Hard Ground

I just bought this movie very cheap..

I don't write many reviews...but i'll go for another try.

I was at least expecting an average & entertaining movie. The movie is not good, and I don't understand the high/average rating on this board, even though there is only a few voters so far, it doesn't even come close to the result of the movie, which is very disappointing. Understand that everyone has the right, to have different taste in movies...but here it goes..

The movie is poorly done. When it comes to acting, it seems kind of wooden or stiff, in this flick. Even for the legendary actors Reynolds & Dern. As for the lesser known actors, they seem mis-casted. Especially the young girl, who through-out the movie seems too pure, when you think about the dusty environment. Her acting was way too obvious, but not in the talented kind of way.

The guy who played the main badguy, was so annoying and kept overacting his part. Martin kove's performance was kind of laughable, which i'm sure he (personally) was aware of. He had a silly accent and a "special" voice. Also the young the young guy, who protects the girl i the beginnin, reminded a bit of paul walker but his acting was worse.

The music was poorly composed, and seemed to be too much in the background. There was also a lack of dynamic during the action scenes. Sometimes, I thought it sounded like a keyboard(synth) either way, it was only helping the movie, to reach the bottom of no-quality.

The script made the movie kind of predictable, very stereo-type kind of characters etc.

An average oater, with some nice scenery. This movie at its worst is better than 'reality' shows at their best. Worth a look while you work on your laptop. Bruce Dern is believable, if not memorable. Burt Reynolds always does a good job, and does not get the recognition he deserves. Martin Kove proves he is one of the top character actors around. Amy Jo Johnson didn't work at all -- maybe if the makeup artist had dirtied her up a bit instead of keeping her a fashion plate, she may have worked out better, but I doubt it. David Figlioli seemed like he tried to hard to be a bad guy. Maybe he should stick with movies like Rock Monster, where overplaying the role can be overlooked.

I didn't think really good Westerns were made any more but I gave this one 9 out of 10. It's that good and, incredibly enough, it's made for TV!

A word of warning however, this film is quite violent. In fact it's the most violent film I've ever seen on the Hallmark Channel.

Burt Reynolds and Bruce Dern play friends/enemies/brothers in law as they track down and kill an extremely savage man who murders men, women and children any time he feels like it which is often. He's supported by a gang of bad guys and a corrupt Mexican general.

The film has it's share of colorful characters as well as Amy Jo Johnson for some female interest. She packs a 10 gauge double barreled shotgun.

Well, I Happened to see this movie.

I'm not a particular Western-Fan, but when a movie is good, then its good no matter the genre, and vice verse. This one is quite dull (even if it had been a Sci-fi flick).

Im not gonna go deep into details, but my opinion falls somewhere similar to the lower scored comments here.

The actors feels a bit wooden, the sound-effects are bad, the action moments lack "umphf", the bad guy is stupidly, annoyingly portrayed and overacted, the relationships between the characters is so embarrassing, the special effects ... well there is not that many SFX, etc.

If you really have the crave for "Wild West" movies, go see "Young Guns" instead, or why not "Deadwood" - another TV-production that really oozes quality. But if you're in some personal quest, that you have to see every western there is, well, go ahead. Or if you do some research like - How Burt Raynolds Carrier is going down ... then this also could be helpful.

I Gave it a "2", mostly because the horses did some nice acting. Acting like embarrassed animals in a low budget badly script, dumb movie, or was it acting?

Overall, you don't miss anything by avoiding this.

The movie seems to be another one of Producer Robert Halmi Jr.'s "follow-up films" to his work in the legendary "Lonesome Dove" series, and, in fact, the time line of this film brings the entire Lonesome Dove era up and into the 20th Century (or just into the new century, in the year 1901).

The pursuit of Billy Bucklin aside, the movie does have a similar Lonesome Dove feel to it, especially when it comes to the unfinished relationship of John McKay and Joshua - similar to that of Woodruff Call and Newt in the first Lonesome Dove film.

However, while not directly related to the story's ending, the film does illustrate how individuals in that period of American history, similar to men like Call - and McKay and Hutchinson - were now discovering in their later years, that their feelings for the American West had become ironically similar to those of the Native Americans they helped to displace - that the wild, unclaimed vast landscape, much to their sadness or even anger, had begun to disappear into history.

Unfortunately, viewers who decided to abandon the last few minutes of this film (once the gunfire ended) missed McKay's parting words on this subject, which might give meaning to many older Americans who feel similarly when it comes to life 100 years later, in the early 21st Century...