IMDb-BEWERTUNG
3,5/10
1406
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA gunslinger, a vengeful ex-slave, and a runaway board a midnight train to Atlanta. They discover that the train is haunted by a sinister force, and must fight to survive the night.A gunslinger, a vengeful ex-slave, and a runaway board a midnight train to Atlanta. They discover that the train is haunted by a sinister force, and must fight to survive the night.A gunslinger, a vengeful ex-slave, and a runaway board a midnight train to Atlanta. They discover that the train is haunted by a sinister force, and must fight to survive the night.
June Laporte
- Annie Hargraves
- (as Jennifer Laporte)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Tony Todd and Lance Henriksen. Has to be OK, right? How can Candyman get involved in this utter rubbish?
Terrible acting from everyone, poor sets that look like they are build from paper and are just difficult to believe are real, a musical score that just doesn't match the scenes. Confused characters who interact with each other in ever changing ways.
Described on the cover as being a cross between Devil and The Hateful Eight - just how, I haven't a clue. Basic storyline could have been made into a decent film, but this falls so far short. Not even sure why I scored ti 2 and not 1.
Please don't waste your time watching this.
Terrible acting from everyone, poor sets that look like they are build from paper and are just difficult to believe are real, a musical score that just doesn't match the scenes. Confused characters who interact with each other in ever changing ways.
Described on the cover as being a cross between Devil and The Hateful Eight - just how, I haven't a clue. Basic storyline could have been made into a decent film, but this falls so far short. Not even sure why I scored ti 2 and not 1.
Please don't waste your time watching this.
Oh, what can i say without spoiling anything. well i'm not overexcited,though the propmakers have done their job, the story could have been written on a paper napkin, the yellow glow staight through the movie, could make you think its a gold rush movie, but its all about revenge and avenge between the good the bad the ugly and the devil and so on made as haunting as my empty wallet.
there are no new angels of filmmaking to find in this feature , and as long as the movie consists of two or three locations, it bears all the signs of low budget.....i cant give less than 2 stars for this chattanooga choo choo tale
'West of Hell' did actually intrigue me. It did have a great idea, it was interesting to see how western and horror would go together, and it had a capable cast on paper, Tony Todd, Lance Henriksen and Michael Eklund having given more than serviceable performances in the past (Todd in 'Candyman' is a notable example). So there was not any intent or prejudiced want to dislike it.
After seeing it, it is actually really quite sad that the potential that 'West of Hell' had was wasted by very lousy, and that's being kind, execution. How badly it executes a great idea is just shocking and one would not think that the cast showed themselves to be more than capable in other things judging from their performances here. Are there worse films? Oh yes, 'West of Hell' is not even quite one of the worst films seen recently, it is though one of the worst and most frustrating wastes of potential. Having seen a lot of those recently, part of me of debilitated by this.
Eklund is the least bad thing about 'West of Hell', he at least tries without being pantomimic and doesn't look like he was only doing it for financial reasons.
Cannot say the same for the rest of the cast, Todd tries too hard and the over-acting does become painfully desperate and Henriksen is merely phoning it in (he has come off reasonably well in stinkers before, and he has been in a lot, but not this time). The rest of the cast are not worth mentioning, mainly because most are completely forgettable but those that aren't quite so much are that for reasons that are not good.
In all fairness, everybody is saddled with one dimensional archetypes that have no depth or shade to them whatsoever, cliché-ridden and barely coherently structured script writing and barely existent direction to work from, but that they don't act quite plays as big part too.
Visually, 'West of Hell' looks cheap with far from authentic settings and photography and editing that looks very static and disorganised. It works neither as a horror or a western. The horror elements are too predictable and the scares and shocks go through the motions just as much as Henrilsen does, with no tension, suspense or dread in sight. One never doubts the outcomes, what could have been reasonably creative is so ordinarily handled. It fails as a western because there are no thrills, interesting characters, excitement and there is too much emphasis on the horror element.
Summing, awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox
After seeing it, it is actually really quite sad that the potential that 'West of Hell' had was wasted by very lousy, and that's being kind, execution. How badly it executes a great idea is just shocking and one would not think that the cast showed themselves to be more than capable in other things judging from their performances here. Are there worse films? Oh yes, 'West of Hell' is not even quite one of the worst films seen recently, it is though one of the worst and most frustrating wastes of potential. Having seen a lot of those recently, part of me of debilitated by this.
Eklund is the least bad thing about 'West of Hell', he at least tries without being pantomimic and doesn't look like he was only doing it for financial reasons.
Cannot say the same for the rest of the cast, Todd tries too hard and the over-acting does become painfully desperate and Henriksen is merely phoning it in (he has come off reasonably well in stinkers before, and he has been in a lot, but not this time). The rest of the cast are not worth mentioning, mainly because most are completely forgettable but those that aren't quite so much are that for reasons that are not good.
In all fairness, everybody is saddled with one dimensional archetypes that have no depth or shade to them whatsoever, cliché-ridden and barely coherently structured script writing and barely existent direction to work from, but that they don't act quite plays as big part too.
Visually, 'West of Hell' looks cheap with far from authentic settings and photography and editing that looks very static and disorganised. It works neither as a horror or a western. The horror elements are too predictable and the scares and shocks go through the motions just as much as Henrilsen does, with no tension, suspense or dread in sight. One never doubts the outcomes, what could have been reasonably creative is so ordinarily handled. It fails as a western because there are no thrills, interesting characters, excitement and there is too much emphasis on the horror element.
Summing, awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox
Interesting premise, but let down but high school level editing. It's so bad it's distracting. Some decent performances
I must admit that I had somewhat more of an anticipation for the movie, given the fact that it has both Tony Todd and Michael Eklund on the cast list. And the fact that it is a horror movie wrapped up in a western attire, just made it all seem all the more interesting.
But alas, that was not to be. I managed to endure 45 minutes of the ordeal that is known as "West of Hell" before I gave up out of utter hopelessness and boredom. Actually, the movie had drained all energy away from me and I was starting to fall asleep as well. Yep, the movie was that boring.
Nothing of any worth or interest happened in the movie. The characters were one-dimensional cardboard cutouts with an equal amount of personality as a mosquito. And that made it a complete snoozefest to sit through and be tormented by watching.
Not even Tony Todd or Michael Eklund could do anything to lift up the abysmal display of pointlessness that transpired on the screen.
I have no intention of returning to watch the rest of the movie, because there was nothing, and I do mean that literally, to keep me interested, not in the story, not in the characters, not in whatever plot was unfolding with the shapeshifter.
One might actually be tempted to hope that the train the movie took place on would derail or crash, and ending the misery of the movie that is "West of Hell".
But alas, that was not to be. I managed to endure 45 minutes of the ordeal that is known as "West of Hell" before I gave up out of utter hopelessness and boredom. Actually, the movie had drained all energy away from me and I was starting to fall asleep as well. Yep, the movie was that boring.
Nothing of any worth or interest happened in the movie. The characters were one-dimensional cardboard cutouts with an equal amount of personality as a mosquito. And that made it a complete snoozefest to sit through and be tormented by watching.
Not even Tony Todd or Michael Eklund could do anything to lift up the abysmal display of pointlessness that transpired on the screen.
I have no intention of returning to watch the rest of the movie, because there was nothing, and I do mean that literally, to keep me interested, not in the story, not in the characters, not in whatever plot was unfolding with the shapeshifter.
One might actually be tempted to hope that the train the movie took place on would derail or crash, and ending the misery of the movie that is "West of Hell".
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is West of Hell?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 20 Min.(80 min)
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.39:1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen