JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

bkoganbing After 77 Sunset Strip ended its TV run in 1963 Edd Byrnes who became the legendary teen idol Kookie from the show was having some trouble sustaining his 15 minutes of fame as most teen idols do. By 1967 he was off to Europe to see if spaghetti westerns would do for him what they did for Clint Eastwood. Any Gun Can Play bares some faint, but very faint resemblance to Clint's pasta epics.Byrnes and Gilbert Roland are the only two names American fans will know in this cast. The nominal lead is George Hilton who really is from Uruguay and named Jorge Hill Acosta y Lara and he plays a bounty hunter who's after Roland and $300,000.00 Roland and his gang robbed, but that one of his own men stole what the stole and hid it. Edd Byrnes is the banker they stole it from, but he's got his own plans for the loot.Any Gun Can Play has a real hard time making up its mind whether it is being played straight or it's going to be a satire on the genre. About 2/3 of the way through the film it switches gears, almost like a new team of writers were brought in.I didn't really enjoy Gilbert Roland in this and that's hard for me because he's good no matter how bad the film is. But for his sake I hope his paychecks all cleared.

MartinHafer The film begins with a dandy gunfight, where three bandits are quickly gunned down by a bounty hunter--a bounty hunter who bears more than just a superficial to the Man With No Name from the Clint Eastwood trilogy (FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE and THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY).Immediately after, you see this man in a gold train filled with Union soldiers. Naturally, the shipment is attacked and the soldiers all fight like blind guys, so they are quickly neutralized. However, in a twist, one of the bandits cheats the gang leader (Gilbert Roland) and rides away with the gold. Soon, Roland catches up and is about to find out where the gold is hidden. But, just at that moment, the army turns up and kills the traitor....bummer. However, the Man With No Name wannabe thinks Roland knows about the treasure and perhaps a medallion given to Roland by the traitor holds the key. A strange banker, also is thrown into the mix. All three want the gold and all three seem pretty macho.Overall, this is not a particularly distinguished Western. Much of it is the plot, some of it is that George Hilton (a Uruguayan despite the American sounding name) isn't as interesting as Eastwood or some of the other premier Spaghetti Western stars but most of it is because the soundtrack simply sucks. So often the music doesn't even come close to matching the acting and it seems almost randomly added. Plus, it just isn't very good stuff as well. This clearly isn't the work of Ennio Morricone--music master of the Spaghetti genre.Overall, just a time passer--and not a particularly good one to boot.

winner55 There's considerable amount of money behind this production, so the look of it is very good. It includes some interesting appearances by Gilbert Roland, Eddie Burns, and a brief cameo at the beginning by Christopher Lee. There are a few exciting gunfights, and a humorous bit or two - the satire on Django, the Man with No Name, and Sabata is amusing, especially when they are given the names of failed presidents of the Mexico revolution.The trouble is, there isn't any purpose in satirizing the Spaghetti Western as is attempted here. The key element in the Spaghettis is IRONY, which easily blends into comedy; in fact the source of all Spaghetti's is Kurosawa's Yojimbo, which is universally recognized as one of the great black comedies of all time, and most Spaghettis easily slipped over the edge into real comedy of a very sophisticated variety. Perhaps the best evidence of this is found in the Trinity films, which are both openly Spaghettis and openly slap-stick comedy. So why bother satirizing a genre that - by its very nature - satirizes itself? Consequently, I found the whole enterprise essentially unconvincing. None of these characters were people I would ever care about, the story was generically cliché, and the production values only reflected the money involved, not the passion of the director. Over all, a banal and futile effort to cash in on the phenomenon it mocks.

drystyx Unlike the other spaghetti Westerns, this one has characters that almost make sense, and can be identified to some degree. It still has the goofy gunplay of other spaghettis Westerns. A spaghetti, by the way, is another word for a Western with no plot, no characters you can care about, and goofy gunplay that doesn't make a bit of sense for the era, and relying on great music to make audiences feel something. This one is more lighthearted, like the ones that Bud Spencer and Terence Hill made together. They, too, were superior to the junk made by Eastwood and others, which sado-masochists make their friends watch, if they get a chance. It looks like everyone had a lot of fun making the movie, too. It was good to see a giant actor like Gilbert Roland, who wasn't even mentioned on the movie rental box, yet who was clearly the biggest name. His character was very enjoyable. There is a three way standoff at the end, which is much superior to the one it spoofs (The Good the Bad and the Ugly), simply because the characters are at least a bit likable and a bit identifiable. Not a good movie, but has a bit of fun to it.