For what it was, it was an okay movie. I'd give 6 points. It was kinda solid to watch with a nice scenery.
*Spoilers*
I think Eastwood showed some serious talent on playing his character/s. Definitely want to see more of him. This movie is not 6.0-Mediocre because he's not a good actor. He needs a good script and a good director. Hm... Wonder if he'd be a good young Han Solo?
It is far from the worst movie I have seen. The cinematography is beautiful.
The plot is basic Western, but it is less than 90 minutes long so doesn't drag on.
Scott Eastwood is fine in a not very demanding role. He has a resemblance to his father Clint but they are not carbon copies of each other.
Worth a watch.
Gee Woodle, Space Kadoodle!
Someone wrote that this was a "basic western" which makes me wonder if the movie was watched at all. I think one of the reasons this has gotten such bad reviews is that people were expecting a run of the mill western not a psychological thriller. While I don't think this is the best movie it certainly deserves a 5 or 6 rating. Sometimes I get the feeling that movie raters put too much emphasis on what they were expecting and when preconceived notions don't pan out they can no longer judge a movies quality on its own merit. The cinematography is great, the story had my attention and I thought Eastwood did a fine job. Yes, there are much better movies but there are also many, many worse ones. I am glad I saw this and would have no problem recommending it with the understanding that it is most definitely NOT a basic western.
share