The Man Who Came Back

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 just went to Blockbuster to find a film and came up with this one. The western genre drew me in, so I decided I'd give it a shot. I'd agree with the other post that this is certainly not your regular western, but I tended to like the extra edge it provided. It's not for young children, or for folks who are bothered with scenes presenting violent conflicts, but it left me wondering what would I do it a similar situation. Overall, I thought Eric Braeden did a great job as did George Kennedy. But I thought the real show stealer was Billy Zane. His characterization was worth the price of admission. The female roles were fun to watch too. Carol Alt was great, Sean Young did a good job of presenting a pretty interesting character, but on the female side, I was most impressed with Jennifer O'Dell. I really believe she is up and coming.

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.

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'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!"