Very, very corny. The plot, dialogue - and even the music - is trite and juvenile. It is hard to watch adults act and speak like 10 year-olds -- although 10 year-olds may have been the intended audience. Much of the acting is barely acting. It's as if Buster Keaton directed a western, tongue-in-cheek. If this were a TBS western, it would be a 'B' TBS western. And then there are the slapstick and spaghetti western moments.... After looking it up and finding out that it is indeed an Italian made-for-TV western - well, that explained a lot. The production values are high though, no suffering there. I watched it, mostly. I had Triggerman - a sequel - queued up to watch after this one. I didn't bother.

I am a hard core fan of Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name trilogy and the two thoughtful follow-ups he controlled: High Plains Drifter and Pale Rider. I disliked Terrence Hill's corruption of the genre with his grinning, overdubbed, hip "whatever" character and was glad when he went away. But then, fast forward to 2009 and he returns, pleasantly grizzled, speaking careful second language English and playing a serious character with just enough humor to comfort his old fans."Doc West" and the unfortunately named second episode "Triggerman" are a genuinely excellent and authentic Spaghetti Western with good production values and music that does not attempt to mimic Morricone. And of all things, it was filmed on location in New Mexico by an Italian crew.Hill has one Eastwood moment in the movie when a poker competitor realizes Doc West has drawn him. When Doc is confronted, he glints back with no hint of a smile and says: "I'm not the one who thought he had a sucker on his hands." with his hand on his gun. I expected to hear the Eastwood tympani/chime strike followed by the wind blowing.I rated the movie 8 only because he was more merciful with the Bad Guys than Clint would have been, but then, he IS a doctor. Anyone who remembers and likes the Clint trilogy should view this with an open mind. It's a little like going home. I wish Hill would do another before the years catch up.

As an adult movie, this rates perhaps a 1 or a 2. The best parts about it are the full frontal shots of Terrence Hill's face, showing his steely blue eyes. But as a kid's television show, it rates about a 5 or 6, so I averaged it into a 3.Simply put, it's equivalent to any Roy Rodgers episode you watched back in the day, but without Gabby Hayes. It has nothing of the panache evidenced by Hill in his spaghetti westerns, no cleverness of plot, no realism of any sort, and nothing innovative. It's more or less of a generic western with mediocre acting and less than mediocre dialog. Your 8 year old will probably like it, and there is nothing objectionable in it to prevent him or her from watching it: quite bloodless, nothing nuanced or obscure, no sexual innuendo. The violence consists of a snake being shot in the tail, a villain being shot in the hand and a kid wounded in the shoulder(who of course recovers completely). It all ends well, just like a Roy Rodgers show.

Easygoing stranger Terence Hill rides into town chasing some stolen cash and ends up in jail, dispensing medical advise, and finally getting involved in a local land dispute, while simultaneously charming nearly all the town's residents!Despite a sometimes slow pace, this lightweight, family-oriented western has some decent production values and benefits greatly from likable performances by Hill (the first time I ever heard his real voice in a film) and Paul Sorvino, whom I suspect is a stand-in for Hill's partner Bud Spencer, as the town's upright sheriff. In fact, the film is so good-natured that it's nearly impossible to dislike.I'm also a bit in awe of Terence Hill's nearly unchanged appearance since the old spaghetti western days. He looks really great!