West of Hell

I recently watched West of Hell (2018) on Prime. The story follows three passengers on a mysterious train: a former slave seeking revenge, his former owner, and a stowaway who gets caught in the crossfire-until they all realize the train is far more than it seems... and it's haunted.

Directed by Michael Steves (Clinger), the film stars Tony Todd (Candyman), Lance Henriksen (Aliens), Richard Riehle (Casino), and Michael Eklund (The Call).

This is one of those frustratingly mediocre films you wish were better. The cast is top-tier, filled with familiar faces from the horror genre. The period-piece setting is fun, with strong costume design, props, and backdrops. Some of the action scenes-even the shootouts-are surprisingly enjoyable, though Tony Todd's missed opening shot sets a wobbly tone.

Unfortunately, the CGI is wildly inconsistent and occasionally painful to watch. There's a standout scalping scene, but the ending falls flat-both in terms of story resolution and what ultimately happens to the characters. Lance Henriksen, in particular, is criminally underused.

In conclusion, West of Hell is a mediocre horror entry with loads of potential that it never quite delivers on. I'd give it a generous 5/10.

Interesting premise, but let down but high school level editing. It's so bad it's distracting. Some decent performances

This starts off well enough. There are some choppy edits, but the production, set predominantly on a train, looks good, with attention to period detail, and some fine performances.

Sadly despite all this, it soon becomes a confusing, rather dull mess. I'm sorry to say this, because there are some good moments, and things definitely liven up when Lance Henrikson arrives. The effects are decent, and it seems there is a message amidst everything that is going on, although I'm beggered if I know what it is. My score is 5 out of 10.

'West of Hell' did actually intrigue me. It did have a great idea, it was interesting to see how western and horror would go together, and it had a capable cast on paper, Tony Todd, Lance Henriksen and Michael Eklund having given more than serviceable performances in the past (Todd in 'Candyman' is a notable example). So there was not any intent or prejudiced want to dislike it.

After seeing it, it is actually really quite sad that the potential that 'West of Hell' had was wasted by very lousy, and that's being kind, execution. How badly it executes a great idea is just shocking and one would not think that the cast showed themselves to be more than capable in other things judging from their performances here. Are there worse films? Oh yes, 'West of Hell' is not even quite one of the worst films seen recently, it is though one of the worst and most frustrating wastes of potential. Having seen a lot of those recently, part of me of debilitated by this.

Eklund is the least bad thing about 'West of Hell', he at least tries without being pantomimic and doesn't look like he was only doing it for financial reasons.

Cannot say the same for the rest of the cast, Todd tries too hard and the over-acting does become painfully desperate and Henriksen is merely phoning it in (he has come off reasonably well in stinkers before, and he has been in a lot, but not this time). The rest of the cast are not worth mentioning, mainly because most are completely forgettable but those that aren't quite so much are that for reasons that are not good.

In all fairness, everybody is saddled with one dimensional archetypes that have no depth or shade to them whatsoever, cliché-ridden and barely coherently structured script writing and barely existent direction to work from, but that they don't act quite plays as big part too.

Visually, 'West of Hell' looks cheap with far from authentic settings and photography and editing that looks very static and disorganised. It works neither as a horror or a western. The horror elements are too predictable and the scares and shocks go through the motions just as much as Henrilsen does, with no tension, suspense or dread in sight. One never doubts the outcomes, what could have been reasonably creative is so ordinarily handled. It fails as a western because there are no thrills, interesting characters, excitement and there is too much emphasis on the horror element.

Summing, awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox

I must admit that I had somewhat more of an anticipation for the movie, given the fact that it has both Tony Todd and Michael Eklund on the cast list. And the fact that it is a horror movie wrapped up in a western attire, just made it all seem all the more interesting.

But alas, that was not to be. I managed to endure 45 minutes of the ordeal that is known as "West of Hell" before I gave up out of utter hopelessness and boredom. Actually, the movie had drained all energy away from me and I was starting to fall asleep as well. Yep, the movie was that boring.

Nothing of any worth or interest happened in the movie. The characters were one-dimensional cardboard cutouts with an equal amount of personality as a mosquito. And that made it a complete snoozefest to sit through and be tormented by watching.

Not even Tony Todd or Michael Eklund could do anything to lift up the abysmal display of pointlessness that transpired on the screen.

I have no intention of returning to watch the rest of the movie, because there was nothing, and I do mean that literally, to keep me interested, not in the story, not in the characters, not in whatever plot was unfolding with the shapeshifter.

One might actually be tempted to hope that the train the movie took place on would derail or crash, and ending the misery of the movie that is "West of Hell".