Deux pécheresses et un chasseur de prime

This is not a good western. It's not even good, accidentally.

Raleigh Wilson is known locally in New Mexico for being a stunt guy who gives "homie hookups" to his friends and grandkids while denying others opportunities.

That said, he did not get the cream of the crop for this awful movie. The cinematography was hit and miss, the acting was laughable at best. I'm not sure how Raleigh landed the director's chair on this (oh, yes I do: politics), but it's clear he should stay in stunts.

I give this 2 stars because some of the actors were trying their best with the material they had. Like I said, if you look up his director's filmography, you'll see there was a lot of cronyism here, too. I suppose for Hollywood it's par for the course.

My advice: skip this movie.

For a low budget film this was an engaging story that was well paced and entertaining. The acting and scenery are fine. It's a simple tale and all great westerns should be. It's a story of finding some human kindness in a harsh western land.

I love the old spaghetti westerns personally, and this doesn't have any of the intensity or suspense of those. It was more straight forward and possibly not well directed. There didn't seem to be an overall vision in play that was carried out to perfection like some great movies.

However it's a watchable film that is quite interesting to watch until the very end. That's what you want in any film. There is nothing worse than just thinking man this film sucks. While some reviews are poor I don't think they're really appreciating the entertainment factor of the film but rather complaining about technical issues which are irrelevant to me.

Well worth a watch at 7/10.

Yes. The two ladies starring here are quite good. There is an amusing story here...BUT the acting of the cast in general is really bad. The photography is tedious and bad. The director is...bad. Yes, lots of bad yet an amusing story peeps oou from time to time. <The first clues to the abyss awaiting you is the opening scvene. The next clue is 2 guys shooting pistols at each other over and over without anyone going down. There are any number of, yes, bad men, and almost evryone one of them are just so, yes, bad at the acting. How did ths movie even hapening. The clue is the 2 leading ladies. The ladies carry the whole film, what there is of it.

I reckon anyone watching this can be added to the sinners list (that would include myself obviously) ... so no pun intended. I really like Cam and I am into Western movies .. yet I am not too sure about the movie itself. Too many things that do not work or are done in a weird (not good weird) way ... in a fashion you may not expect I reckon.

All that being said, the movie can be enjoyed if you are a fan of one of the actors. I reckon if I didn't watch movies to the end, this might have been one I might have stopped sometime during it. Not so much about it being predictable (I reckon some of the things are) ... but because it feels off ... I can't describe it, but if you watch it, you can tell that some thing (or a lot of things?) is (are) missing ... good luck with that.

Like some I stumbled across this film whilst flicking through Netflix. I looked at the reviews in iMDB and thought I would give it a go after watching the preview (which looked kinda interesting in a Blazing Saddles kind of way).

From the opening scene I found I kept trying to validate the film. "They are trying to replace the old westerns of the 70s", "someone is a fan of Blazing Saddles", "what's with the colour?" "why is it so bleached" the cinematography is clunky, the acting is more wooden than an oak table. All of this within the first 10 minutes. I persevered for another 15 minutes in a mix of confusion, hope and despair but eventually gave up.