Shoot First and Pray You Live (Because Luck Has Nothing to Do with It)

A revenge western which has a lot going for it. Really liked the music. Cinematography, props, sets, all this takes money and effort. Actors and makeup very good. Some talent went into this film and I notice that as of this writing over one third give this film a 10. I suppose a lot of us understand about the "weighted average" so I won't go into that. If you are the type that enjoys escapist films such that you don't pay much attention to the story itself, you might really enjoy this film. However, those of us who are more picky, who tire of stories that seem to have been written by an 10-year old, might prefer to have this film in the background while doing something else or pass on it altogether. Very illogical storyline with really nothing to redeem it, inconsistent characterizations, and terribly clichéd. Really now, they should have hired me to tweak (considerably) the story, and the result would have been much much better at essentially the same cost. On the message board "nice but failed attempt . . . " lists some of this film's many flaws.

First of all this TRIED to be like the spaghetti westerns of old in the 60's but it PALED in comparison to those! The story jumped from place to place ...the ending was absolutely AWFUL ....and the show was just overall DUMB!

I should have known when the words came up that it was a totally fictional movie.... OF COURSE IT WAS! Why did they feel they had to state the obviuous? But I did not know how it was going to go.... The westerns I have seen.actually had a PLOT to them, this plot jumped so much you could not make out what the plot actually was.

Not to mention the horrible acting to go along with the non exsistant plot! I will never get back the minutes of this movie I watched which is a shame because watching grass grow would have been better than this!

Jeff Hephner is a top gunslinger. He's been one ever since he got into a gunfight with James Russo, and both men crawled away, breaking Russo's... luck? Since then, he's wandered, looking for the man he wishes to wreak vengeance on, and trying not to be killed by people who wish vengeance on him, or perhaps just wish to be thought of as the best with a fast draw. The motivations are murky, because no one mentions i, except third parties who tell the tale. What do they know of the constant pressure, the fear, the hope?

It's based on a novel by Max Brand and shows a grim, bare west, where women are scarce and superstition is everywhere. Cinematographer Bruce McCleery shoots a west that's bright and well defined, working with natural light, a far cry from his work in the artificial worlds of science fiction and superhero movies he's best known for. Screenwriter/director Lance Doty allows his audience to draw their own conclusions about what is going on and where it will lead.

Wife & I both agree this movie just is horrible - as another wrote "a lot going for it but" its all show & no go what a dud

Sets up for many good scenarios but left us hanging even the end left us clueless.

We can not suggest you waste your time.

At the core, there's a "revenge story". That idea seems solid... the IDEA of it. Although, the storyline is similar to other western revenge stories.. while not the same.. think of the concept used for "The Quick and the Dead" - revenge years later.... that's the crux of the story.

Unfortunately, how the story is written is a convoluted mess. Jumping between time periods using characters that all look similar and don't stand out as unique, Even the protagonist in this film gets lost among other characters.

Any film that needs to put bright yellow text on the screen to show the character names is not written well. Character development within the scenes SHOULD do an adequate job of telling the viewer which character is which. So, when you see the names splashed across the screen in yellow type, you know that the director wants you to know which character is which because the writer did a poor job... but in this.. one of the directors IS the writer.. so.. yeah....

This film has all the trappings of a decent pseudo "spaghetti western" but it never comes together. It doesn't ever "gel". It's confusing, and takes some effort to even discern the storyline due to time jumping back and forth.

Unfortunately, I feel compelled to add.. I LOVE Jim Gaffigan as a COMEDIAN.. but he didn't do a great job in this playing a purely dramatic role and a narrative (while poorly attempting an accent). Gaffigan probably did the worst acting job out of all the cast.

There's no sex or nudity. There is some reference to more adult situations (bad western outlaws and women), however, nothing overly visual or notable. Far more of a connotation than any direct content.

There is western violence (shootouts with blood).

I can't recall any profanity whatsoever.

Meh.... it's not "horrible", but it's not exactly a "should see" either.