The idea behind this movie - a woman in the wild west taking on the responsibilities of a marshal - was a promising one. It could have worked both in a realistic light, or one that was aimed more at an exploitation audience. However, the end results will more likely than not be unpleasing to any audience. I could live with the cheap nature of the production, from the tacky sets to the poor color photography. The biggest problem is that the movie is surprisingly boring. It's mostly talk talk talk, and none of the talk is particularly interesting or lively. There seems to be no particular effort to exploit the idea to the maximum potential. I think that audiences even in 1956 would have found the movie to be deadly boring. Even in a modern age of poor remakes, I am sure that a remake of this movie would be much more interesting than this version.

I love this film. True, it's got flaws, and no small amount of them. It's slow, somewhat predictable, and a bit clichéd. Heck, even the acting is questionable in some areas (although, not from three of the performers; see below). That being said, one can't help but become mildly invested in the story as it develops, and as that happens, the mediocre sets seem to slowly dissolve into obscurity. None of that, however, touches on the reason most directly responsible for my affinity for this film. For that, one must look to the performances of John Ireland, Allison Hayes, and Beverly Garland. Cast in the three lead roles of the film, their acting was absolutely critical to the appeal of the movie. And, in that regard, I can gladly say that they all do an excellent job. Allison Hayes is wonderful as the tough, shrewd businesswoman, and lends some real credibility to the movie. In particular, her scene with Bruno Vesota is a good example of her acting in this film. Then, we have the strong, earnest performance of John Ireland. From his dynamic interaction with Rose (Beverly Garland) to his believable hunger for vengeance, he displays fabulous versatility, and I feel gives the finest performance in the film. Lastly, we have the strength and vigor of Beverly Garland, who unfortunately is given some of the movie's most sappy dialogue, and yet, delivers a powerful performance as the widowed de-facto sheriff of a dangerous frontier town. As she does in most of her films, she exudes strength, and does much to make the audience at least sympathize with her. All in all, the three of them save this film, and make most of the scenes engaging. Again, this movie is not an Oscar-winner, and certainly isn't remembered as a Western classic. But I feel that's a small shame, because this movie isn't just watchable, it's enjoyable. Somewhere past all the signature nuances of a Corman movie, one can find a lovely little gem of a film in Gunslinger. So, if you get a chance to watch the original, or the MST3K version, do take the opportunity; you'll end up watching a good, old-fashioned action-drama.

Beverly garland was born in the wrong time. She was an actress ahead of her time, bringing power and grace to even such lame flicks as the Corman films she starred in. In Gunslinger, she's the town sheriff's wife. He gets offed, so she takes over his job to pursue his killers. She's better than the material she's working with, by far. The movie is gray, stilted, and mostly boring. There's some(unintentional)humor with the tire tracks everywhere, people running behind one building to emerge suddenly in front of another (I've heard of false fronts, but this is ridiculous!), and the truly stupid plot line of the newly widowed sheriff falling in love with the guy hired to kill her. Even if she hadn't loved her husband, it had only been something like a week or two since he'd died! And she ends up shooting the guy to death in the end, anyway. No luck with men, this one.The villain of the piece is another woman, the saloon owner. She's scheming to buy up a bunch of land just in case the railroad goes through and makes her rich. Her plan of action if it doesn't is pretty lame-she'll just steal as much from the town as she can and skedaddle. Hell, it's just her and her hired gun at the end against an entire town. Are you telling me these people aren't armed? Look what happened in real towns of the Old West when bank robbers came in to rob the bank, then were cut down in a hail of bullets by the armed and dangerous town folk.There'a a lot of pointless talking and riding around, interspersed with a few lame shoot outs. The ending is as grim as usual in a Corman flick, although thank goodness it lacks the moral proselytizing at the end that was in It Conquered the World. The sheriff turns over her badge to Sam Bass and rides off into the sunset, although the movie was so gray that you never saw the sun.

Sure it takes place in the west, but the title makes it seem like it is a conventional western. Instead, it is a movie of a woman sheriff. Make no mistake though this is a bad movie about a woman sheriff. She becomes sheriff when her husband is gunned down; she is only a tad bit upset by this. Her main goal is to go after the villain who is also a woman, but the villain hires a guy to kill her. So this is what happens, the hero falls in love with the killer and vice versa. Utterly stupid, as anyone killed in this movie has the new sheriff to thank. She had more than a few chances to put the killer behind bars, but I guess because she liked him she wouldn't do it. The killer is also after the mayor of the town for personal reasons that are also rather dumb. This movie is very boring and not really worth watching...it is not one of the better episodes of MST3000 they made. I can not imagine anyone seeing this without them because that would make it that much more painful. Corman is a low budget director, but even he should know better than to have people go into one place and coming out another.