Lone Rider

In Lone Rider Lou Diamond Phillips returns to his small Texas town after war service and looks to settle down with his family. When he left there before the Civil War his parents and cousin had a prosperous ranch and a mercantile in town.

But while he's been away, a boyhood friend has become the town boss and is looking to take over the ranch and the mercantile. Lou's father Stacy Keach has borrowed for the store with a loan on the ranch which boyhood friend Vincent Spano wants paid in full.

Spano's moving on a few fronts in that town and in the tradition of many westerns the town looks for a champion and Lou fills the bill.

Lone Rider reminds me a whole lot of some of the Anthony Mann/James Stewart westerns of the Fifties. Phillips is playing a part that half a century ago Jimmy Stewart would have been playing. In fact there are distinct plot elements from The Far Country and Bend of the River in Lone Rider.

And fifty years ago Lone Rider would have been released on the big screen when westerns had more of a market and would have been acclaimed and enjoyed.

But for western fans like your's truly, we still enjoy them.

I'm not saying it was a cliché but, turn it into B&W, and you're back the 1950s watching every western you've ever saw as a kid. All it needed was Rin Tin Tin and the Cisco Kid, a few native Americans with bows and arrows, or a train with a cowcatcher on the front.

What a disappointment. I like Lou Diamond Phillips, and he and some other actors try, but the script, direction, and editing are terrible.

All the characters are one dimensional. The villain is so totally mean and one dimensional that one cannot fathom that he was Phillip's character's best friend when they were younger.

I wonder if the script was longer and it was butchered to fit into a 2 hour time slot on TV? Or was the script so bad this was all the director had to work with? Or was the editor at fault in fitting the movie into a 2 hour time slot? A number of scenes come so rapid fire to establish continuity and move the plot along, but they are so short and jarring that I wondered what I was missing.

For example, Phillips's character gets a woman he is interested in for a picnic. Cut to his cousin getting waylaid, robbed, and beaten. Cut to Phillips returning from the picnic to learn the news his cousin was robbed and beaten and was now at the doctor's place. Cut to talk with his family at the doctor's place about what happened (with no interaction with the cousin). Cut to two of the villain's henchmen beating up a homesteader and tieing him to a tree. Phillip's character witnesses it from a distance. (wait a minute, why is Phillip's wandering the countryside when he should be concerned about his cousin and retribution?) Henchmen ride off. Phillip's rides in and cuts the homesteader loose. The next we know Phillip's speaks with the sheriff to learn the sheriff won't do anything because he says the homesteader won't press charges and Phillip's wasn't there to witness the beating.

All the above happens over the course of a few minutes. There is a lot that could be expanded in each scene to give the scene weight, but isn't. Therefore none of it has any emotional resonance and is almost a montage, or could have been done by talking to explain situations. The actual picnic scene should have been there to establish a relationship between Phillips and the woman. I'm not sure why Phillips is attracted to this woman - could she be the only single woman in town not working at the saloon? Speaking of the woman, from the movie she worked for another business woman, yet in trying to remember her character name, IMDb apparently lists her a "Saloon girl". No... in the movie she has a conversation with the saloon owner about not working for him.

The fight scenes are poorly shot and edited. Lots of closeups and quick edits. The gunfights are dumb and lame.

The villain's wife spends half her screen time running around in corsets and bloomers with a drink in her hand, but somehow the movie can't even make that have a hint of sexiness.

Bad, bad, bad.

Normally I'm not one to watch a lot of Lou Diamond Philip movies due to the fact that I'm just not one of his fans and really do NOT particularly like the way he acts.

To give credit where credit is due, I will say that this is a good western for modern times.

I've watched such bad westerns that were put out with glowing reviews and was just stunned to see the trash thats out there. Here is just one example:

6 Reasons Why -- the worst of the worst --Don't waste your time on that one, there are others - This however, is one that was not a waste of time for a western.

I gave it a 5 because I did enjoy watching a new western. Its nothing new, no new story line, a Hero, Villains, and a couple of women to make it interesting.

Lou Diamond Phillips returns from the Civil War to find his childhood friend Vincent Spano cheating homesteaders of their money, property, and sometimes their lives as well. Things heat up when Phillips helps his father Stacy Keach out of Spano's crooked scheme, a scheme that demands Keach's homestead.

Lone Rider is fairly derivative, though well produced, with good photography and direction. I can't help but like it, though I wish the straight-forward script were both more complex and lively.

As far as the players go, Phillips and Keach are always entertaining, whatever they're in, while Spano makes a good villain, even though we never find out exactly what makes his character tick.

Tom Schanley, who plays Phillips' Army buddy, stands out among the supporting players. Although I don't know him as an actor, he's pretty good.

The title of Lone Rider is a misnomer, as Phillips doesn't do much riding and has plenty of help throughout the movie.