Martin Bradley One of the strangest westerns ever made. Arthur Penn's "The Left Handed Gun", adapted from a play by Gore Vidal, came right at the height of the 'teenage rebel' cycle of the fifties with Paul Newman's Billy the Kid having more in common with James Dean's Jim Stark than any Western outlaw I can think of. The film wasn't a success; it's highfalutin dialogue and over-the-top acting proving too much for a general audience who, if they looked just below the surface, would have easily detected a homosexual subplot involving Hurd Hatfield's character who acts as a kind of Greek Chorus. It marked the screen debut of Penn who didn't make another film for four years though it's now built up something of a cult reputation. It isn't really very good, and it is very self-concious, but it is also too bizarre to dismiss out of hand.

MartinHafer When the film began, I suddenly had very low hopes for it. That's because the opening tune was simply horrible--with bad lyrics and a cheesy quality that made me cringe. However, I assumed it would get a lot better. After all, almost anything Paul Newman did is well worth seeing (other than his first film, "The Silver Chalice"--which Newman himself often mocked when asked about it). Well, while this isn't as bad as "The Silver Chalice", it is pretty bad.The biggest problem with the film is the direction. It seems that instead of making a simple western, the actors had been told to act as if they were at a workshop given by The Actor's Studio--and each of them was trying to out-emote each other. Imagine a film where EVERYONE is method acting and all trying to do it more broadly and noticeably than the last guy! Subtle, it was not--in fact, it was seriously funny at times. There were just so many scenes that were overacted horribly. I especially loved the death scenes and when folks got mad because they REALLY died spectacularly or got insanely angry! I especially loved Pat Garrett's (John Dehner) reactions in the film--they were downright funny.The other big problem is that as a historical piece, the film bore no resemblance to reality! Like a lot of bad westerns, this one purports to be about an infamous western bandit (in this case, Billy the Kid) but isn't his life in the least. And, combined with the crap acting and direction, the film is just a complete mess. So, unless you like bad films or have no taste at all, steer clear of this one. Even with Newman, it's a dog.

ccthemovieman-1 Like many 1950s films, this western tended to slant on the melodramatic side although it has its share of many elements. The actors and their characters are mostly overwrought and can get on your nerves by the halfway point of the 102-minute movie. The directing, though, is very good and the photography is top-shelf. As usual, Warner Brothers has put out a very good DVD transfer of this 52-year-old movie. It was issued as part of the "Paul Newman Collection."Everyone knows about Paul Newman, who plays the lead character "Billy The Kid." However, I found Lita Milan and John Dehner the most interesting. Milan was a new face and not someone a lot of people know about and Dehner played against-type and played the most mature person in the story.Milan as "Celia" will get the males' attention, especially if they're into sultry, striking-looking females. According to the IMDb mini biography here, shortly after making this film married the son of Trujillo, a famous Dominican Republic dictator, and that was the end of her screen career. Several years later, her husband took over the country when his father was assassinated, and a few years later they had to flee the volatile Latin American country. Wow, it sounds like she led a life that wasn't far away from the violent world of "Billy the Kid," the subject of this film.It was kind of odd seeing Dehner, who played a lot of bad guys on TV westerns of the 1950s, playing good-guy "Pat Garrett," a friend of William Bonney ("Billy the Kid") for most of the movie. Whether he turned out to be "good" in the end, is your call. Actually I thought Dehner did the best job in here and played the best character, one of the few that was subdued and tolerable. Newman and his buddies in this film were all loud, immature and stupid, which is how they were supposed to be portrayed, but they are almost "cartoonish." The story has its ups and downs and isn't bad overall, but not something that I'd watch a second time.By the way, "Billy The Kid's" real life name was Henry McCarty (not "William Bonney," which was one of several alias he used. How much of this story is factual, I couldn't tell you but knowing Hollywood I wouldn't trust a lot of this to be exactly accurate. A

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU That was the Wild West, not so wild though but quite wild yet. A poor kid who was born in that atmosphere of violence, who found himself alone, walking in the wild, carrying his saddle and his gun is recuperated by some rancher taking a small herd to Lincoln. For obtuse reasons that have probably to do with some economic vengeance, the sheriff and three deputies kill the rancher, an old unarmed man, in the morning at the top of the pass leading to Lincoln. The young man, Billy the Kid, reacts in a strange way and will not really change his mind which is not his mind but his habitual way of thinking. He wants justice, hence he is going to stand and challenge the four people. Then the rest is details you can discover them all by yourselves. The film is good because the young "Kid" is shown as being slightly slow in his brains. He is practically adopted by some people in a Mexican city next to Lincoln, but he rapes the girl because he cannot accept things not to go the way he wants them to go. And that will be his doom. The film is also good because it shows how those who had a star, sheriffs or marshalls, could do anything they wanted, more or less, and rather more than less. And they definitely shot before being shot at. Preventive self defense, even when they could not say whether the man had a gun or not. Preventive self defense. The last reason why this film is still worth seeing is because we can really watch a good actor being born. Small touches here and there show the humane side of things, of this "Kid", a flute, or an expression on his face, or his negotiating the lie that he could read though he could not. I will regret though that this slightly mentally slow "Kid" is not kept from beginning to end, but that is how the film is directed. He used his guns or other defensive method as a reflex of self-preservation more than of violence. He was completely absorbed and possessed by the outside world seen as a potential danger, which is total distraction, if not the sign of a deranged mind in a way. But we only get that feeling from time to time, not always. That's a regret of mine.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID