User reviews

There's only five reviews on this website as I write this, and they ratings span from a hot mess to very good. In truth, this deserves a 5 to 6 rating, but I'm bumping it up to a 7 for the following reasons.

The script is adapted from a 1940s novel. Released in 1957, the movie shows that the story concept held up for a minimum of ten years.

While James Franciscus is best remembered for his work in television, he had a few roles where he had his moments in the sun. While his screen time is limited here, it's entertaining to see the early performances of the up and coming.

And while Frank Sutton will forever be remembered as the sergeant in the Gomer Pyle TV series, he cuts his teeth pretty good on his role in this film.

Again, it's entertaining to be reminded that an actor pigeon-holed into a recurring TV role actually has talent beyond the scope one expects.

If you have an aversion to storytelling that relies on flashback, this film will probably get on your nerves. A bit implausible and with dialogue that suffers in several scenes, it's the film's last 15 to 20 minutes that win me over enough to bump my rating all the way to a 7 out of 10, despite an unsatisfying ending.

The title to this film is ridiculous, as the youngest 'boy' in this film is 22...and one is 34!! As for the film itself, it's not bad at all but suffers from one fatal problem...you really cannot feel sorry for any of the four.

The story begins with four friends committing a robbery. In the process, a cop is shot and killed. Surprisingly, the four are very quickly apprehended and the bulk of the film consists of flashbacks which show the motivations and lives of the four leading up to the robbery gone bad.

As I mentioned above, despite the flashbacks kind of explaining their motivations, none of the guys is especially easy to like nor excuse for their actions. The acting isn't bad and the cast does feature many familiar faces, such as James Franciscus, Frank Sutton, Fred Marth, the Campanella brothers (Frank and Joe) as well as Ned Glass. Because of this, the acting is nice and it makes it watchable but really nothing more. Overall, a time-passer and not much more.

Four young adults -- James Franciscus (in his movie debut), Frank Sutton, Tarry Green, and William Hinnant -- scramble to make money. None of their schemes work, so they try robbery. When they kill a cop, one of them faces execution.

Producer-director William Berke had been making TV shows for four years. Then he returned to the big screen in 1957, directed six pictures, and died early in 1958. He started directing B westerns in 1935, and spent fifteen years doing little else, turning out as many as ten in a year, usually on a 12-day shooting schedule. Coming back from TV, he stretched into other genres, like this cheap crime movie based on a mid-1940s novel. However, while the camera work is competent, the performances seem to concentrate on loudness rather than subtlety, the movie on shock rather than emotion.

Of the four title guys, Frank Sutton and James Franciscus are interesting to watch at the beginning of their careers. None of the four get decent billing, however.

Writer Philip Yordan is an enigma: writing famous Oscar-winning or nominated movies like 'Broken Lance", later massive 1960s epics like "El Cid' and "King of Kings", and ending up cranking out complete trash, mainly unreleasable junk like "Night Train to Terror". Here he's working with B-movie veteran William Berke on a '50s crime melodrama for United Artists, as double-feature fodder.

It begins with a robbery at a boxing arena that goes haywire, resulting in cop Joseph Campanella being killed, and the boys quickly rounded up. Rest of the picture depicts flashbacks of what led them astray -not stereotypical juvenile delinquents but boys loaded with hard luck. It makes for a dreary, downbeat hour-plus.

J. Burgi Contner delivered quality black & white photography; he later set the visual style for the TV series "Naked City". Of the other two boys, distinctive little Bill Hinnant, wearing glasses and looking sorrowful, ended up typecast; I recently saw him in a 1964 Kraft Suspense episode playing a meek killer not unlike his role here. Tarry Green as Eddie is a nonstarter: a boring performance as a selfish complainer.

I saw this film as an adolescent, among many I saw those years in my small mid-west home-city. This was a "great" film for me in that, as a naive (and I still consider myself such), even I discovered that there was such a thing as BAD film. This realization developed in later years into the idea that each movie-going is a gamble, in which I stake my money & time on the prospect of a good entertainment experience. And naturally, sometimes I lose. This realization put the onus on me for my own experience. I oughtn't be angry with the film for being bad. Put another way, as surely as there are great films, there HAVE to be duds. I'm almost tempted enough to rent FBAAG again, a)to see Jas. Franciscus, and b)to see if it really was all that bad. Tho, upon reflection, I'm fairly sure that it was.

Watchable but not very involving drama. Aside from Frank Sutton none of the eponymous actors gave especially memorable performances and the writing and direction lacked impact, as well. Everything just seemed to hover around the cliche line, not descending into caricature but certainly not rising to Scorsesian or even Levinsonian levels. Kinda like a mid level episode of "Naked City", actually (appropriate since James Franciscus was the precursor of Paul Burke on that series). Give it a C.

This is one of those "how did these boys go wrong" flicks, except that, a) the "boys" are too old, and b) I really never cared how or why they went wrong.

The leader of this unlucky quartet is Frank Sutton, who was in his mid-thirties when he made this film. He has a crew cut, is not very good-looking, yet seems to do well with the chicks. In other words, this is a fantasy film. The rest of the group is comprised of actors making their film debuts: James Franciscus, William Hinnant, and Larry Green. Of course, Franciscus had a decent career in film and television, Hinnant had a modest career, and Green had none.

The film opens with the guys knocking over a sports arena. As they flee, one of them fatally shoots a cop. Sutton still has the time to pick up an unattractive dame in a bar, but she drops a dime on him. After they are captured, the film turns into flashbacks of all four characters and how they ended up pulling the heist. This is where you want to take an extended bathroom break. First, there is Green's story. He is just a loser. He finds out his girlfriend is making it with their boss, because the boss has dough and the girlfriend is obviously the town mattress. He slugs the boss, which gets him fired. Then, he whines to his mother that she always makes him pancakes, when he would like some eggs for a change. Then he tells his sister to buzz off. Pretty soon, he is lying on a pool table trying to think of a way to get some fast cash, while Hinnant is playing dice next to him. Now what is Hinnant's story? I don't know, it went by so fast, I forgot what his problem was - although he is short, wears glasses, and can't get any chicks. I guess that's enough to mess him up. Sutton works for a collection agency, if you get my drift. But he has been spending the dough on Green's sister, so now he is in hock for three c-notes. Franciscus is an amateur boxer, and his wife is pregnant. He needs cash to pay for her delivery. So how will they all get some money? Hey kids, let's put on a dance. I'm not kidding. They invite a bunch of extras to a dance hall, and raffle off a television set. Unfortunately, while the dance is going on, the boss of the collection agency shows up and a) hits on Sutton's chick, and b) has his goons rob the place. Now the four have no money, and still owe $159.95 for the television set. Their last chance is to see if Franciscus can get a pro boxing contract, but even that falls through. Which brings us to the heist.

In the finale, the four have to decide which one will confess to the shooting. The District Attorney, played by the pudgy Otto Hulett, tells them that three of them will get life, with a chance for parole, while the shooter will get the chair. Since we never actually see who did the shooting, there is some slight suspense here as the guys figure out who will take the fall. But the suspense soon turns into tedium, as they decide to shoot dice for the privilege of confessing (low total gets the chair). Franciscus and Green tie for low; they both roll snake-eyes. The probability of getting snake-eyes in two consecutive rolls is 1 out of 1296, so we're pushing credibility here. Sutton insists that Franciscus and Green roll again. But Green says everyone should roll again. Now I started yawning - I hate "do overs." Franciscus rolls first, then Green rolls the dice under a table so nobody can see the total. This is really pitiful. I say fry every one of them.

The women in the film act like airheads, especially Green's sister. The producers tried to make up for this by inserting girlie posters in several scenes. It did not work. There are a load of familiar faces in the cast, including J. Pat O'Malley as Franciscus' manager, Ned Glass as the dance hall owner, and Frank Marth as a hood. They are all fine. But Karl Swenson, as Hinnant's ethnic father (I don't know what ethnicity he was trying for) does a bad impersonation of Jean Hersholt. Anne Seymour, as Green's hapless mother, looks too much like Denver Pyle. In a nice bit of casting, Joe Campanella plays the cop who is shot, while his older brother Frank Campanella plays the arresting officer. Roy Campanella was unavailable for the film, as he was catching for the Dodgers.

Four Boys And A Gun is the story of four 50s urban youths who get themselves in a financial jackpot and decide to stick up a sports arena on the night of a big prize fight. One of them has a gun and a police officer dies in the holdup. The four kids are Frank Sutton, James Franciscus, Tarry Green, and William Hinnant. As you see two of the four had substantial careers. Probably a miracle after this film.

After showing the holdup and the capture of the kids, we see a story of how each got to the position they're in. They're offered a deal if the one who actually had the gun and did the shooting confesses the others will get life sentences.

These four are really a quartet of losers. Some people never do catch a break nor see and seize it when it does come.

Shoddy camera work, poor direction and an idea that is preposterous for a premise.

Four boys rob the box office of a boxing match with a gun. Two cops walk by and one of them gets killed. The boys are quickly rounded up. During the police interview, the boys' backstory and the road leading to the robbery is revealed in flashbacks.

I don't really like the flashback structure. It's not a death blow for the movie but it does need to be careful with the pacing. It seems to me that the premise centers on the night of the robbery. The movie would work better staying closer to the gun and that night. They are dancing a bit too far away from the bull's eye. This should be going back to the intensity of the robbery night over and over again. I don't recognize these actors. I do like the individuality of the characters. It's a 50's scared straight crime movie.

Similar to the Mickey Rooney vehicle "Quicksand", this movie shows the slippery slope of young crime. Frank Sutton is good as the wannabe gangster in over his head. Enjoyable.