Hickok

Lazy, terrible script, one dimentional characters, flat and boring. Exactly the same kind of stupidity yyou find in series like CSI and similar garbage.

This had so much historical fodder for storytelling and they did this. The writing was terrible, the direction worse, and many of the actors seemed to be just phoning it in fora paycheck.

The most sad thing of this had to be Kris Kristofferson who seemed to be reading from a slow loading dialogue delivery system of some sort. The only actors that did well were those with few paychecks behind them.

Action and SFX were beyond poor and the entire film was a train wreck in that you can't stop watching to see if it can get any worse.

Kris and Bruce? It's time to retire. You had great runs but it has gotten down to the point that peeps might think you just don't give a shot anymore. Loved you both in your earlier stuff.

RELEASED IN 2017 and directed by Timothy Woodward Jr., "Hickok" stars Luke Hemsworth as the titular lawman and gunslinger, nicknamed Wild Bill, who is commissioned as Marshal to tame the wildest cow-town in the Old West, Abilene, Kansas. Kris Kristofferson plays the noble mayor and Bruce Dern the town doctor while Trace Adkins is on hand as the nefarious mogul of the town. Cameron Richardson plays the woman they vie for whereas Kaiwi Lyman appears as Hickok's gunfighter rival.

Except for the opening sequences, this is a town-bound Western similar in theme to those Wyatt Earp Westerns where Earp has to clean up a town (Dodge City, Tombstone, whatever). Since practically the entire story takes place in town it's irrelevant that California substitutes for Kansas. It's great to see old Western stars Kristofferson and Dern in fairly significant peripheral roles. Luke is stalwart as the protagonist and the movie really drives home the bold resolve it would take to tame a wild cow-town. Meanwhile the hulking Adkins is formidable as the heavy.

While this is a relatively low-budget adult Western (with a little bit of cussing, nudity, covert sex) and there are obvious mistakes here and there (e.g. the kid's bandage appearing on the wrong leg), not to mention the cast probably learned their lines the night before, as well as the predictableness concerning Mattie's kid, the script and main cast keep things compelling. There are several highlights and a few spectacular shots, like the train bridge in the opening act and, later, the moonlit sky.

In short, the movie's entertaining for a low budget Western that doesn't overstay its welcome. Western fans who don't demand Grade A quality should eat this up. Keep in mind that not every Western can have the mega-funds of blockbusters like "Dances With Wolves" and "Unforgiven." Just don't look to "Hickok" for accurate history. Nevertheless, I'd watch "Hickok" over the comparatively dull "Wild Bill" (1995) any day.

THE FILM RUNS 1 hour 28 minutes and was shot in Agoura (Paramount Ranch) & Santa Clarita, California. WRITER: Michael Lanahan.

GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

Disappointing is a word I would normally use when discovering a below par movie, but I did not expect much from this movie to begin with so the bar was set quiet low in my expectation. Somehow the director managed to lower that bar considerably. Terrible direction, no style of any kind whatsoever.. terrible sound editing,, a gunshot sounds like someone farted loudly.. awfully clichéd dialogue, wooden acting at its worst, lighting was poor, cinematography was childlike and vacuous,. This was a calamitous endeavour from start to finish. Watch it only to learn how not to make a western.

I liked this movie for the simple reason it was a western. While not spectacular, the show was still okay for late night viewing. Critics here giving 2's are not being fair with their overall assessment.