User reviews

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.

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.

This is an example of welfare for once famous actors. Poorly written, directed, and videotaped, with one dimensional caricatures, instead of characters, who are used as plot pawns to advance a story that is so obvious, you see what is coming from the next county.

I gave it a view, as I do all western type films, because it is a uniquely American genre that I wish would be rediscovered by present day film makers.

A simple story, about a slower pace of time, doesn't have to be obvious and contrived, it can ring true and be compelling, but this effort is simply not up to the task.

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 embarrassed to admit that I even rented this film, though I could not bear to watch it. As the crappy after effects title revealed itself at about 5 frames per second over the first shot of the film I said to the girl next to me, "Uh oh. That's not a good sign." I am torn with whether or not to dignify this movie with the designation "film," as it appears to have been shot with a 1998 prosumer video camera.

Poor, poor Billy Zane. I feel bad for everyone in this film actually. The acting, from the few scenes that I watched, looked as though it might have been okay. It's hard to tell when the only mic used seemed to be the one that came mounted on the camera.

I really wonder what it cost to produce this movie. I was fooled because the cover art of the DVD looked pretty good. Why does Hollywood video even stock this thing? There should be a warning next to it. "This movie was shot with a video camera!"

this really is a great western, the best i have seen in a while. if your into the classic western revenge movie, then you cant miss this one. set against the back drop of the end of the slave trade, one man makes a stand and pays dearly, he then sets about seeking revenge. i thought the acting, direction and script were really good and would recommend this to anyone that likes westerns. i really felt for the hero in this as he was one of the few of us that try and make a stand against all that is bad in the world, i also liked the judges son, a real nasty piece of work and quite cowardly with it, which is usually the case and makes it all the more believable. as you can tell i loved it and will be watching it again soon no doubt.

ps. this is my first attempt at writing a review so bare with me, lol.

It looks like one of those movies shot by a college student using his own back yard as location and his friends as actors. You know: dv camera instead of film, cheap props, too few actors etc. The sad thing is that someone probably invested money in this movie. If you are curious of what once great actors like George Kennedy and Sean Young are doing nowadays, here's the answer. They appear in this kind of garbage. Kennedy seems to be intoxicated most of the time, but Young is sober, but almost as embarrassed as I was. The main character (Braeden) is also the producer, so it's fair to assume that he decided to pay up to realize his childhood dream of becoming a western hero. I didn't know this guy from before, but when I saw him act I understood why. A critic once wrote a one-sentence review on a movie: "The acting is bad, the script is bad and the directing is bad." In this case it's on the generous side. Make sure you have a pillow at hand. You will need it.

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.

This is a good example of a bad movie happening to decently good actors. I really feel sorry for most of them and they should probably fire their agents. I think the casting was all wrong. I mean you have some good actors just not in the right part. The only thing good about this movie was Billy Zane. Seriously. Not kidding. His character was good and he plays it well. Probably his best since Titanic. This could have been a decent movie, (and I use that phrase lightly)-- but as usual Hollywood has destroyed another "western" type movie with way too much violence and unnecessary sex. Its the same story line, just different characters, you can almost see whats coming before it happens. Just leaves you feeling.... confused and ill. Its no wonder it went strait to DVD.

I just watched this and I feel sick. This is one of those movies that tries to make itself appear to be a story of good and evil because the bad guys are so bad that you don't mind what evil the good guys do. It represents the worst that humanity can lower itself to and then brings the "hero" down to that level. It is a movie that fuels the fires of hatred and represents revenge as something that is pleasurable, and worse, desirable. It's my opinion that after watching this movie any normal person will be left with either a sick feeling in their stomach or a craving for violence, depending on various factors such as their mood before watching this, company they are in , their propensity to violence etc. . If what happened to the main character happened to me, I would want justice as well, but that is not what this movie is about. This movie is about killing people one by one in strange ways, like the Friday the 13th movies. I really didn't like it.

Forget the fact that this film is supposedly based upon historical fact. Several people who know what happened in Louisiana at the time have set straight the fact that nothing in the movie resembles what actually happened.

And, no, it's not High Plains Drifter either, even if they try to make comparisons.

Let's just view this a a good revenge flick that happens to be a cross between a western and a plantation flick.

Now, I have to admit I really like George Kennedy, and would give a film with him in it a higher rating than it probably deserves. I also like Armand Assante, but not as much. I certainly couldn't wait for him to get some justice, along with Billy Duke (James Patrick Stuart).

I'm not familiar with Eric Braeden, the star of this movie. He is, after all, a soap star. He did OK, but I sure would have liked more passion.

Sean Young was certainly a wife that no one would desire. Certainly, no one but maybe Amos (Assante) will miss her.

Justice prevails.

I just went to Blockbuster to find a film and came up with this one. The western genre drew me in, so I decided I'd give it a shot. I'd agree with the other post that this is certainly not your regular western, but I tended to like the extra edge it provided. It's not for young children, or for folks who are bothered with scenes presenting violent conflicts, but it left me wondering what would I do it a similar situation. Overall, I thought Eric Braeden did a great job as did George Kennedy. But I thought the real show stealer was Billy Zane. His characterization was worth the price of admission. The female roles were fun to watch too. Carol Alt was great, Sean Young did a good job of presenting a pretty interesting character, but on the female side, I was most impressed with Jennifer O'Dell. I really believe she is up and coming.

With some good acting, this movie might have been a B flick. As it is, it fails miserably. The plot isn't too bad - man's wife and son are savaged and killed by local tyrants while he is thrown in prison, he escapes and exacts revenge. This movie has some truly great names - Billy Zane, Carol Alt, Sean Young, George Kennedy, Armand Assante - but the acting is wooden. Worst of all, a soap opera actor, Eric Braeden, is the star, and he couldn't have been more off the mark.

I thought my TV volume was turned down every time Braeden spoke and I reached for the remote to turn it up, but it turned out he was mumbling every time he spoke. He not only mumbled, he barely whispered, and it was nasal to boot. It was so stupid as to be ridiculous, the most annoying and ridiculous voice I've ever heard. Who ever heard of a mumbling hero in a post-Civil War western? I couldn't even tell what he said most of the time.

And it was clearly a deliberately contrived act, the mumbling hero was supposed to be all macho like Clint Eastwood or something. Truly stupid. If it wasn't for the gratuitous nudity, the movie would have been worthless. And if that weren't bad enough, the black slave living in Braeden's home was a mumbler too! They just don't make them like they used to.

This is the worst western I have ever seen. Braeden's acting in this movie is horrible. He didn't suit the character at all, in fact looked plain stupid trying to be the lethal assassin. The very basic idea wasn't too bad, but the substance story to fill it out was feeble, stupid and too far unbelievable. The editing and scenes were badly put together. The sex was only a grab for something to peak interest and failed at that. The whole thing was awful awful awful. It could possibly be the worst movie I have seen, much less in just the western genre. Unforgiven, Open Range, 3:10 to Yuma, Silverado, Young Guns, Lonesome Dove, Dances with Wolves, Tombstone, are all some of the very best westerns. Acting, editing, filming and story in these are excellent. Even some of Clint Eastwood's old spaghetti westerns as old and tinny as they are, are still a cut above the abysmal The Man Who Came Back.

I am not a Liberal, nor do I pay much attention to who was Confederate or not. I live in Canada. I do not specifically rent movies for the political correctness. I have watched movies that show the incredible horrible depths that humans are capable of and it does bother me... but I can put up with it sometimes and see the story surrounding it, even if I have to close my eyes sometimes.The brutality in this movie is not what makes it bad. Nor did I expect it to be a block buster. I Knew it was going to be bad, but it was my husbands choice. Just because it's not going to be a block buster, doesn't mean it can't be far better than this. Even if a movie were to be predictable and just another version of a tired script, it can still be far better than this movie was.