reign Given that a conch is a sponge and Sinatra, as the eponymous Concho, spends the first half of the film more or less sponging off the good burghers of Cripple Creek I think it is realistic to rename the movie Johnny Sponger. Before proceeding I think we should remind ourselves that this film was made post-From Here To Eternity, in other words Sinatra was now arguably at the peak of his career both as a singer and an actor and more or less cherry-picked his projects - he is listed on the credits here as 'producer' so clearly he was happy to play a man with absolutely nothing going for him; not only a coward, but a bully, with no regard whatsoever for ordinary people. That said it is difficult to believe - as so many here have pointed out - that an entire town would be happy to kowtow to a man who is basically a weakling on the strength that his absentee brother, Red, has the town firmly under his thumb even from miles away, or that Sinatra would experience a 'Road to Damascus' moment so dramatically. That apart there are still good things to savour; not least the deadly duo of William Conrad and Christopher Dark. Reasonable time-filler.

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.

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.

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