Gunslingers

So many things were wrong with this movie, from the costumes to the acting. They mentioned 357 ammunition, which wasn't even invented until the 1930's. Costumes were not period correct. They wasted a good opportunity to make a western movie for fans. The acting was sub par at best. The script lacked depth. The videography was exceedingly reliant on facial expressions. The entire movie was on par with a spaghetti western at best. I do not recommend wasting your time watching this movie. I've seen better acting in a children's play. Why did Nicholas Cage put his name on this mess. We're Western movie enthusiast and this did not live up to our expectations at all.

This was hot garbage. The only reason I gave it 3 stars is because I could laugh at how ridiculous it was.

• Not too far in from the start, Heather Graham, who is practically a typical southern belle, does some DIY bullet removal on her own leg - no anesthetic, raw fingers deep, and barely even whimpers (so as not to disturb her daughter). She then shows no sign of major injury for the entirety of the film.

• Cage is the absolute worst here, apparently trying to channel both Elvis and James Brown in the most ill-fitting way (even donning anachronistic cross-shaped glasses) and with a voice that's both highly grating and unintelligible. At one point he and a faceless goon lightly tumble to the ground and said goon magically breaks his neck.

• The action mostly consists of the bad and good guys lined up on opposite sides of the street firing wildly at each other with neither group able to hit the broad side of a barn unless it matters, to which you get treated to infinite quick cuts of individual cannon fodder getting shot from unrelated angles.

• The story and rest of the characters don't really matter at all.

I'm not sure if they set out to make a "so bad it's good movie" given the set of, at the very least, recognizable actors, but they definitely succeeded in a making a bad one.

I am a big fan of gritty westerns which is what this looked like in the trailers, but it is deinitely not. Within 10 minutes I realized the acting was pretty bad. There were moments of believabilty in the characters but mostly seemed like none of them were rehearsed professionals. I really blame the directing that made the whole story predictable and plodding. The effects were on par with 1970's films; bright red blood, punching sounds. By far the worst I've ever seen of Nicholas Cage. His characterization was ridiculous. So, I gave it 2 stars only because I didn't have pay to see it in a theater.

Thomas Keller is on the run after killing a Rockefeller and has become a most wanted man. He comes across a town filled with wanted men, living a new life of redemption. He is welcomed into the town and treated as their own by the town's leaders. A woman named Val arrives looking for him and it doesn't take long for a battalion to show up for Thomas and claim the bounty. The townspeople stand by their words and a war breaks out between the two party. Does Thomas surrender or the town win the war for survival, forms rest of the story.

For a Western, the film's narrative is too dull and doesn't let the characters have a decent arc. It's just that the main lead arrives at this town and they accept him. There is no space given to establish these supporting characters and the action begins sooner. The action sequences too don't stand out with non-stop gunfight and with no connections felt to these characters, it simply feels dragged. The choice to have that particular accent by Nicolas Cage was definitely questionable and he doesn't get to shine much in his supporting role. Overall, Gunslingers was dead on arrival.

This action-heavy Western is among the worst films I have ever seen. If it was not for my sorely tested allegiance to Nicolas Cage, my favorite actor, I would never have watched five minutes of this. Alas!

This is honestly one of his worst performances, although it might work for you if you are only in it for the memes. He's doing an indescribabe voice, that somehow manages to be raspy, high-pitched, and squeaky. He wears bizarre folk rock costumes costumes and speaks nonsensical lines like, "There's fire in Hell, Mary! Haaaaawwwwwt fiiiiiiire!" Pretty sure his character has somehow already discovered cocaine, but Cage is barely in this, so don't get too carried away!

The action is made nearly incomprehensible by horrendous editing. I slowed an early gunfight down to 1/4 speed to try to discern what had occurred, but I was still left at a loss. The camera breaks the 180 degree rule constantly, even during gunfights where a person is shown firing their weapon in one direction followed by a cut to someone reeling backwards in the same direction the shot just came from! It's really that bad!

The writers appear to have written this in a drunken haze. Nothing is reasonable or compelling. The numbers thrown out, for example, are completely implausible. There's a posse of one-hundred men coming! There's a reward of $100,000 for one man dead or alive! You get the idea.

The film also looks terrible. Like honestly one of the worst-looking films I have ever seen. I'm not sure what they did, but it looks like they shot in with an old digital camera and the brights from their cars. I can appreciate a dingy look, but this is like a throwback to the straight-to-video era.

I am trying to decide whether I should thank Cage for giving me someone interesting to watch in a film full of lightweight actors straight from the extra pool, or send him hate mail for making me suffer through dredge like this when I know he has films like Longlegs and Dream Scenario still in him. He must enjoy having the creative freedom as an actor that performing in these terrible low-budget films gets him. But, come on dude! Haven't your fans suffered enough!

At least the Madden biopic is coming!