UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Action >

Colorado

Colorado (1940)

September. 15,1940
|
5.9
|
G
| Action Western

Trouble in Colorado is tying up Union troops needed back east during the Civil War and Lieut. Burke is sent to investigate. Macklin and his gang are causing the problems and Capt. Mason joins them. When Burke catches up with them he also finds Mason, his brother.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

dougdoepke
1940/09/15

It's Roy before pairing up with Dale, while Trigger is there but without his starring name. Still, we've got the one-and-only Gabby doing his toothless ornery bit, so the legendary crew is almost all present and accounted for. The movie's a good strong story about brothers on opposite sides during the Civil War, which gives Roy a rare chance to show his acting chops. Catch his nicely modulated reaction in the climactic escape scene. At the same time, you may need to overlook the fact that the mountains of Colorado look a lot like the scrublands of greater LA. But who cares—good old Republic Studio was never big on budgets. It's easy to forget that before Milburn Stone merged with Doc Adams of Gunsmoke fame, he had a lengthy B-movie career. Here, he and Roy make believable (and somewhat poignant) brothers. Okay, the movie's little more than a matinée Western that used to entertain us Front Row kids. But it's got a good story, good acting, some scenic action, and a pretty girl. So, what more can a Front Row geezer ask for.

More
Michael_Elliott
1940/09/16

Colorado (1940) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Union troops are needed in the East but a scuffle in Colorado has them tied up in matters there. The Army sends in Lieut. Jerry Burke (Roy Rogers) who quickly discovers that it's his very own brother behind the trouble. Here's yet another "B" Western from Rogers but the end result this time doesn't rank among his best films. It's weird because the story itself is somewhat interesting but sadly it just never goes anywhere and in the end the 55-minute running time seems a bit long. I thought the idea of Union troops being held up could have led to an interesting story but very little is done with it once the familiar bit of the heroes brother being behind the crimes starts to take shape. From this point on the story is just one familiar thing after another as the hero obviously has to go after someone he loves and it just leaves the viewer rather cold. Rogers is pretty good as usual and we also get some nice supporting performances. This includes Pauline Moore as the love interest and Milburn Stone really comes across very effective as the brother. Then we have the one and only George 'Gabby' Hayes who at least brings some nice laughs to the film including a very funny bit about what he was doing in the war when he got hurt. The action scenes are fairly well staged and I'll at least give the movie credit for a very effective ending. With that said, Colorado will appeal to those who want to see everything Rogers has done but there's no question that there are better movies out there.

More
MartinHafer
1940/09/17

I had a hard time figuring out whether or not to give this one a 6 or 7. All I know is that even if you are not a fan of Roy Rogers, this is an enjoyable and pretty well-done movie--and better than average for this prolific star.The film is set during the Civil War. There is some sort of Confederate resistance going on in Colorado and the Lieutenant (Rogers) is sent to investigate. Soon he sees that many of the local officials are Confederate spies--including a judge and many other public officials. What's more surprising, however, is that one of the leaders of this group is Rogers' own brother!! Can Roy and Gabby sort all this out or is the North destined to lose the war? While the undercover agent during the Civil War isn't exactly a new idea, it was handled very well here. Enjoyable acting and dialog make this one worth seeing.By the way, like so many of Rogers' films, this one was originally longer but was cut down for TV in the 1950s. Considering that this often meant less singing, it's something that I can live with--even though I am usually a purist and want the producer's original vision. But, without so much singing, the movie is tighter and without the loss of momentum songs usually create.

More
Jim Tritten
1940/09/18

Actually a pretty good movie, or at least an excellent plot with some very different twists. Actors do a very good job with the good material. Something happened in the editing room (or in shooting) since we have characters appear that are not fully explained. Low budget technique can be ignored as can the scenery being obviously not in Colorado. This is not the typical western story -- it could easily be remade today and catch the viewers interests. Watch it, you will like it.

More