SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

tafkaga4 The Sacketts was fun to watch if you like actors like Tom Selleck, Sam Elliot, Ben Johnson and Glenn Ford. Other than having a great cast, there's nothing ground-breaking here. In fact this film at times seems a little bit too casually made, as if they were just trying to throw it together, collect their paycheck, and move on to the next project.There are a number of things that are distractingly bad in this film, and here are a few that I noticed.1. When they are on the cattle drive, they send Tyrell ahead to scout out water for the horses. Tyrell says he doesn't know the country, but they send him anyway. Tyrell finally does find water. A minute later he's under gunfire from rustlers who want to stampede the herd. Two minutes after that, the owner of the herd himself shows up saying that he came when he heard gunshots. Was Tyrell only scouting a half mile ahead of the herd? 2. Glenn Ford's death scene was really awful. By the position he was laying in, it would have been more practical for his hand to fall against his chest and his eyes to just glaze over. Instead, he went for the dramatic effect of twitching his head to the side and closing his eyes while pulling his hand from Selleck's and tossing it to the ground.3. The scene where Tell Sackett goes to cut the bad guys' horses loose. It was supposed to be the middle of the night, yet it was broad daylight outside. Oh, but they had the sound of whippoorwills dubbed in to fool us. Unfortunately the fact that it was not the slightest bit dark kind of tipped me off, unless they somehow made their camp fire strong enough to light up the whole valley.

ccthemovieman-1 This is something of a poor man's "Lonesome Dove." The story is a combination of two Louis L'Amour novels and doesn't have the intensity of Larry McMurtrey's aforementioned "Dove," nor the beautiful cinematography.The best part of "The Sacketts" is the cast, led by some of the best actors to ever play cowboys. I mean, this is worth owning alone just to see Sam Elliott, Tom Selleck, Glenn Ford and Ben Johnson all in the same story. These guys - especially Elliott and Selleck - were always fantastic playing cowboys. Not only that, you get classic stars such as Gilbert Roland, Mercedes McCambridge, Ruth Roman, Jack Elan, Slim Pickens and more ! Wow - impressive.Being a made-for-TV film, you don't get much profanity or blood and for most of the film, you get two separate stories going on at once. One story features Selleck and Jeff Osterhage as brothers and another as Elliott, as the older brother involved with his own adventures.Even though I can't compare it favorably to Lonesome Dove, it's still a decent western on its own merits.

deni2730 I thought with my two favorite actors, Sam Elliott & Tom Selleck, it had to be a winner. We rented the DVD's which had a part 1 & part 2. After the first 15 minutes I was ready to shut it off. I've never seen such a slow moving western in my entire life. I gave up after the first DVD, not caring who lived or died in the rest of this movie. Even with the great cast, the acting was wooden, the scenes were predictable and it was just plain boring.It starts out in Tennessee with two brothers Orrin & Tyrell. Within the first 5 minutes Orrin (played by Tom Selleck)Sackett's bride-to-be is killed at the ceremony and Orrin's brother Ty shoots the man "Higgins" (remember Magnum P.I.'s character Higgins?). Naturally Higgins brother is going to come after Ty (yawn) so he heads out west which he eventually hooks up with Orrin who has also left TN. They become cowboys and the rest is too mind numbing to even recall. What a disappointment!

echurch I really felt sorry for some of the classic western actors who ended up participating in this drivel. The whole thing seemed like it was written, directed and edited by a bunch of eighth-graders! It also seemed that it might have been severely edited to reduce the running time, and if that's the case, my criticism might be bit too harsh. Was this perhaps originally a 6-hour movie that was cut down to 4 hours?I can't believe that, at the time this is being written, that IMDb readers have given this an average rating of 7.5. I'm giving it a 1 in hopes that others will too to keep serious movie-watchers from wasting four hours of their time as I did last night.