User Reviews

This is one of those episodes that is only fair but somehow keeps you intrigued and watching. Andrew Prine appeared on Gunsmoke 3 times and is always very watchable, Something about him keeps you interested in whatever he is in. The plot in this is sort of silly but it has some rather interesting gunfights.

While Matt is in the big city of Kansas City, he has a meeting with Senator McGovern and a newspaper reporter named Paul Hill. Senator McGovern is ready to introduce a cost saving measure to the US government concerning pulling all US Marshals from west of the Mississippi River. Seems the Senator believes that if someone is a gunfighter then everyone will leave him alone and no need for Marshals. Matt invites the Senator and Mr Hill to Dodge to observe why a Marshal is needed.

Paul Hill runs into a notorious gambler named Nick Heber and they make a game of the situation. They get a young crate stacker, Clay Tatum, that has never carried a gun and bet for two weeks he will not get shot if everyone thinks he is a gunfighter. With Hill saying he will not get shot and Heber saying he will- the bet is on.

Hill went on to Dodge to start the rumor about Tatum. And when Tatum arrives no one wants anything to do with him, all think he is a gunslinger. Tatum is liking the attention and starts practicing with a gun to get better.

After nearly the two weeks, Heber is getting anxious about losing the money. So Heber hires someone to shoot Tatum in a fair gunfight. With the Senator looking on- things do not go as planned.

This episode was actually interesting. Perhaps not the most entertaining show you will ever see but a nice way to burn an hour on a rainy day. Good Watch.

Similar to "My Fair Lady" in 2 people bet whether a mild mannered easterner can bluff cowboys into thinking he is a "gunfighter". I enjoyed the 'remake' and story is decent.

The bet, and the basis for the newspaper story that was supposed to be the outcome after the two-week bet, was to prove or disprove the newsman theory that a man with NO gun skills can survive by bluffing his way, based on his reputation and the way he carried himself.

As soon as the kid lined up those bottles on Front Street and shot at them, the bet should have been called off. First, the kid missed one out of five, and did not shoot each one using a fast draw. That in itself showed that he is not up to par with most gunslinger, and would increase the chances of some punk seeing a chance to win if they called him out. Second, even if his display of skills had been impeccable enough to discourage challengers, that would not serve to prove or disprove the theory of an unskilled man being able to survive by BUFFING alone. Either way, the kid rendered the newspaper story moot, since the premise changed half-way through. If the bet had been called off due to the terms not being met, there would have been no reason to employ any shenanigans to get the kid murdered in order to win the bet.

I dropped the score a couple points for that reason. It just made no logical sense to me why the bet was allowed to continue after the kid quit basing his survival on bluffing, resorting instead on proving his skills (which were subpar).