Bad Jim

First saw this movie around 1991-92 on HBO while in high school. I was intrigued then and still am now. Indeed the plot is a little bizarre and uneven, I think that's part the allure for me. I like the "authentic old West dialogue" they use, especially James Brolin (B. D.) who plays the older experienced and level headed guy but who is a bit of a dolt and follows John T's lead after he goes off the deep end after getting his mind possessed by The Kid's horse. Pepe Serna is always welcome, and despite Gable's awful acting chops, the scene with the prostitute and her "brother" is sweet. Who can resist the bank robbing montage set to the completely out of place 90's hairband rock music? Or when they gloriously devour those peaches for "$1 the can?" Ultimately it's a story about 3 average Joe's who are sick of their mundane life as rustlers, guys who decide (with a little help of a demonic horse) that they want more out of life, only to realize that money can't help you when you're constantly on the run. But truly, aren't we all just trying to get to our own beautiful Montana Territory in this life? Great scenery, interesting dialogue, and period-specific details. Good on you, Bad Jim.

It's a bad movie. its full of mistakes,bad and no-making-sense dialogues and bad acting.Gable ll "plays" like amateur... Brolin washed and brushed hair is so extra terrestrial in the wild west desert and for a life of a macho desperado. Roundtrees is the only oasis in the film but can't save it from the director's awful dream...

It's not often that the horses do a better job of acting than the principle in a western. While James Brolin and Richard Roundtree were passable John Clark gable was gawd awful. The story line itself didn't really make any sense, apparently riding Billy the Kid's horse altered the sensibilities of the rider. If that was indeed the premise of the story more should have been made of it. Although the narrative was incoherent the scenery was good and Brolin's appaloosa horse was stunning. It's a shame they wasted the time and effort it took to make a film that didn't make any sense.This would make a good movie to have on with no audio and music playing while you clean the house.

Good scenery, incomprehensible storyline. The reason I give this movie what I would call a massive 4 out of 10 is simply that the actors are not horrible. They give decent performances, believable performances sort of. The script is an incoherent mess with no logical purpose. I didn't know why the characters did what they did, and after the film I was left somewhat puzzled at what I was supposed to "take home" from watching it. Was there any sort of afterthoughts to be had? Not really. If the actors had been as bad as the script, then this would have been a 2/10 movie, but they lift it up to an acceptable 4 out of 10. Passable for entertainment, barely. Anything with Chuck Norris in it is at least as good/bad as this.

This film, beautifully photographed, is a snoozer. We tried four times, and couldn't get past the first thirty-nine minutes. The story is incomprehensible, the dialogue...umm...interesting ~ but young Mr. Gable is certainly easy on the eyes. Definitely a curiosity piece.