LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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!

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.

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