Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

lthes81 *****Spoiler Alert*****Overall, a good movie with astonishingly exceptional scenery. The plot makes a good start but as an amateur writer I would have changed that first scene to include more detail and provide some proof that Selleck's character could have used later. But then...where would the story end up... Yeah. That proof would have destroyed the conflict. Oh, well. So much of the rest is melodrama that made me think of the old nineteenth century stage act with a mustache-twirling villain and a helpless damsel in distress: 'I can't pay the rent!' 'But you must pay the rent!' Madsen's character is insipid in my opinion, shallow and wishy-washy. If I were confronted by an obviously honorable man such as Selleck instead of Harmon's barely concealed duplicity, I'd believe him. All that aside, for me the plot was greatly enhanced by the lesser characters. They MADE the movie. The Irishman and his hilarious jokes, which no one but 'the kid' appreciates, old crusty Brimley as the 'father figure,' adorable Christian Kane as 'the kid and sacrificial lamb' and the sweet but brave bartender. These guys carried the movie and I watch it just for them. Their performances, subtle and heartfelt, were exceptional, especially for one of Kane's first movie performances. (Was that really him riding that bronco??) All of the minor characters contributed a much-needed comic relief element in their own ways. I frankly tend to watch their scenes and fast forward past the rest. What I did NOT like was the 'Sioux language.' That did not sound like Sioux to me. I think some linguist either got it all wrong or made up words like Klingon in Star Trek. If you're into plain westerns with no real plot twist, this is for you. If you're a Kaniac this is REALLY for you. Tom Selleck fans will not be disappointed. Pretty good movie!

chipe I am surprised this got such a high user rating vote here. Wishful thinking and blindness to the movie's faults must account for it.The beginning of the movie was confusing and unnecessary. Then things got better and interesting. Then the movie slowly and surely gets worse and worse. It developed into an unbelievable mess with bits and pieces reminiscent of better movies (saving the Indian princess, hiring the famous out-of-town killer with the black outfit, the town folk rising up at the end to defend justice, driving cattle into town during a gunfight, etc. -- Blahh!). This is the worst Tom Selleck or TV western that I can recall.Good were: the cinematography, isolated dialogue and scholarly allusions and most of the acting. Mark Harmon gave his usual adept and likable performance, IF HE WERE IN A DIFFERENT MOVIE.Everything else was quite poor. I blame the screenplay and direction most. Harmon's character's actions were so over the top and incredible, it was shocking. Unbelievable and poorly motivated were almost everything -- the men working a ranch that wasn't theirs, the mortgage on the place, the "courtship" of Madsen, the death of her husband, etc. The tactics and movements in the gun fights were silly/unconvincing. Another thing I didn't like, but typical of many movies, is that Selleck and Madsen didn't initially have an honest conversation dealing with all the facts of the situation; instead they let the information drag out in bits and pieces to prolong the story.

gatsby06 If this had been made AFTER "Monte Walsh" I would have said Simon Wincer had gone senile, to put it politely. But since it was made before, I will forgive him.This is the ultimate collection of tired cowboy clichés, whereas Monte Walsh breathes fresh life into the western. I guess it was something of a warmup.Nothing wrong with Selleck's acting, but the script is hackneyed. The bad guy even wears a black hat. Hmmm, maybe this is supposed to be a comedy.My advice: watch Monte Walsh, and while you're at it, "Quigley Down Under," and don't spoil your appetite with "Crossfire Trail."

John Holden What an fresh story: A banker's trying to get the widow's ranch; The good guy kills the local bad guy so the banker brings in a hired gun; the townspeople finally rise up to help at the messy showdown.Manipulative and DD (deadly dull) TV-grade fare in every respect: clichéd dialogue, holes in the story (if Covingington is so tough, why didn't he stop the beating on the ship?), one-dimensional characters, no chemistry among the leads, hard but honorable Indians, and a hero that says "mam" as often as feasible.And there's plenty of synecdoche: ridin, ropin, more ridin, mendin fences, herdin, ridin through cricks, herdin through cricks, lookin out over cricks, and then ridin through more cricks; then more ropin, ridin, fencin, buildin.As with any TV or Disney pap, your ability to imagine is reduced and you end up with fewer brain cells. More reasonable Westerns include, Lonesome Dove, Open Range, Tombstone, The Unforgiven or even Conagher - at least Sam Elliott tries to act sometimes.