Not a Rowdy Yates in sight in this western set in a stop over for the California to St Louis mail stagecoach run. The two staff are warned that four dangerous outlaws are in the area, and together with a female stage passenger and her baby they wait patiently for the word to go round that these men have been caught. Can you guess where the outlaws decide to hide out while they plan a large gold robbery? What follows is a film that concentrates on small details (like attempts to slip a warning note to a passing stage, or to reach a hidden gun that the bad guys don't know about) as the captives try anything to get away from the outlaws.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:89 minutes
  • Release:1951
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:capture,   escape,   murder,  

A stagecoach stop employee and a stranded woman traveler find themselves at the mercy of four desperate outlaws intent on robbing the next day's gold shipment. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Rawhide torrent reviews

Nigel Y (it) wrote: Dead on. It's so good that it made us miss Arkansas. If it had a climate control to adjust, I would never know I was 2,000 miles away. The abuse Enoch endures from the local rednecks quickly snaps me back to my own daily lashings in my youth. It hurts, I know the feelings personally. I remember why I left, frantically reminding myself why I should never return to Arkansas. Excellent film.

Kim B (nl) wrote: It was good, kinda like Baby Boy. It's not as adult mite be same director tho, I'm not sure. I don't know why I get sucked into these VH1 movies. Not nearly as bad as half the movies that come out aimed at young teens. It was serious and funny which is a nice combination and T.I. did pretty well suprisingly. Easy movie to relate to even if you weren't raised in a "ghetto" and interesting. The setting was good.

Private U (de) wrote: good movie alot of deep poetry

Ala E (ca) wrote: it's not so damn funny!!!! ama joking joking

Harry W (ag) wrote: With a premise that sounded essentially like a rip-off of The Karate Kid (1984), Sidekicks sounded like it offered limited campy 80's fun.The entire intro scene is a collection of cheap attempts to imitate Asian scenery with Chuck Norris dressed in some ridiculous white cotton uniform which makes him look more like the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man than a ninja, all the while Julia Nickson-Soul struggles to remember she's supposed to be acting in the background. It's a collection of mediocre fight choreography dragged down with slow motion. Before the story even rears its ugly head, Sidekicks already clarifies the mediocre quality of its production values and acting.The entire premise is obviously taken from The Karate, Kid except that the material is clearly altered to appeal to a younger crowd with the protagonist being played by a 16 year old instead of a 22 year old. In an attempt to pursue its younger market, Sidekicks is far more comically oriented. This drives the entire tone of the film beyond 80's camp and into making Sidekicks essentially a parody of itself. One of the weirdest elements of this is the fact that the central antagonist of the film Kelly Stone, modelled after John Kreese from The Karate Kid, is portrayed by Joe Piscopo who is bent on delivering every line with the most campy comic nature to him. The accomplishments of the man as a comedian explains this, but it hardly justifies an awkward crossover of William Shatner's acting style with Wallace Shawn's voice.But as well as a rip-off of an 80's classic, Sidekicks is an extremely obvious vanity project. Directed by Aaron Norris, the screenplay is packed full of lines that talk about his brother Chuck Norris as if he were some sort of mystical deity by the protagonists of the story. The premise momentarily cuts away from its main story for ridiculous scenes depicting Jonathan Brandis and Chuck Norris in cheaply constructed imitations of action scenes from Chuck Norris movies. These are among the few action scenes in the film and are neither exhilarating nor funny, but actually prove to be frustratingly incoherent points which detract from the story and waste the time of Chuck Norirs. Nobody seemed to realize is that the entire gimmick of pinning a child together with Chuck Norris is ridiculously nonsensical. Speaking as a fan of Chuck Norris, I can certify that his entire legacy is built on the idea that he is a lone wolf made all the more obvious by the fact that one of his films is titled Lone Wolf McQuade (1983). You would think that Aaron Norris of all people would realize that when considering that prior to Sidekicks he directed three Chuck Norris action vehicles, but he fails to capitalize on his brother's legacy properly or even implement in enough action scenes to keep fans of his work distracted.The array of martial arts depicted in the film is far from impressive. With cheap choreography, the visual style of the film is left to determine its extent of success. But there is no eye for imagery behind this production. The action scenes are merely a series of generic long-shots with an abundance of slow motion weighing them down and not making them look any better. The editing is also poor and the sound effects are repetitive, so there is nothing that looks or sounds good about the action in Sidekicks, rendering it a failure in its intended genre. Perhaps the final insult is the fact that Sidekicks does not end with a climactic fight, but a competition to determine who out of the two main young boys is capable of breaking more bricks with a single punch. Every person who has ever seen an action film knows that it has to end with a final battle, but the fact that there is none in Sidekicks is the last nail on the coffin which certifies that Sidekicks is a terrible production. If that wasn't clear already then the fact that it ends more poorly than it began should clarify that. So with so much incompetent filmmaking behind Sidekicks, the cast are left to offer little.Jonathan Brandis isn't too bad. He is burdened in such a one-dimensional and repetitive role which offers him nothing humourous and little time to put up a fight, but as far as the standard of acting for the film goes he is certainly more likable. Despite being forced through all kinds of melodramatic material, Jonathan Brandis offers Sidekick the cheesy juvenile charm that the atmosphere of the film offers, proving he is able of keeping up with the mood of the film. Jonathan Brandis is not incredible, but it looks like he is having fun which should be enough for juvenile viewers.Chuck Norris offers nothing. He comes and goes at random times in the film without any spirit whatsoever. With little time to get into fights his central gimmick is gone, and with a script that has no sense of edge to it there is no chance for him to put his badass nature into the part. His role in Sidekicks is little more than an extended cameo which means the entire film is extremely misleading as one which boasts his name. Chuck Norris is far from an asset to Sidekicks simply because it is too much for anyone so rescue.And every time John Buchanan refers to Barry as "Barry-Warry", I wanted to punch him in the face. And there is nothing in the slightest about his performance which would convince me that he would hit back. He seems like a pretentious wimp mimicking something he isn't. And Julia Nickson-Soul is just bland.Sidekicks drives Academy Award nominee Mako into a role so stereotypical that he flails his arms around randomly while he labels Barry Gabrewski with the name "Mr. Dumpling" in a tone of voice that seemingly imitates a WWE announcer. His goofy nature is ridiculous, but it has some energetic appeal simply for being so plainly ridiculous. It may be a stereotype and a weird role, but Mako seems to be the most passionate member of the cast and so he offers limited charms. And like I said, Joe Piscopo delivers a ridiculous comic effort in Sidekicks which is incredibly awkard and unfunny. But still, at least he puts some life into his effort.Sidekicks steals a premise from The Karate Kid and offers a tone too campy for its own good and a misuse of Chuck Norris' time in return along with a script heavy on lacklustre tropes and a shortage of action which is already insufficient in quality.

Diane A (de) wrote: In between the shaky zoom and the laughable bat squeaks, there's some lovely atmospheric images and much thigh-high booted uncloaked nudity. A winning combination.

Brian C (nl) wrote: Good actors caught up in a story that I found pretty much unbelievable. Any chance for conflict , story-wise, lead no where and it was all wrapped up nicely at the end. Good ingredients, underwhelming dish.

Brett H (ca) wrote: The poor acting, bad sets and weak CGI are made worse by horrible editing. The movie jumps around and is very hard to follow. One star is being kind.

Olivier B (nl) wrote: Super bon divertissement!