bigdave11243

A total waste of time. Sean Young may have been hot stuff once upon a time, and her character, Stella, seems to be determined to prove she's irresistible to all men of all ages, shapes, and sizes. But her long string of sexual "experiences" lack any real sizzle, just less-than-hot nudity and obviously faked ardor. Though Stella slides from one unappealing sexual partner to the next with no reservations and next to no provocation, she never really gets anywhere. It's all pointless and goes (dully) nowhere. There's a lot of talk about how free she is, but all she really is is aimless. Though she cooks a lot and talks about what she's cooking as if it's the ultimate in haute cuisine, what she perpetually whips up is, like her sex life, messy and over-rated and, ultimately, unappealing. Every time she is shown cooking, there seems to be a lot of flames and sloppy spillovers -- one supposes this is meant to parallel what she would like to think her sex life is like. But there is no real fire there, not even much steam. The stuff in her frying pan never looks really appetizing. Neither does she.

"Men" is also a total misleading title. There is not a real man in the entire lot of partners she takes on. It's all just a bunch of losers using each other for misguided -- or unguided -- gratification. Stella's "friends" are boozers and losers and abusers, but of course she is, too, and the best thing to say for the lot of them is that they deserve each other. Character development is zero; nobody grows up, never grows in any direction. Plot is nonexistent; a series of porn scenes does not make for anything resembling cinematic story-telling. And the characters (and the talk-talk-talk) become increasingly bizarre and sordid. All this makes the final true-love-and-heartbreak seem out-of-place, a parody of sorts.

All in all a totally dull and pointless something-or-other. Certainly it is not a movie worth watching.

First of all, it needs to be borne in mind that this is an unpretentious B-Western, not a big-budget "A" extravaganza. Some reviewers here seem to have measured this routine programmer against a more expensive set of standards. It is true that to today's audiences the comic sidekick, a staple in the B's, can seem contrived and unfunny, and Al "Fuzzy" St. John, whose career dates from the silent era, can seem especially out-dated and even bizarre -- that is, if one does not have a taste for slapstick antics and acrobatic-tinged mugging. But such was his appeal that he appeared in several hundred short silent films and sound features spanning three or four decades.

Olympic gold medalist (swimming) Buster Crabbe was likewise a versatile and reliable performer, whether as Tarzan, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Captain Gallant (TV), cowboy hero, and supporting actor in some bigger-budgeted Westerns, and miscellaneous TV roles.

It is also true that the "series Western" could have some occasional duds, and could become repetitious as audiences or actors had had their fill of too much sameness. Of course, to the die-hard fan, such familiarity and dependability is part of the appeal of the B-Westerns. And that includes favorite heavies -- in this case Charles King, Bob Cason, and Frank Ellis -- and the formulaic fisticuffs and chases.

It also helps when there is an unexpected touch of humor or dialog. For just one example: hero Crabbe barges into the back room where baddie Charlie King is sitting at his desk. "I didn't hear you knock," says King dryly. Just as dryly, Crabbe calmly turns to the door he has just come through and raps on it a few times, and, totally unintimidated, again faces the scheming villain. Even some of Fuzzy's shenanigans Although sometimes Fuzzy's comic set-pieces seem to go on for too long, the humor extends to some of the bit players as well (watch for the oblivious checker players, the interpolation of the geezer in the bathtub, Fuzzy's whittling away at the customer's beard to create the likenesses of other famous historical figures. Everyone involves seem to be enjoying themselves, with the result that this entry in the "Billy Carson" series is a notch or two above what one might expect.

Okay, it's not TRUE GRIT and it's not SHANE, but it's still a pleasurable little bit of entertainment.

As some reviewers have said, the supernatural (ghost) elements could explain what some have called the "plot holes" in the story line and/or character motivation. Another possibility is that the events as we see them are part of a nightmare world or dream imagery in which actual events are "relived" in a surreal, disjointed sequence in which memories can be magnified and distorted. Both types of experience are not a precise replay of reality, though they have a basis in a reality. Another possibility is that the film-makers' goal is a depiction of their conception of what Purgatory could be like, in which the "sinner" relives portions of his/her life as an end to eventual redemption; a part of that redemption could include a reaching out (into the real world) in an effort to protect others from a similar fate by reaching out (or "across" time and space)to make contact with living people -- some of whom (as in the movie) can "see" and react, while others cannot.

How well this works in the eyes of an audience is another matter, of course. As with all movies, a willing suspension of disbelief is necessary for the degree of enjoyment one derives, and that is effected by (though not always satisfactorily controlled by)the acting, direction, special effects, etc. In the case of REST STOP (I haven't seen the sequel), the success of such an intention is for me only about 50/50, though I appreciate the multiple levels of possible meaning. Certainly it is not "the worst" movie of all time -- unless one has seen only one movie.