The Man Who Came Back

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.

On the surface it appears this had the potential to be a good movie. The setting Thibodaux, LA or Lafourche Parish where a large strike took place in the late 1800's. The material available to be successful but was not used (even if the project was to be fictional). However, we end up with the common good cause stands against evil cause scenario. The acting does not support credibility of occurrences (in the movie plot nor the historical strike). The scenes are weak and at times seem to try to portray a point but fail and at times leave the watcher with what does this have to do with anything. The actor's dialogs seem forced with little emotion and the action scenes are walked through with no fluidity or realism. The best acting in the movie is performed by the undertaker - a couple of short scenes. Can we have a refund or exchange?

I'm going to leave an honest review. First and foremost I would like to thank them for giving me the opportunity to be in the movie. Just to have some scenes of my face was pretty awesome. Now never getting paid... well I was in jr high. I didn't really care about it that much, only for my family. Even though it was a low budget film and not exactly the best I liked the experience. The film work could've been better but here we are anyway. I've seen different films recently, pertaining to this genre of film, and there could've been a lot more action, more adventure, more story. I believe they fid a good job but it could've been better.

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 thought the movie was not that great. The firearms were as close to any historical events but not the story. Eric Braeden was totally miscasted in this role and mumbled through the movie. He went to jail and then to prison for a long term but was always clean shaven and his hair the same length. His escape from prison was sort of ridiculous. He then keeps appearing around town with everyone and their dog hunting him. Just doesn't project a strong character.

The end fight with the villain was totally ridiculous as he had vowed to kill him and not show who was the best fighter. Could have been a lot better movie with better actors and script. Glad I saw it free on TV and didn't have to pay for it. Sad to see George Kennedy and Sean young having to take roles like this. Billy Zane was the most believeable. Just not a great movie.