Plentiful comments...such that my initial inclination was, simply, to rate it and be otherwise silent. Then I noticed that there were no RECENT reviews. So, THAT became my excuse to sound off. Not that I have anything NEW to add: Everyone else is correct. I was just hoping (but not EXPECTING) that time might change one's opinion. It didn't. What we have here is your usual, less-than-mediocre, 30s western, made UNusual by the fact that the entire cast is midgets. (Is that a politically-correct description these days?) THAT should give it a higher (no pun intended) mark, right? Not true. The acting is so poor (the dialogue is so amateurishly delivered); the music is so patronizing; the plot is so small (again, NPI); that this is undeniably sub-par. Buck is our hero, from one of two families warring against themselves, each thinking that the other is rustling their herd. Buck "connects" with a gal in the enemy clan, and, eventually, they learn that a THIRD group is benefitting from the rivalry. The prologue asks that the audience takes this seriously. I tried. Maybe it's my own prejudice. But I was unable to dismiss the stature of the actors amid much of the non-dwarfed surroundings: There is a point when a saloon singer is obscured by a bannister as she descends a staircase. Also...the voices are distractingly childlike, although I know that they can't help that. Next...so many songs begin to seem unnecessarily-intolerable (like a talent show); and, in one case, unrealistically-dubbed. After the abundant comic relief, the second adjective to come to my mind was "unfortunate". Despite all of this, however, you should watch this film, if only to say that you have. Even BUY it (if the price is reasonable), 'cause others are gonna want to see it, too - it's that much of a curiosity piece. Hopefully, though, most - if not all - of these tiny thespians a year later were able to say that they had a little (not another pun) part in the much worthier Wizard of Oz; not The Terror of Tiny Town.