ccthemovieman-1 Why this got the good reviews it did in the books I read, is a mystery. It's basically a "one- angle" story in which a hired killer enters a town and the whole place goes wildly paranoid wondering who is going to be the man's victim. That sounds fairly interesting but it didn't play that way, getting tiresome very quickly. Then again, some people like this kind of suspense-but nothing-happens type of story, sort of like the popular "High Noon."Audie Murphy ("John Gant") is interesting to watch as the cool-attitude killer but I couldn't much else to get excited about here. The rest of the cast combined can't equal Murphy's effort here. This is more of a melodrama than a western, which may suit a lot of people, but I was looking for a good "western," which usually means a little more action than this dull film.

waregw Audie Murphy is at his best in this western as the quiet gunslinger John Gant. The drama and personal emotions that this character brings to the screen only adds to the build up of John Gant. The friend ship that Gant and the Doctor (Charles Drake) develops is admirable in that they both have different values. When Gant compares himself to the Doctor the comparison is truly magnificent. Some of the lines will live forever. Thats my prescription physician you better have it filled, I might even have one for you store keeper. Thats sets the stage for who wants to die. Reminds me of the scene in Warlock. When Henry Fonds says "Well who's to do it".

jacksflicks Movies like No Name on the Bullet uncover the depth of talent in Hollywood. The roles are filled almost exclusively by familiar faces with unfamiliar names - R. G. Armstrong, Willis Bouchey, Edgar Stehli - with the result that one can concentrate on the story characters rather than being distracted by "star presence". Without a top-heavy cast, the story itself also gains focus, and I think the story of No Name on the Bullet is fascinating. What happens when a notorious contract killer rides into town and...does absolutely nothing? The one star of the movie, Audie Murphy, plays the gunman. I love Murphy, one of Hollywood's misspent talents. Does this also apply to the the character actors I refer to above? Not really.Character players, though quite talented, rarely attain stardom - Edward G. Robinson, Claire Trevor and Claude Rains are notable exceptions - not through neglect or misuse but by some limitation of range or persona. Audie Murphy's talent was misspent because, though obvious, it was never developed, either by studios, who, myopically, only wanted to exploit his war hero status as a box office draw, or directors who, in Murphy's career, were usually "line directors," good for getting a movie in the can on time and on budget rather than for getting great performances out their players.Which brings me to director Jack Arnold, who does a journeyman's job, but who I believe is the cause for what another reviewer wrongheadedly calls Murphy's shortcomings. Stilted lines and studied movement are the results of "hands-off" direction. This is OK for the character parts, where skilled players in simple roles don't need much direction, but not for lead roles. Watching Murphy I'm reminded of another sadly underdeveloped star, Alan Ladd, whose talents always shone under a great director, but who didn't get those directors consistently enough, in my opinion, to fulfill his promise. Coincidentally, both Murphy and Ladd died prematurely. Perhaps not coincidentally, both had drinking problems. I wonder if they might have been experiencing similar frustrations. Since No Name on the Bullet contains complex secondary parts, it's fortunate, that the players cast for these parts are outstanding, so the characters are interesting. Unfortunately, the budget constraints force the runtime of the film to be far too short. The result is a number of unresolved character studies. I want to know more about the blacksmith, the ex-flame and the judge - and more about the gunfighter. I'd also like to see more denouement. The main plot ends too abruptly, as if the producers were saying, "That's all we can afford to give you, Folks." That said, I wouldn't call the ending dumb, again as the wrongheaded reviewer cited above asserts, just shortchanged.Returning to my opening thesis, that watching a cast of talented character players carry a movie is a special treat, I highly recommend this little gem of a Western.

westerner357 Audie Murphy (as John Gant) plays it real smooth here. He manipulates the whole town 'leading citizens' into thinking which one is the one he's after (that he's been hired to kill), and leaves them all feeling quite guilty over their past misdeeds. So guilty that the town banker commits suicide, and a couple of others start shooting one another without Gant ever having to lift a finger. This is one of the few times you'll see Murphy play a bad guy, although quite different from the unhinged character you'd later see him play in John Huston's THE UNFORGIVEN (1960). Nothing he did acting-wise, ever topped that one.Universal has released the widescreen Technicolor DVD of this and it's the best way to see it. No speckling and only a couple of brief frame blemishes. Sound is excellent, although the only extra is a trailer.Now if Universal will only see fit to release the following excellent Audiepix westerns on DVD, I'd be a happy man:SEVEN WAYS FROM SUNDOWN (1960) w. Barry Sullivan; RIDE CLEAR OF DIABLO (1954) w. Dan Duryea; HELL BENT FOR LEATHER (1960) w. Steven McNally; and RIDE A CROOKED TRAIL (1958) w. Walter MatthauSo if you all liked NO NAME ON THE BULLET, then I bet you'll probably like the four I listed up above. They're all solid oaters. 7 out of 10