The Man Who Came Back

this really is a great western, the best i have seen in a while. if your into the classic western revenge movie, then you cant miss this one. set against the back drop of the end of the slave trade, one man makes a stand and pays dearly, he then sets about seeking revenge. i thought the acting, direction and script were really good and would recommend this to anyone that likes westerns. i really felt for the hero in this as he was one of the few of us that try and make a stand against all that is bad in the world, i also liked the judges son, a real nasty piece of work and quite cowardly with it, which is usually the case and makes it all the more believable. as you can tell i loved it and will be watching it again soon no doubt.

ps. this is my first attempt at writing a review so bare with me, lol.

I thought the movie was not that great. The firearms were as close to any historical events but not the story. Eric Braeden was totally miscasted in this role and mumbled through the movie. He went to jail and then to prison for a long term but was always clean shaven and his hair the same length. His escape from prison was sort of ridiculous. He then keeps appearing around town with everyone and their dog hunting him. Just doesn't project a strong character.

The end fight with the villain was totally ridiculous as he had vowed to kill him and not show who was the best fighter. Could have been a lot better movie with better actors and script. Glad I saw it free on TV and didn't have to pay for it. Sad to see George Kennedy and Sean young having to take roles like this. Billy Zane was the most believeable. Just not a great movie.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I even rented this film, though I could not bear to watch it. As the crappy after effects title revealed itself at about 5 frames per second over the first shot of the film I said to the girl next to me, "Uh oh. That's not a good sign." I am torn with whether or not to dignify this movie with the designation "film," as it appears to have been shot with a 1998 prosumer video camera.

Poor, poor Billy Zane. I feel bad for everyone in this film actually. The acting, from the few scenes that I watched, looked as though it might have been okay. It's hard to tell when the only mic used seemed to be the one that came mounted on the camera.

I really wonder what it cost to produce this movie. I was fooled because the cover art of the DVD looked pretty good. Why does Hollywood video even stock this thing? There should be a warning next to it. "This movie was shot with a video camera!"

First thing is first here people: If you are a movie viewer who sees any cinematography or filming that is below your average local theater showing, and instantly dislikes the film, you won't like this one!!! Part of the problem with half of these negative reviews is they want this movie to be a major picture and frankly, it is not that. It's a fairly independent style movie with some credible actors. You could do A LOT worse.

Now on to the movie. The story here is, although clichéd, decent. To go along with my previous point about not asking for more than the production can provide, I expect to just generally follow a movie. I don't have to be wowed. I just wanna see a story told with some shed of reality and I am OK. And for that, with this film I am just that, OK. It has its moments and its weaknesses. I don't care to whine or cry about how women were mistreated in the film because it's a movie and I could care less about its political correctness because it's obvious the production crew didn't either. The acting here is livable especially for an independent film. Billy Zane and James Patrick Stuart were the reasons (along with a love of westerns) I chose to check this one out and in their performances, I was happy. But as others have said, the lead was just too old. I am glad they portrayed him as more human than invincible but I just didn't feel like he was the right fit for the part. Along with that, my main annoyance was with the way they filmed many deaths and action scenes. All of them were so choppy and cut up that it was hard to respect them at all. Which is a shame because honestly the rest of the production was pretty high class when you compare it to other independents.

As I said though, as a person who goes into the film not expecting Oscar nods, I didn't feel that I wasted my time. If you are a die-hard western fan or a fan of any of these actors and you can stand to feel like your watching someone accomplish the task of getting their (still very expensive) dream made, and not a major Hollywood production, check this film out.

On the surface it appears this had the potential to be a good movie. The setting Thibodaux, LA or Lafourche Parish where a large strike took place in the late 1800's. The material available to be successful but was not used (even if the project was to be fictional). However, we end up with the common good cause stands against evil cause scenario. The acting does not support credibility of occurrences (in the movie plot nor the historical strike). The scenes are weak and at times seem to try to portray a point but fail and at times leave the watcher with what does this have to do with anything. The actor's dialogs seem forced with little emotion and the action scenes are walked through with no fluidity or realism. The best acting in the movie is performed by the undertaker - a couple of short scenes. Can we have a refund or exchange?