User reviews

Interesting premise, but let down but high school level editing. It's so bad it's distracting. Some decent performances

I must admit that I had somewhat more of an anticipation for the movie, given the fact that it has both Tony Todd and Michael Eklund on the cast list. And the fact that it is a horror movie wrapped up in a western attire, just made it all seem all the more interesting.

But alas, that was not to be. I managed to endure 45 minutes of the ordeal that is known as "West of Hell" before I gave up out of utter hopelessness and boredom. Actually, the movie had drained all energy away from me and I was starting to fall asleep as well. Yep, the movie was that boring.

Nothing of any worth or interest happened in the movie. The characters were one-dimensional cardboard cutouts with an equal amount of personality as a mosquito. And that made it a complete snoozefest to sit through and be tormented by watching.

Not even Tony Todd or Michael Eklund could do anything to lift up the abysmal display of pointlessness that transpired on the screen.

I have no intention of returning to watch the rest of the movie, because there was nothing, and I do mean that literally, to keep me interested, not in the story, not in the characters, not in whatever plot was unfolding with the shapeshifter.

One might actually be tempted to hope that the train the movie took place on would derail or crash, and ending the misery of the movie that is "West of Hell".

This was so baffling. You have MAJOR talent like Tony Todd and Lance Henriksen and you completely waste them and you choose to FILTER Lance Henriksen's voice? One of the most iconic voices in film? He's literally only in the last 20 minutes of the movie too, first appearance at 1:02:35, he lucked out by staying out of this as much as possible, though it was probably lack of budget or writing creativity to have him throughout.

The lead actress was so bad. Everyone was doing the most nasal-y modern voices and accents and the costumes were sloppy at best. There was no cohesive indication of what year it was supposed to be. The pathetic attempts to add "realism" via 1950's era racism will just make your skin crawl. Not to mention the humanization and attempts to make the slave owner and her confederate bodyguard cute and likeable. Don't waste your time.

'West of Hell' did actually intrigue me. It did have a great idea, it was interesting to see how western and horror would go together, and it had a capable cast on paper, Tony Todd, Lance Henriksen and Michael Eklund having given more than serviceable performances in the past (Todd in 'Candyman' is a notable example). So there was not any intent or prejudiced want to dislike it.

After seeing it, it is actually really quite sad that the potential that 'West of Hell' had was wasted by very lousy, and that's being kind, execution. How badly it executes a great idea is just shocking and one would not think that the cast showed themselves to be more than capable in other things judging from their performances here. Are there worse films? Oh yes, 'West of Hell' is not even quite one of the worst films seen recently, it is though one of the worst and most frustrating wastes of potential. Having seen a lot of those recently, part of me of debilitated by this.

Eklund is the least bad thing about 'West of Hell', he at least tries without being pantomimic and doesn't look like he was only doing it for financial reasons.

Cannot say the same for the rest of the cast, Todd tries too hard and the over-acting does become painfully desperate and Henriksen is merely phoning it in (he has come off reasonably well in stinkers before, and he has been in a lot, but not this time). The rest of the cast are not worth mentioning, mainly because most are completely forgettable but those that aren't quite so much are that for reasons that are not good.

In all fairness, everybody is saddled with one dimensional archetypes that have no depth or shade to them whatsoever, cliché-ridden and barely coherently structured script writing and barely existent direction to work from, but that they don't act quite plays as big part too.

Visually, 'West of Hell' looks cheap with far from authentic settings and photography and editing that looks very static and disorganised. It works neither as a horror or a western. The horror elements are too predictable and the scares and shocks go through the motions just as much as Henrilsen does, with no tension, suspense or dread in sight. One never doubts the outcomes, what could have been reasonably creative is so ordinarily handled. It fails as a western because there are no thrills, interesting characters, excitement and there is too much emphasis on the horror element.

Summing, awful. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Oh, what can i say without spoiling anything. well i'm not overexcited,though the propmakers have done their job, the story could have been written on a paper napkin, the yellow glow staight through the movie, could make you think its a gold rush movie, but its all about revenge and avenge between the good the bad the ugly and the devil and so on made as haunting as my empty wallet. there are no new angels of filmmaking to find in this feature , and as long as the movie consists of two or three locations, it bears all the signs of low budget.....i cant give less than 2 stars for this chattanooga choo choo tale

I really REALLY wanted to like this, even after reading the reviews I read here... It is a really good concept with so many possibilities. Unfortunately it didn't just fall flat... It fell through the floor, the basement and eventually landed somewhere (maybe) at the bottom of the bottomless pit (yes, ik its bottomless. That was the point) ... You get the idea. If I couldn't even make it a half hour in then its beyond bad. I have made it through some pretty bad movies and it takes I lot for me to just turn something off.

That being said if you have a big day ahead of you and are having trouble sleeping give this movie a try!! Works better than watching a muted golf game after eating thanksgiving dinner when everyone else has already gone nappy-bye.

This starts off well enough. There are some choppy edits, but the production, set predominantly on a train, looks good, with attention to period detail, and some fine performances.

Sadly despite all this, it soon becomes a confusing, rather dull mess. I'm sorry to say this, because there are some good moments, and things definitely liven up when Lance Henrikson arrives. The effects are decent, and it seems there is a message amidst everything that is going on, although I'm beggered if I know what it is. My score is 5 out of 10.

Having gained his freedom due to the Civil War, an angry black man named "Jericho Whitfield" (Tony Todd) is determined to avenge the cruel death of his young daughter by subsequently scalping and killing the daughter of his former master. To that effect, when he discovers that "Annie Hargraves" (June Laporte) has just booked passage on a train to Atlanta, he also boards it in order to carry out his evil scheme. Unfortunately for him, he soon discovers that she is being protected by an extremely skilled bodyguard named "Roland Bursey" (Michael Eklund) who has no intention of allowing him to harm her. Even worse than that, however, is the fact that there is a sinister presence aboard this train and it has its own plans for not just him--but everyone else on board this train as well. Now rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this film had an interesting plot but it seemed to get derailed somewhere down the line. Not only were some scenes a bit confusing but the ending could also have used significant improvement too. In any case, while I don't consider this to be a bad film necessarily, it clearly needed a bit more work in some areas and for that reason I have rated it accordingly.

I could only make it 20 minutes into the movie...to slow...need something.......anything

Let me just say that I loved this movie. I knew going into it that it was't going to be a well funded SFX nightmare. As a matter of fact, I had to change my perspective of it 5 minutes into it. I realized that it was more like a stage play. Once I realized that, I really got into it. You had a lot of angry and hurt people stuck on a train together. They had to set the tone immediately and they did. They established the atmosphere the old fashioned way with lighting and ominous foreshadowing. They did an excellent job developing the characters. You understood where they were coming from and what was ahead. It was worth the purchase and I have no regrets. My nieces loved it too. They're 12 and they said it reminds them of a ghost story. It reminded me so much of a few productions I've seen over the years.

If you like films that aren't all about SFX and that focus on character development then this is a good one. I highly recommend viewing it for what it is. I can't fairly review this based on blockbuster standards. It's not that type of film.

Tony Todd and Lance Henriksen. Has to be OK, right? How can Candyman get involved in this utter rubbish?

Terrible acting from everyone, poor sets that look like they are build from paper and are just difficult to believe are real, a musical score that just doesn't match the scenes. Confused characters who interact with each other in ever changing ways.

Described on the cover as being a cross between Devil and The Hateful Eight - just how, I haven't a clue. Basic storyline could have been made into a decent film, but this falls so far short. Not even sure why I scored ti 2 and not 1.

Please don't waste your time watching this.

I went in to this film with high hopes given the names I recognized. Tony Todd and Lance Henriksen are two fine actors in general and two great genre actors in particular but even they could not save this meandering, disjointed mess. Having watched the film and read a little about it before writing this, I am still not sure of the plot or much involving the characters.

Jericho Whitfield (Tony Todd) is all about killing Roland Bursley (Michael Eklund) and Annie Hargraves (Jennifer Laporte) in the beginning then abruptly decides they should team up and investigate whatever weirdness is going on with the train even though the only thing we've heard are sounds that could be voices coming from a mysterious piece of luggage that is never really connected to events. I get how Jericho knows Annie but the connection between Jericho and Bursley is fuzzy at best. I am not sure if Bursley was after Jericho and using Annie as bait or vice versa or Yousef Abu-Taleb (story), Gabi Chennisi Duncombe (co-writer), Bubba Fish (really?) (co-writer), and Michael Steves are just bad at their job.

When the weirdness starts happening Jericho seems very accepting of it as if he were expecting it even though he was not there for the weirdness. He was there to kill Hargraves (primarily) and Bursley (secondarily-I think). And Bursley acts as if he was expecting it all too even though he was just hired to escort Annie back to her father. Or was this a trap for Jericho as well? Or is their meeting a coincidence but he was hoping to see him?

Lance Henriksen is in this movie as the Devil. I guess. He just kind of shows up abruptly talking to Tony Todd. For the most part he is not even a factor in the film. It is a shame because Henriksen, much like Todd and Eklund, is a fine actor that could have added menace to the film just by being in more scenes. The man has a sinister and foreboding delivery (even though he is fully capable of coming off much more jovial) and could have given this film more creep.

Grace McDowell (Jill Hoilles), Desdemona Lark (Jeryl Prescott), and Father Locke (Yousef Abu-Taleb) make out the rest of the significant cast but I will be a monkey's uncle if I can tell you much about the characters. They just were there to get gruesome ends. That is standard in low budget horror, but we got little explanation of them in any capacity until their demise.

I was left with the distinct that Todd and Henriksen took their roles to get a paycheck. Not that all involved did not try but Eklund was the one most involved in his material. Todd and Henriksen were just phoning it in. I cannot blame them though. We all need to eat, and this was not a very good script.

There are jumps in the narrative as well as in the scenes. There is no explanation or demonstration for example of the demon (?) getting tied up in the contraption with the chairs. Then they are all just in hell. I guess it is an attempt by the creators to join the audience that lasted that long watching this travesty. They just know they are in hell but there is a little explanation as to how they came to that conclusion. There is an ominous voice that talks but it is hard to understand. Maybe it mentioned they were in Hell but given the script I have my doubts.

Then the story becomes some kind of weird challenge with a demon before the Devil just shows up. I am not even sure exactly what the whole plotline of this movie is. It just kind of meanders around. The movie lacks cohesion or a discernable story flow. It is just a bunch of random things lumped together that someone thought should work but they really do not.

I am especially confused by Annie's desire to become a bounty hunter for Satan. She wishes to escape eternal torment but exactly how did she decide that being the Devil's bounty hunter was an option? Other than Bursley without real explanation offering himself if she went free, what was her motivation. And after saying he was only doing it for the money and he would not do anything to save her, why did Bursley decide to turn himself over to Satan?

Sometimes a script gets changed during production. It happens. Either a scene is not working, or something/someone abruptly becomes unavailable or a director inexplicably just changes things. Option three looks to be what happened here. Maybe he had an idea of where it was going but clearly had no idea of how to get there. Steves had his money and was going to spend it whether he made a passable film or not.

The production budget is bargain basement. I am not a budget snob. Low or high, I have watched good and bad ones at both ends of the spectrum. Money and quality are not linked but given a weak script a better budget would have been a good idea given the end product. The director did not know what to cut. A better director could have mined a good story from what was here.

I am not sure why they did not bother to rent out a train car or two at night at some historical railroad. Looks like they did it for the engine. Most countries have at least one. Instead they used sets that were obviously meant to be a house before they got re-purposed. Watch when they open a door. They talk about going to another car, but it is obviously the next room.

I picked this movie up at my local Dollar Tree. I knew nothing about it. I figured it was a win-win for a dollar. If I liked it then I got a bargain. If I hated it then I only spent a dollar. It was a confusing and unfocused 90 minutes I will never have back along with that dollar.

West of Hell has a lot of good elements that ultimately do nothing. And not because they are not used well but rather they are used in a poor and unfocused script. I had some adequate expectations for this film given the cast and what I could read from the case of it but it failed to deliver.

Who is redeemable? Set on a train during the Wild West era (I'm assuming), passengers are unwittingly on a ride with the devil to see about their souls. Each character has a hidden secret worthy of eternal flames, so the devil offers a deal to each one. Tired production derails this train that was barely moving forward given the passable but lackluster performances. Oh, and the stories don't really make much sense or at least what is depicted isn't enough for us to care about the characters. Mildly interesting idea (cowboy train to hell) that can't live up to the concept by low production that then is left solely to the actors to try and make something out of the 2 dimensional characters. (And that is generous as the "secret" hidden by each character is the only reason for their minuscule depth.) Don't be fooled by Tony Todd or Lance Henriksen in the cast; this was a chosen role for the paycheck only.