The Man Who Came Back

It's very misleading to say, "...this really is a great western". It's anything but. If it is (to quote another reviewer) "the best (they) have seen in a while", then I'd recommend watching a few good ones. There are plenty, but this film doesn't qualify. Nor is it a "classic western revenge movie" (try "Ride Lonesome"). It's an excuse for a lot of quite predictable bloodshed, masquerading as some kind of historical comment, and for some nasty misogyny. The movie strives for political correctness, at least racially, but misses the boat completely where the female characters are concerned. They simply get raped and brutalized. It's unrealistic, too; everyone, including field hands, is far too clean, and there's no feeling of authenticity. The direction's adequate at best; there are far too many lingering shots of the star's face (he's too old for the role anyway).

As for being based on the Thibodeaux Massacre of 1887, as the final comments indicate, it bears little resemblance to that event - but then, it's not actually about injustice to black field hands, it's about the white guys, as usual. The black characters are just there to die on the "hero"'s behalf, as the women are there to be raped. As long as he can stagger to the final showdown, they've played their part in this miserable vehicle for an aging soap opera heartthrob.

Forget it. It might please fans of the soap in question, or kids, but that's all it's good for.

I'm going to leave an honest review. First and foremost I would like to thank them for giving me the opportunity to be in the movie. Just to have some scenes of my face was pretty awesome. Now never getting paid... well I was in jr high. I didn't really care about it that much, only for my family. Even though it was a low budget film and not exactly the best I liked the experience. The film work could've been better but here we are anyway. I've seen different films recently, pertaining to this genre of film, and there could've been a lot more action, more adventure, more story. I believe they fid a good job but it could've been better.

I just went to Blockbuster to find a film and came up with this one. The western genre drew me in, so I decided I'd give it a shot. I'd agree with the other post that this is certainly not your regular western, but I tended to like the extra edge it provided. It's not for young children, or for folks who are bothered with scenes presenting violent conflicts, but it left me wondering what would I do it a similar situation. Overall, I thought Eric Braeden did a great job as did George Kennedy. But I thought the real show stealer was Billy Zane. His characterization was worth the price of admission. The female roles were fun to watch too. Carol Alt was great, Sean Young did a good job of presenting a pretty interesting character, but on the female side, I was most impressed with Jennifer O'Dell. I really believe she is up and coming.

Forget the fact that this film is supposedly based upon historical fact. Several people who know what happened in Louisiana at the time have set straight the fact that nothing in the movie resembles what actually happened.

And, no, it's not High Plains Drifter either, even if they try to make comparisons.

Let's just view this a a good revenge flick that happens to be a cross between a western and a plantation flick.

Now, I have to admit I really like George Kennedy, and would give a film with him in it a higher rating than it probably deserves. I also like Armand Assante, but not as much. I certainly couldn't wait for him to get some justice, along with Billy Duke (James Patrick Stuart).

I'm not familiar with Eric Braeden, the star of this movie. He is, after all, a soap star. He did OK, but I sure would have liked more passion.

Sean Young was certainly a wife that no one would desire. Certainly, no one but maybe Amos (Assante) will miss her.

Justice prevails.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I even rented this film, though I could not bear to watch it. As the crappy after effects title revealed itself at about 5 frames per second over the first shot of the film I said to the girl next to me, "Uh oh. That's not a good sign." I am torn with whether or not to dignify this movie with the designation "film," as it appears to have been shot with a 1998 prosumer video camera.

Poor, poor Billy Zane. I feel bad for everyone in this film actually. The acting, from the few scenes that I watched, looked as though it might have been okay. It's hard to tell when the only mic used seemed to be the one that came mounted on the camera.

I really wonder what it cost to produce this movie. I was fooled because the cover art of the DVD looked pretty good. Why does Hollywood video even stock this thing? There should be a warning next to it. "This movie was shot with a video camera!"