The Unholy Trinity

This would have been a good ol' RSP back in my day of the early to mid 1990s (or uh 1970's? 1950s? That is before my time) - and for the layman in the back, that of course stands for a "Reliable Studio Programmer" - yet now a film like The Unholy Trinity stands as an independent production that squeek by with a theatrical release only/thanks to the still-apparent star power of Samuel L Jackson and to an extent Pierce Brosnan. It may be putting faint praise on this by saying that it really keeps ones attention because of Jackson most of all, and if nothing else one should look to this as a sign that we still underrate him as not only one of the last "Movie Stars" but as a damn good actor.

If this is not a Major Marquis Warren ala Hateful Eight level performance then it is of course due to this not having anywhere near those ambitions nor the artistic acumen or brutality of that Theatrical Epic. This is largely shot like it is meant for a TV show, and that is not meant as a knock but rather simply what it is, that this story of a young man who comes to a town to seek out some possible answers (or may-hap some buried gold) and comes upon some bad dudes and a murder or two or ten.

That said, when Jackson is talking with the Sheriff's wife and the tension is mounting as to what he may do next and what she is going to do, it is one of those examples of why we should at least give his latter-day vehicles a chance (after all, how many of these can he have left in him?)

It is absolutely adequate and thankfully goes by quick in 90 minutes, with a climax that brings the bullets if juat minimal/Mid-competent craftsmanship. Maybe it is that I cant help but wish this was actually a movie from 70 years ago starring Randolph Scott in the Brosnan role (formidable as he is) and directed by Budd Boetticher and written by Burt Kennedy. At the least it would have more scale in its B movie dimensions than what was shot here on some OK Digital Camera.

I know it is matter of taste, however if be fair this movie does not earn more than 3*

Probably Samuel L Jackson has far more the best performance from the rest of the main characters, however as the story was very badly executed (although the story was not too bad), he could also not able to save the film. I really do not want to be very harsh, therefore I'll not mention about the performance of the rest of the casting crew.

Other problem was that the dialect of English. Of course except Pierce Brosnan, Samuel L. Jackson and Brandon Lessard, dialect was terrible. I had never have a feeling any part of the movie that they shot this film in USA, although knowing that location was at Rocky Mountains, however because of the lack of quality of the costumes and dialect you feel like location was somewhere in Europe or England.

Picture quality was also not good especially there were some shootings where you can see easily the corruption of the color in the sky.

I'm terribly sorry to write this above, however this is as it is from my side. If someone likes this movie, I'm fine with that as said it is matter of taste.

Cheers,

Hope Zurich/Switzerland.

Growing up watching reruns of "The Big Valley" and "Gunsmoke" and westerns from the 60's and 70's, this movie had a similar feel. The scenery and sets were well done. Samuel L Jackson and Pierce Brosnan were good in their parts. Samuel L. Jackson was particularly good at playing a self-centered character and playing it in a way that he does very well. The supporting cast was solid albeit they their two-dimensional character development left them with not a lot to work with. The story and character development could have been a bit better. The motivations of certain characters were either never explained or fell short in advancing the overall story.

Overall it was a decent film.

I normally don't watch movies like this, but the opening scene led me to expect more from the narrative. It's an okay story with elements of western movies from days past.

The action was decent, though most of the cast isn't memorable. Maybe I'm alone in feeling this way however many characters lacked development or seemed flat. I personally don't care for the main character, he's too bland for my taste.

Despite the movie's shortcomings I still appreciate an attempt to do something "new". It's a short movie and that's perfectly fine. The fact they didn't pad it into 2hrs or more is great, because brevity works here. This isn't a must see in my book but a fun watch nonetheless. It had a few funny moments.

I enjoyed the movie. The cast is fantastic, featuring Brandon Lessard, Samuel L. Jackson, Pierce Brosnan, and Veronica Ferres. The plot follows a classic Western theme where a son seeks revenge for his father's hanging by a corrupt sheriff. However, it includes some intriguing twists and well-rounded characters. There's no clear-cut villain; everyone has their own justified motives. I particularly liked the character development of young Henry Broadway (Brandon Lessard), who is innocently drawn into the adventure and faces constant moral dilemmas. Samuel L. Jackson's portrayal of the dubious St. Christopher is also a standout.

The film's setting in Montana is stunning, with innovative camerawork in the fight scenes. It has some humorous moments and isn't overly violent. While the story has minor plot holes and some characters develop (too) quickly and make irrational choices, these don't detract significantly from the overall experience. Some critics mentioned the varied "dialects" due to the international cast, but the movie explains each character's background well enough. Considering the diverse immigrant population in the 1870s West, this aspect feels authentic and isn't a dealbreaker.