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.

It's very misleading to say, "...this really is a great western". It's anything but. If it is (to quote another reviewer) "the best (they) have seen in a while", then I'd recommend watching a few good ones. There are plenty, but this film doesn't qualify. Nor is it a "classic western revenge movie" (try "Ride Lonesome"). It's an excuse for a lot of quite predictable bloodshed, masquerading as some kind of historical comment, and for some nasty misogyny. The movie strives for political correctness, at least racially, but misses the boat completely where the female characters are concerned. They simply get raped and brutalized. It's unrealistic, too; everyone, including field hands, is far too clean, and there's no feeling of authenticity. The direction's adequate at best; there are far too many lingering shots of the star's face (he's too old for the role anyway).

As for being based on the Thibodeaux Massacre of 1887, as the final comments indicate, it bears little resemblance to that event - but then, it's not actually about injustice to black field hands, it's about the white guys, as usual. The black characters are just there to die on the "hero"'s behalf, as the women are there to be raped. As long as he can stagger to the final showdown, they've played their part in this miserable vehicle for an aging soap opera heartthrob.

Forget it. It might please fans of the soap in question, or kids, but that's all it's good for.

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 going to leave an honest review. First and foremost I would like to thank them for giving me the opportunity to be in the movie. Just to have some scenes of my face was pretty awesome. Now never getting paid... well I was in jr high. I didn't really care about it that much, only for my family. Even though it was a low budget film and not exactly the best I liked the experience. The film work could've been better but here we are anyway. I've seen different films recently, pertaining to this genre of film, and there could've been a lot more action, more adventure, more story. I believe they fid a good job but it could've been better.

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!"