non_sportcardandy Was curious about this movie because Richard Reeves had third billing for it. In dozens of movies he had played small parts of bad news enforcers . Usually it takes only one look at him to know he is looking for an excuse to be violent. For the most part in those movies his lines added up to only a minute or two so how would he do in this movie. Maybe having a bigger part would show that he was in above his head and disappoint . Glad to report that Richard Reeves did not miss a beat in a continuation of playing the heavy very well. The bigger part in the movie even calls for one character to analyse him and it seems very accurate . Reeves did have one line that made me laugh out loud ,that was different. If there is another Richard Reeves fan they need to see this movie. As far as the rest of the movie goes the viewer is on their own. Character study may find that Reeves part is the easiest to understand.

ndeseve I first saw "Running Target" many years ago and it had already been kicking around on local TV networks for sometime. Originally released, no doubt, as a second feature with a much bigger movie, it has a typical '50's "B" list provenance with a cast of reliable "B" list stars, all of whom made many more flicks throughout that decade and beyond. By today's standards much of the dialogue and characterizations come across as hackneyed, trite and corny as hell - as a couple of previous reviewers have pointed out with varying degrees of articulation and insight - but... but... there's something undeniably different about this flick's story line and "feel" that just sticks with me after all these years - and I'm not alone in this thinking as several other reviewers have stated similar sentiments. If you're going to review a movie, whether a rave or a slam, at least make an attempt to put it is some sort of context relating to its era, the politics and the prevailing culture of the country at that time. This movie was released a scant ten years after WWll, three years after the Korean War. It was made during a period of unprecedented prosperity in America - the Eisenhower years - and only a few years after the Senator Joseph McCarthy Un-American activities witch hunts were conducted in which any entertainment figure with a hint of "leftist" activity was branded a communist by "tail-gunner" Joe. (Indeed, the three male leads, Franz, Healy and Reeves had all served in the war as combat veterans, with Franz actually shot down in his bomber over occupied Europe. No doubt many others in the production had served as well). Some reviewers take issue with the sheriff, Scott's, "liberal" or "pacifist" leanings throughout the movie: unlike Jaynes, he has no interest in killing any of the escapees. He wants to do his job with no bloodshed at all, if possible. Could it be that his character has already seen enough of killing in his lifetime; could it be that Jaynes just hasn't seen enough yet to satisfy his own blood lust? On the surface, the lone woman in the posse, Smitty, comes across as almost masculine in her resolve to get Kaygo as a supposed revenge for his and the other cons robbing her gas station. Could it be that as a single woman, successful and independent, very unusual for that time, Smitty had to be equally as tough and hard to survive in a very male-oriented environment? By the film's climax, that veneer cracks to reveal something entirely different about her own quest. The direction, camera-work, incidental music and yes, even the script, all hint at something more meaningful than the average "revenge manhunt in the Rockies" flick. I think that the movie achieves its goals, no matter how modest they were, at aspiring to something different, and yes, even a bit haunting, from what you might expect from an example of that genre, at that time.

dj vargas 6 out of 10 Mainly because it takes a while to really understand the sheriff. At first I thought he was just over acting,(B-Movie) style, but later I started thinking about the various "Hints" he gives regarding the cruelty that men can go through due to the unfair or injustice that our society can inflict upon us all. "I might forget that you are ALSO my brother" says the sheriff, "what do you mean brother" asks Jaynes? What are you talking about" he continues. Could it be that the sheriff knows the last criminal Kaygo a little more then we are told??? On a more positive note: everybody else is somewhat likable including the criminal Struthers who adds some much needed sarcasm which helps us along with this entirely unrealistic scenario, and of course Doris Dowling is sweetheart. Please don't expect too much from this film. Instead sit back and enjoy the Cliché's, the amazing Colorado Mountains, and of course Doris :)

drystyx Arthur Franz seemed to like a variety of roles, and tried to make each of his characters into something larger than the character should naturally be.That seems to be the case here, as he plays the professional lawman, the sheriff, leader of a posse after four escaped convicts, all of whom are very dangerous.This is a bizarre script, and not really believable, as the chief characters are all very one dimensional. The sheriff, even if he's an elected official, is way too complacent and passive towards men who are proved to be dangerous. The woman is a packaged feisty Hollywood cliché who gets soft only when it's a Hollywood scenario. The antagonist sharp shooter is so unstable that one can't imagine him being allowed in the posse.That said, it is watchable, and there are a few good bits. The most telling bit is when a bank robber brags that he never had to shoot anyone, in a jibe against the sharp shooter.The character of the sheriff is ridiculous, and it's hard to say more without spoilers. It's just a silly script. At first we get the feeling that they're all basket cases escaped from an asylum, except the two minor members of the posse seem fairly normal.The sentiments echoed by the sheriff have a passiveness that isn't bad, but just doesn't ring true of a lawman, and also are out of place in the situation.