User reviews

This was hot garbage. The only reason I gave it 3 stars is because I could laugh at how ridiculous it was.

• Not too far in from the start, Heather Graham, who is practically a typical southern belle, does some DIY bullet removal on her own leg - no anesthetic, raw fingers deep, and barely even whimpers (so as not to disturb her daughter). She then shows no sign of major injury for the entirety of the film.

• Cage is the absolute worst here, apparently trying to channel both Elvis and James Brown in the most ill-fitting way (even donning anachronistic cross-shaped glasses) and with a voice that's both highly grating and unintelligible. At one point he and a faceless goon lightly tumble to the ground and said goon magically breaks his neck.

• The action mostly consists of the bad and good guys lined up on opposite sides of the street firing wildly at each other with neither group able to hit the broad side of a barn unless it matters, to which you get treated to infinite quick cuts of individual cannon fodder getting shot from unrelated angles.

• The story and rest of the characters don't really matter at all.

I'm not sure if they set out to make a "so bad it's good movie" given the set of, at the very least, recognizable actors, but they definitely succeeded in a making a bad one.

This action-heavy Western is among the worst films I have ever seen. If it was not for my sorely tested allegiance to Nicolas Cage, my favorite actor, I would never have watched five minutes of this. Alas!

This is honestly one of his worst performances, although it might work for you if you are only in it for the memes. He's doing an indescribabe voice, that somehow manages to be raspy, high-pitched, and squeaky. He wears bizarre folk rock costumes costumes and speaks nonsensical lines like, "There's fire in Hell, Mary! Haaaaawwwwwt fiiiiiiire!" Pretty sure his character has somehow already discovered cocaine, but Cage is barely in this, so don't get too carried away!

The action is made nearly incomprehensible by horrendous editing. I slowed an early gunfight down to 1/4 speed to try to discern what had occurred, but I was still left at a loss. The camera breaks the 180 degree rule constantly, even during gunfights where a person is shown firing their weapon in one direction followed by a cut to someone reeling backwards in the same direction the shot just came from! It's really that bad!

The writers appear to have written this in a drunken haze. Nothing is reasonable or compelling. The numbers thrown out, for example, are completely implausible. There's a posse of one-hundred men coming! There's a reward of $100,000 for one man dead or alive! You get the idea.

The film also looks terrible. Like honestly one of the worst-looking films I have ever seen. I'm not sure what they did, but it looks like they shot in with an old digital camera and the brights from their cars. I can appreciate a dingy look, but this is like a throwback to the straight-to-video era.

I am trying to decide whether I should thank Cage for giving me someone interesting to watch in a film full of lightweight actors straight from the extra pool, or send him hate mail for making me suffer through dredge like this when I know he has films like Longlegs and Dream Scenario still in him. He must enjoy having the creative freedom as an actor that performing in these terrible low-budget films gets him. But, come on dude! Haven't your fans suffered enough!

At least the Madden biopic is coming!

When I saw the cast ensemble for the movie, I have to admit that I was initially somewhat intrigued and impressed. I mean, with the likes of Stephen Dorff, Heather Graham, Nicolas Cage, Tzi Ma, Eric Mabius and Costas Mandylor on the cast list, then you would assume that you would be in for something enjoyable.

But I have to say that writer and director Brian Skiba definitely proved me wrong with "Gunslingers". The storyline in the movie was flaccid, and there just wasn't a whole lot of entertainment value in the movie. I have to say that I sort of zoned out about half way through, and the movie just because something that played mostly in the background.

Even with a cast ensemble that included some good talents and names, the movie failed. Sure, the acting performances were, for the most parts, actually fair, then the movie just proved to be less than mediocre. And not even the sheer amount of gunfights did much to make up for the shortcomings.

Maybe diehard Western fans will be getting a much bigger kick out of watching "Gunslingers" than I did as a casual viewer.

The CGI animated rain was just cringeworthy to look at. But at least it provided a moment of good laughing.

This is not a movie that I will return to watch a second time.

My rating of writer and director Brian Skiba's 2025 movie "Gunslingers" lands on a generous three out of ten stars.

I am a big fan of gritty westerns which is what this looked like in the trailers, but it is deinitely not. Within 10 minutes I realized the acting was pretty bad. There were moments of believabilty in the characters but mostly seemed like none of them were rehearsed professionals. I really blame the directing that made the whole story predictable and plodding. The effects were on par with 1970's films; bright red blood, punching sounds. By far the worst I've ever seen of Nicholas Cage. His characterization was ridiculous. So, I gave it 2 stars only because I didn't have pay to see it in a theater.

Thomas Keller is on the run after killing a Rockefeller and has become a most wanted man. He comes across a town filled with wanted men, living a new life of redemption. He is welcomed into the town and treated as their own by the town's leaders. A woman named Val arrives looking for him and it doesn't take long for a battalion to show up for Thomas and claim the bounty. The townspeople stand by their words and a war breaks out between the two party. Does Thomas surrender or the town win the war for survival, forms rest of the story.

For a Western, the film's narrative is too dull and doesn't let the characters have a decent arc. It's just that the main lead arrives at this town and they accept him. There is no space given to establish these supporting characters and the action begins sooner. The action sequences too don't stand out with non-stop gunfight and with no connections felt to these characters, it simply feels dragged. The choice to have that particular accent by Nicolas Cage was definitely questionable and he doesn't get to shine much in his supporting role. Overall, Gunslingers was dead on arrival.

Simply put: Did some kids make this movie ?

Good idea (not original though).

Poor acting.

Poor action scenes. Better go watch kids in schoolyard imitating some action scenes.

Poor music.

Poor camera.

Not funny at all.

Slow.

Too fake. Got some decent and good actors but looks like if they did this movie in such a terrible rush that they somehow forgot how to act.

Romance not existent ... well you can catch some terrible attempt if you have some above average attention to details and way above average patience.

Way too unrealistic and no it's not a sci fi movie hahaha.

Wanna watch solid western go grab any 50 years old movie rather than this... even in black and white.

It's trash. Anyone who says it's good is literally lying just because they glaze Nicolas Cage.

The movie is literally a (try not to quit) challenge. It struggles a lot. The editing and the way some of the clips are put together feels like something from a director who's just starting out, like one of those indie projects you'd find on YouTube, but with a much higher budget. Some of the costumes look a little cheap and unpolished.

I was excited for this! But this is honestly the weakest western I've ever watched. Give the movie a chance if you wanna laugh at how off it is, but if you're watching for pure enjoyment, I'd probably stay away.

I like Dorff. I've enjoyed his work. He just couldn't carry this.

First, Kentucky was not the old west at the turn of that century. Cowboys weren't hanging out in saloons. Missed the mark completely there.

Cage I find to be hit or miss and this was a miss. Not sure exactly what his character he was going for, but the whole thing of retired bad guy returning to his lawless ways is trite, to say the least. Not sure if he was going for an odd Johnny Depp-type character but sorry, this just didn't do it.

Antagonist was a little too over the top for me.

The supporting cast was good, don't get me wrong, but the script was pretty lame for any of them to cut through.

The action was mid level, but there were scenes where it was hard to tell good guys from bad guys, who is shooting who?

I could go on, but...why? Watch this when it's free, I would not recommend paying. Sorry Stephen, I'll buy you a beer and talk about your good roles some day.

I like westerns. I could say I watched them all. There were a load of bad ones over the years. Shalako and Soleil Rouge could be compared because those are somewhat weird too but have decent (great) actors. So those westerns got above 5 stars. This one however is a disgrace to all westerns and I am so sorry for all those actors who put their career in jeopardy appearing in this and hope they all were well compensated. Cage will be ok, I fear for Stallone though. This guy made already other westerns and you would think he would learn from mistakes.

I actually fail to understand why anyone could rate this 5 or more stars. 3 stars feels high already. It is really difficult to continue watching. The whole story could be told in 5 sentences.

Story: Poor. While I think the idea of the town "Redemption" and how it is run could have been exploited to make a much better story around it, but the general red line in this movie had no real surprises and everything happened exactly as expected.

Music: Music in westerns is important. It does not have to be Ennio Morricone, but it has to match the setting. It did not.

Landscape: This western is not much dusty, which is ok. It is pretty green. Nice landscape. Too much shots against the sun. Those pictures are good but this should be an action movie and not nature documentary. Disturbes the pace of the movie.

Costumes: Too clean. Feels like a TV show and not like a movie.

Acting: I actually think they really tried and those actors were all good, but either there was no directing at all or they just always took the first take. Cage character is a joke and seems he didn't care much. Dorff did good but at some point he seemed bored as well sometimes. Others probably did not get any feedback on how/what they are doing.

Dialogues: Half of them were not necessary (not even language set in 1907) but then the movie would have taken 25 minutes if some unnecessary action scenes would be dropped too.

Shooting: All action scenes were poor. The cuts were ok but angles didn't work out and if someone got shot it was either in the heart or it was a full miss. The pistols were nice and you could recognize some of them, some of the rifles even had an accurate sound. They could also count to six in this movie, so it was not all total nonsense. While the movie takes place in 1903-1907 they however talk about a cartridge invented in 1935.

Humour: None. There were no funny dialogues or funny szenes at all. Unless you could laugh about the movie in general.

Not worth to watch twice and not recommended. Watch a western of the 50ies or 60ies you haven't seen yet and you'll be entertained more.

This was not as bad as the bad reviewers stated, it's not the best western nor is it the worst, it's a lot like those "other" spaghetti westerns that are never mentioned but are quite good if you ever see one. (Go to the spaghetti western database and see just how many you never heard of) it is full of cliches' and interesting bad ass characters, the plot is sound and even the gunslinger only town is an interesting idea, this is not in any way believable nor even historical, but it's a real fun watch for those who enjoy an intense shooter upper. Nicolas Cage plays a strange role and to do his raspy voice must have been quite difficult to pull off, kind of reminds me of Eastwoods drifter character that is a preacher who picks up his guns in the end. Nothing questionable, no nudity or foul language. I gave it a 10 to offset the bad reviewers. Great ending too. Enjoy!

Stephen Dorff is the main character, a gunslinger on the run hiding in a small town where all sort of wanted men come to live in peace. Bad guys come looking for him and all hell gets loose.

There's lots of action, high body count. There's blood and couple of lets cut a bullet out of somebody to save em bloody scenes.

Nic Cage does another Nic Cage character, it's a minor part but he steals the show as always. Weird voice and all, but don't worry if you don't understand some of his lines he says stuff like: "There's fiiire in hell! Hooooot fire!"

Overall it's a fine movie, the side characters and actors are fine, pacing is fine, action is fine, story is palatable. Obviously it's not the highest of budget films but there's no it looks bad low budget elements. It kept my attention and I enjoyed it.

I cannot believe how bad this movie was. From the terrible camera work, constantly cutting away and breaking flow, to the horrible music choices that didnt fit the scenes at all, the wooden acting from everyone really (altho stallones daughter takes the cake for worst acting i have ever seen), to the nonsensical dialogue and unearned gravitas they put on random people, to whatever in gods name they were doing with nic cage's character... i just have no adequate words for how awful this movie is. But i think Nic Cages character does have the words "He'p meh Jesus, Good God ya'll He'p me (forget this movie)"

Saw Gunslingers. In a world where horrible modern day movies like Novocaine and Death of a Unicorn exist, Gunslingers is a much needed friend, an old school Western/Action shoot em up with sibling rivalry plot lines and a hilarious and awesome NICOLAS CAGE performance. You may ask why the negative mainstream reviews? That's because they don't respect B action films. They'll only sell you the latest Timothee Chamalet drek. If you can appreciate the efforts of a small film giving it their all, you'll enjoy this film. Sure, it's not perfect but you can appreciate it, flaws and all. Kudos to Lionsgate for delivering these films to the community of action lovers.

So many things were wrong with this movie, from the costumes to the acting. They mentioned 357 ammunition, which wasn't even invented until the 1930's. Costumes were not period correct. They wasted a good opportunity to make a western movie for fans. The acting was sub par at best. The script lacked depth. The videography was exceedingly reliant on facial expressions. The entire movie was on par with a spaghetti western at best. I do not recommend wasting your time watching this movie. I've seen better acting in a children's play. Why did Nicholas Cage put his name on this mess. We're Western movie enthusiast and this did not live up to our expectations at all.

Brian Skiba's "Gunslingers" attempts to resurrect the classic Western genre but ultimately delivers a lukewarm and unmemorable cinematic experience. The film suffers from a severe lack of narrative focus, meandering aimlessly between its various shootouts and an underdeveloped revenge plot without ever truly committing to either. The supposed "tense" interactions between the characters feel forced and contrived, lacking the genuine spark and raw danger necessary to engage the audience.

The dialogue, often laden with clichéd pronouncements about justice and honor, feels painfully artificial. It's as if the writers simply strung together a series of tired genre tropes without any regard for natural conversation. While the film's action sequences are competently shot, they are too few and far between, and are ultimately undercut by a confusing plot and thin character development. "Gunslingers" is a film that promises a thrilling ride through the Old West but serves up a slow, uninspired bore instead.

Is it worth watching? No. Its ponderous tone and weak script make it a forgettable chore.

This movie is weird and at times a little goofy. The plot is basic, predictable, and sometimes absurd. When I saw Nicholas Cage was in it, I was hoping for something on the caliber of The Old Way, it is not. In fact Cage is a bit disappointing. The rest of the cast kinda phones it in here; which is unfortunate because there some good actors in this. The movie is fun with a lot of action. Although the action is mostly the bad guys blindly shooting across the street at the good guys.

It's worth watching if you are already a six pack deep and don't have the energy to pay much attention; at least that's how I enjoyed it.

I had to watch to the end, just because it was filmed in Kentucky and not far from me. Guntown Mountain and Mammoth Cave area are very familiar to me. Movie was only mediocre though. Nicholas Cage character was very interesting. He plays these "wierd" roles very well. I am a fan. Other acting was good as well. It's just that it was monotonous violence .from beginning to end. It just got really boring. Also had numerous goofs. One of which was the mention of .357 ammunition, that wasn't introduced until 1935. Movie was set in 1903. Also, dynamite doesn't produce large balls of flame, just explosion. Just watch dynamite explosions on old westerns like Gunsmoke. That's what they really look like. Sorry, had to include these goofs. They should have had better tech advice.

I'm not usually a huge fan of westerns but this cast really caught my eye. It contains a very diverse cast that at first, I wasn't sure how they would pull it off, but oh my goodness, they did it! The entire film was great!! From the time accurate art department, to the amazing work of the camera crew, the special effects team, the make up team, all the cast and crew were great, and the music was perfect, it was all on point. It had action, it had drama, it had a little comedy, it had a little romance, this film had something for everyone. I highly recommend this movie, you don't want to miss it!

The weak point: the special effects; The strong point: the story and because it is a western film (it gives it another dynamic, reminds us of the great films of the past). Regarding N. C's performance, what can I say? It's funny, in my opinion, (N. C.'s voice sounds like the voice of my father's friend who is already retired...) but at the same time strange (there could be a reason, the so-called "surprise effect", but there wasn't). The film is recommended for western lovers and there is a dedication at the end! But Nicolas Cage is living a true odyssey: he restarted his career by participating in average films; then he quickly participated in films that began to have considerable quality, and some of the ones he participated in were praised by critics ("Pig", "The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent") but after this great moment, and except for one or two feature films, the quality of his participation and even of the film itself fell again. His performance in this film was much lower than expected and would have been his worst performance since his career restart. In this film, he almost became a western joker.

Thomas Keller (Stephen Dorff) killed a Rockefeller and had a bounty put on him. He also left his brother Robert for dead.

Now four years later Thomas is a reformed character in the town of Redemption, where all the other outlaws have redeemed themselves.

Thomas has even faked his own death but now a woman with a bullet wound and a daughter has come looking for her.

Soon followed by his brother Robert who has brought a posse to collect on the bounty.

Gunslingers is an awful cheap looking movie. The story is hackneyed, the acting from Nicolas Cage is awful.

Robert Keller with his one eye is such an irritating baddie.

If you are a western fan you will love it. The cast is great. Nic Cage is Nic Cage- either love him or hate him. I was entertained from beginning to end. Although it wasn't always period accurate- it was fun and a great story. I'd love a gunslingers 2.... The way the story was left open to interpretation could mean a sequel which would give us more time to get to know the characters. There's a lot of great potential here. Stephen Dorff was really the stand out. The emotion he is able to convey is palpable and in the intense moments with Jeremy Kent Jackson, the viewer is able to feel that tension. It's your typical good guys vs bad guys tale. Gunslingers doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it's still fun ride! :)

Nicolas Cage is fun, he is a living meme and self aware, if you are going into a movie where he's doing it for fun don't expect it to be the greatest cinematic experience of your lifetime. Haven't watched it yet but it gets a 7 because of the other reviews not understanding the cage.

You will only understand if you watch all of his movies in a row until you develop the palette for his art, one time he came home to a guy broken into his house and he sat him down at the table and talked to him calmly, this is a man you should fear and respect and if you leave a bad review he will find you and sit you down at the table mark my words.

Edit: upon watching this is basically a stereotypical western with some blatantly comedic terrible production moments where everyone is acting seriously and then you have nick jumping in doing a terrible black preacher impression every once in a while that kind of borders on rick james at times and I loved every second of his performances and they allowed me to make it through the rest of the movie that otherwise would have been unremarkable but seeing all the other actors keep a straight face while nick goes "LAWWWD HALLLP MAAAEE" is actually true cinematic beauty so I take back my previous statement to not expect a cinematic masterpiece because folks he has done it again.