Gone Are the Days

I really wanted to like this movie. Henriksen & Berenger give very good, solid performances. However, aside from a very brief appearance by Danny Trejo, most of the other actors seem to be on loan from the Eldorado school of bad acting. The story is a good old fashioned, slow burning western. But the supporting characters, more so than the leads, just seemed so clichéd (it might have been the bad acting, but I think even good actors wouldn't have helped their roles.) None of the scenes 'in town' or on the train near the end - just nothing seemed authentic. It's a shame because I suspect with more competent direction, a better supporting cast and cinematographer, this actually could have been a great film and character study.

This movie is a perfect example of why plot and plot development is king when creating a film. The casting and strange dialog elements that are drawbacks in this film are easily overlooked because of how great the plot is. Some of the accents and lines simply don't fit and do not feel like they belong. However the story shines through and truly comes to a great resolution. No academy award level film but definitely a decent movie to watch if you're looking for a easily digestible "western"

Despite having (the always endearingly odd) Steve Railsback and Tom Berenger in supports, Danny Trejo in a cameo the whole show here is Lance Henriksen.

He is a wonderfully convincing as a former bad man, dying of natural causes and unhappy with who he has become physically and, perhaps, mentally. His solution is to exit life in a blaze of glory whilst confronting personal demons and righting past wrongs. Along the way he is joined by the ghost of a colleague and, what seems to be, Death. Cheery this isn't.

The photography is of the modern realism school (perhaps also because of the low budget) and the supporting characters aren't fleshed out. The films starts slow and is short on action but it is a "slow burn" with elegiac asides. It comes across as a cross between the masterful "The Shootist" (1976) and (the somewhat overrated but much loved) "Unforgiven" (1992).

Not magnificent but definitely one for lovers of westerns, who are familiar with the genres tropes or for lovers of Lance Henriksen, of which there should be more.

I watched the first part last night and decided to go to bed, see if the next half got any better tonight. This is not slow moving it's slovenly to the point of tedium. I've watched over half of it now and still don't know what it's about. Who are these characters, what's the story about, when I don't know, I don't care. Have a general idea now that it's about the woman hanging from a tree and the sheriff, along with a possible outlaw gang. Don't understand the Virgil or river man parts, unless it's taking an eternity to build up to good versus bad. If you have the patience of an angel, it might be good.Personally I wished I'd watched the good, the bad and the ugly yet again.

This is on Netflix now, and while I enjoyed it the first viewing, I really had to see it twice to fully understand it. Maybe I am slow, but once I really had the insight it was a beautiful story. It is a story of redemption not only for the main character, but a supporting character.

Some have complained about all the coughing the main character does - but to fully understand the movie the coughing - and the medicine he takes - is necessary to the plot.

Not trying to start a fight, but I believe some of the reviewers have gotten it a bit wrong as far as the character backgrounds. To explain this further I'd have to spoil it.

See it - and see it a second time if you have to.

Wish I could get the soundtrack but haven't seen it.