Opiniones de usuarios

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Justin Ament...you are not leading man material, or a producer. PLEASE, PLEASE...stop making movies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I believe you have let your ego overwhelm you good judgment. You area supporting actor at best. Clichéd, predictable and formulaic! "Not that there is anything wrong with that!" There are reasons movies are released to video, not the theaters, that go beyond being an independent production. Under the above stated circumstances, Angus MacFadyen did some exceptional work, set in an environment of simplistic or unenlightened sets, dialogue, camera angles, lighting; etc., etc., etc. Or maybe I was just in a bitchy viewing mood.

As I watched this terrible film, I was reminded of a bad High School drama project. The characters are one dimensional, the story line is something that any HS kid could come up with, very formulaic.

The score leaves nothing to the imagination. You have the soaring violins and happy sounds when we meet the dad and are expected to learn what a good man he is, as an example.

Bad guy goes from having rotten teeth in the beginning of the movie, and 15 years later has a set of pearly whites. I guess they invented cosmetic dentistry in the interim.

And even small things, like the guns are from the early 1800s, but are supposed to be late 1800s models.

Looking at the film, you realize there was some budget here, as the cinematography is fine, but the rest of the film is just dreck.

Being a proud member of Amazon.com's Vine reviewers, I found myself pondering why some movies were available on occasion (usually ones I've never heard of), while others were not. I also consider myself a responsible reviewer; in other words, I'll read, sample, or watch whatever it is I get from Amazon's Vine program, regardless of what it looks like on the outside. Unfortunately, a pattern is emerging for The Vine program films. These are the seldom heard of ones I mentioned earlier. To give you an idea as to what types of films are being offered through The Vine, I'll use this one — SHADOWHEART — as an example.

First, let's take into consideration the fact that the film was produced by first-time film production company Desert Moon Pictures. Okay. So. Big deal. Now let's look at the main actor, Justin Ament. His film repertoire is not exactly stellar. He's had a lot of uncredited work (see "extra"), obviously trying to break into Hollywood's mainstream. He's written two screenplays: this one, and another for THE PATH OF EVIL. The Path of Evil, like Shadowheart, hasn't been lauded as very good cinema. But why? Well, the easy answer is that the films just aren't that well thought-out nor well put together. In Shadowheart, we see cliché after cliché, and old character after old character. It's a recycle mish-mash of seriously poor proportions. Think of just about every Italian western starring Clint Eastwood and you'll have seen every character in this film many times over.

The only exception to the poor characters is Angus Macfadyen (best known for his role as Robert the Bruce in BRAVEHEART) as the wicked — but still cliché stereotype — Will Tunney. He played (perhaps overplayed) the role of the ruthless and amoral killer and made it, at the very least, fun to watch.

Everything else in this story was completely predictable. When I saw the young protagonist with the young girl in the beginning, I knew what would befall them long before it actually happened. And when I saw the sheriff trying to take the dastardly Will Tunney to the next town for imprisonment and possible hanging, I knew they'd never make it there. And this list of obviousness goes on and on and on and on.

So, getting back to my original quandary: why are some films available on The Vine and others aren't. Well, it's becoming painfully obvious now. Those DVDs that can't sell are given away in hopes of finding a sympathetic audience. But I simply cannot sympathize with drivel such as this. I'll write my review and post it for all to condone or trash, but I simply cannot give this film a positive spin when there's simply none to be found.

This was probably the worst movie I have seen in many years. It went from the youngster starting out on his own and returning after the war to retrieve his past. He saves the Indian couple who later return to save him. He takes on the bully who killed his father. The bully takes everyone's land because the railroad is coming. He marries the heroine, she dies, and he seeks revenge. Guess who comes out on top in the end? What a terrible movie...no wonder it never made the theaters...nobody would pay to see it. (the music was good however). The acting was as predictable as the movie itself...Spider as the wicked henchman who didn't say anything but carried out his orders...Connor who was beaten and shot, yet recovers in a matter of hours (in the same time frame that Mary's brother never knew she had been killed) gets a horse and a gun and rides into town for revenge only to be challenged by the brother to get the marshal. Talk about clichés.

The first thing I pay attention to in watching a movie is whether I care about the characters. I couldn't bring myself to care about these people, mostly because the writing and acting was not good enough. The feel of the whole thing was that it was amateurish. The story didn't flow in a way that felt real. Also, I don't like stories where there's not a good resolution or denouement, even if not a happy ending. This didn't leave me with the feeling of satisfaction. The theme seemed to be relentless evil without any real hope of the good guy winning out in the end. Without giving away the end, I'll just say that if it was meant to tie up the plot, it failed to work for me. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.

This movie was, despite the claims of many others, an excellent western. I am not sure how people define how a western should be, but I look back to the horse opera pulp fiction of the former century.

This movie had a hero town between his want for revenge and moral convictions bestowed upon him with his father's dying words and a psychotic villain whose greed motivates him to acts of unspeakable horror.

This film is surely vilified by the double standard held by fans of film today. It is not high-budget enough to be considered as relevant as any film that gets a theatrical release and it is not low-budget enough to get passed off as camp. If this movie were made thirty years ago and starred Clint Eastwood, it would be a classic.

There has not been a villain in a western so good as this films since Gene Hackman in Unforgiven.

This movie is Pulp, it is not drama, neither is it one of the pointless morality lessons written by Cormac McCarthy.

There is a place in the middle between the highly stylized Spaghetti Westerns and the dramatic The Unforgiven. This movie belongs on that line.

The bottom line: If you are a fan of Westerns, particularly in novel format, you will like this film. If you are a fan of films and do not like it when a movie sticks to the formula of its genre, then you should probably look elsewhere.

This movie is not going to change your life; it does however entertain.

I found this movie to be very entertaining. Those who talk about problems in the set and costume are WAY too picky. First of all, it's an indie, so you can't expect perfection (you find the same mistakes in A-list films). These films have to be judged according to their script and acting. The script could have been better, but it wasn't bad. Anyone who watches westerns regularly knows that a good western typically is still pretty cheesy. What's important is that the storyline didn't go on and on and make me want to stab my eyes (like another indie western "Bounty"). It had the typical western story of a man out for revenge while fighting against becoming the kind of person his enemy is, but they did a good job with the acting. I felt like the inclusion of the Navajo siblings was a bit pointless, but overall I enjoyed the film.

This movie could have been more fun than it was but some of the people in charge of doing it right either didn't care or lacked the knowledge to do it right.

Some of the plot was predictable and seemed amateurish. The plot lacked realism and it didn't have to do so. For example, at one point our star is seriously wounded, but recovers with amazing speed as does his brother-in-law who experiences a painful injury. Within a day or two both are up and moving around like there was nothing wrong them. The director could have shown these guys slowly recovering and show some pain from their wounds once they do get back into action. Come on. That would have been easy!

The film lacked period authenticity. There is an outdoor evening wedding dance that is illuminated by what appear to be round "Chinese lanterns." Inside can be seen light bulbs. This is suppose to be 1865 and post Civil War. The light bulb hadn't been invented yet! Who was your technical adviser on this show?

A period of time elapses from the opening scene to the later ones and yet some of the characters never aged. The sheriff looked older in the beginning of the movie than he did at the end. In the opening scene two women are seen walking down the street with dome like parasols over their heads. Amazingly these women show up walking down the street years later with the same parasols.

There was no need to make out two surveyors to be bumbling eastern hicks. They could certainly still show fear at having been threatened but surveyors in the west would not have looked, acted and been dressed like that. The costumer, Jenevieve Busseau, and Wardrobe supervisor, Fanny Mac, get low marks for authenticity in this movie.

During the early Civil War battle scenes we see Union infantrymen with bright white canteen straps. These appear to have been newly issued from the prop department. Canteen straps got dirty pretty quick during the war and the prop guys should have dirtied them up so they could hardly be seen.

In the battle scene we see the bright yellow stripe of a cavalry sergeant as he bayonets a Confederate soldier. Possible, but more believable would have been to see another Infantryman doing it. Cavalrymen didn't tend to carry rifles that had bayonets unless they were mounted Infantry and then they wouldn't be showing that yellow stripe.

Questionable authenticity is also true in the scene where a few Navajo Indians are being herded of by some Union troops and being taken to a reservation. In addition in that scene, neither the commanding officer or his subordinate officer wore shoulder straps or any kind of insignia. After the Civil War the volunteers were back in their home states. The Regular Army was back in charge and uniform regulations would have been more adhered to. It is doubtful that two officers would have been dressed like these two were in the herding scene. The subordinate's double breasted coat indicates his rank as being that of a major or higher. That means that you had a major and his superior officer, who had to be at least a colonel, leading a small band of less than a dozen Indians to a reservation. Nope. Wouldn't have happened.

In another scene, the first prisoner that our star brings in to justice doesn't have a hat. Why not? It was hot. Everyone wore and kept a hat. The prisoners face was well tanned though, as if during the day he didn't wear a hat. Maybe he was a 2009 tanned movie star and not an 1860's desperado! Take a look at today's cowboys and farmers. The tops of their foreheads are white from being shaded from the sun by their hats. Put a hat on the bad guy!

There were more but that's enough. In summary, while some scenes were well done and the actors were appropriately dressed, there were too many slip ups to let us just sit back and enjoy the movie. Let's hope the next attempt at a western or a Civil War period movie hires technical experts that will be listened to and will thus help make the film more believable.

Recently became more "aware" of western shows and movies, when I first started watching this movie I thought of an after school special.

This movie isn't even close to being realistic, not to the times nor to the demeanor of the era.

This movie had a lot of potential, but failed at every turn. I would not recommend this movie to an enemy.

The acting is horrid, the scenes not thought out. I just wasted nearly 2 hours of my time on this, but yes I had to give it a full chance.

The brother really bothered me with his "do the right thing" attitude which I don't think would even happen in those days, much less now.

I don't think this movie should have been made, the screenplay should have been burned.

I'm sorry to be so harsh but this movie is total rubbish and I'm actually ticked off about my wasted time.

I really think me and my kid could have come up with a better screenplay. This totally predictable movie was one stereotype after another. Bad guys were tired old clichés and the hero was a total ZERO. What a loser. By the end of the movie I was hoping he would lose out to the bad guys! How do movies like this get into circulation? This movie showed me no creativity at all. Even the cinematography was bad-I found myself critiquing shot angles and I never have done that before. The dialog was clipped and poorly delivered, the character development was awful, the screenplay showed no imagination at all. Don't waste your time with this movie, read a cereal box instead, you'll get more out of it!

The movie was great. The first comment was absolute trash and he needs to just enjoy movies for movies, and not "critique shots" and think that him and his child could write a better plot. It isn't always about the technical aspects. You are just looking for something to be wrong with every movie and can't enjoy a fictional tale. It's like getting upset with the Matrix because there's no way you could do any of that. So I guess what you are saying is that Tombstone sucked too eh? (No I bet you liked that one even though the good guys had a fraction of a chance. But I guess that's OK since it's Kilmer and Russell, right?) It is essentially the same story, which most westerns are. Good guy comes in to clean up town controlled by bad guys. Just GAD and learn to enjoy the stories for once.

I rarely bother to comment on bad movies there are so many, watching this on a snow day on Showtime I really had to wonder why this got made at all. To the people who did it, let me offer a few suggestions should they choose to try again. First buy a script from a good writer, he may even do it for free if just starting out. Without a good script nothing good can happen. Next do not cast yourself, if you are an actor others will hire you, don't waste a chance to make a good project out of vanity. The director is the key person, you must have a real one. If you can not get one with a good track record of success, then review student film projects for a new director with several great student films, you are looking for a visual story teller. His stuff will stand out, they do not grow on trees.

Having the obvious large amount of money it took to make this film it is tragic that so many young film makers struggle to find small amounts to film with, they are out there, please do not waste such resources again.

A modern revenge western, that would have been a far better prospect with a tighter script and less overplaying of the parts (especially the cartoon looking baddie). Some exciting action, so on the whole not a complete disaster.

..But a way of passing an hour and a half during Lockdown time. Angus McFadden makes the effort to turn the film into something it could never be without him. Respectable. His portrayal of Will Tunney for some peculiar reason reminds me of the cocky, arrogant Dean Morris's Hank Shrader. I kid you not. Watch it and see.

I am not going to give the plot away. But this is one of the worse cowboy movies I ever encountered, Quite an insult to average intelligence.The plot is contrived and convoluted. far to much going on. Unbelievable performance by Angus Macfadyen ( will Tunney). I laughed at his joker type portrayal of the bad man. This was not a believable movie in the least.I guess some may like the violence and attempt at suspension. But come on really. I am not sure what the budget was for this film, but I think a high school art student could have cooked up a better storyline. As my father always said, If a films worth doing, then its worth doing well.This film did not live up to that notion whatsoever.