Teardrop

Good concept and storyline but overall the acting was pretty bad, that in combination with the story being so long and pretty much nothing really happening during the whole movie besides from maybe the last 10 minutes.

Sadly a waste of a good concept, and my time.

After witnessing the Tubi Original titled Titanic 666 (lol gets me everytime) I was certain this would be another unbearable experience. It wasn't. They actually threw money at some competent folks on this one.

The only gripe I have for this film is the never ending plucking of that Zeus forsaken guitar. I was hoping there'd be an after credits scene revealing the bloodbath that must have poured from that musician's fingers in order to accomplish that feat. Even during serious conversations, he was just tirelessly twanging away.

The 1st Act is so slowwww and when accompanied with that guitar, you may throw in the towel. However, the 2nd Act is pretty intriguing and the 3rd brings a satisfying conclusion.

The setting is unique for this genre. The acting was shockingly good. You assume the characters will be very one-note, but they end up having some depth. The plot reveals information at a solid pace to keep you engaged. While the twist feels a bit forced and confusing, it was still well written enough to enjoy. Overall, this felt like a really long episode of The Outer Limits (that's a compliment).

One last thing that apparently even writers never know, and I hope one person reads this and it sticks with them so they can pass it on somewhere in their life... when referring to a hanging, the past tense is HANGED not HUNG. So if someone was executed for a crime, you would say that they HANGED him.

(I rate movies based on expectations. You can't put Sharknado on the same scale as Jaws.)

Overall, I liked the movie but felt there could have been more time spent on the development of the characters, the location, and the casting. The director's work was unremarkable, and although the FX were good, there just were not enough of them or scary scenes. I also found myself wondering who the target audience was for the film. I'm guessing late teens/early twenties??

The reality is filming post-covid is a challenge on many levels for filmmakers and I understand why some of the choices were made. But I'm a big movie buff, especially the horror genre, and love getting lost in the characters, location, director's choices/vision, and the writing. Except for the latter, not much else stood out for me.

That said, I'd recommend this movie as a good "starter" flick for movie night.

Q.

Im a big fan of low budget b-rated films. That being said, I dont hold a high standard for them either. Thats why I'll give the film 3 stars. Its a watch one time film, break from the norm, but not worth watching a second time even 20 years later when you've totally forgotten what the film is about.

The story is mediocre at best but also has zero closure. You cant have too many open ends on a film like this, it leaves the viewer feeling unsatisfied. I.e. The Denver character isnt explained at all, and because of how it ends, seems a misplaced character to the story.

There are 2 good things to this film, first, it seems maybe the director is competent. Does well setting the scenes and taking some shoddy old west town and making a decent set out of it. Second, actually pretty good acting from the cast which is why Im okay with not fully skipping over this film. They all do a good job at playing their characters.

Actually its more a noose around ... let's not get too much into this though. We don't want to give away too much that is. The movie is quite simple in some ways and quite complicated in others. For a low budget horror movies, the effects are ok.

The story is predictable but still has some twists and turns that you may be able to appreciate. Acting is fine and while there are a few cliches that you have to endure, it is nothing that is too bad ... the ending is interesting and may elevate this for some ... again decent effort for a low budget movie.