The one and only reason I watched this film was because Michael Madsen was in it, and I am a loyal fan to him, I knew that this was going to be awful as its the same director that did A COLD DAY IN HELL, also starring Madsen. I understand there is only so much you can do with a small budget, but come on please, I made a film last year for $1000 that was 10 times the quality of this, and Im still struggling to get noticed, this is insane, For the love of god when people in this movie get shot, where is the blood?? if you cant afford squibs, at least put blood in the area the person was suppose to have been shot, how hard is that. Please for the love of god Mr. Madsen keep away from this. You are so much better, you are the king in my book. But this is below you.
7 Reviews
"The Room" of Westerns
lovetheism24 April 2017
This is essentially a Western Film as imagined by a child whose only exposure to Western's is via old public domain cartoons and whose budget consists of the contents of their piggy bank.
If "so bad it's good" is a thing, then this film is a definite contender for best worst film ever made. It's not just the "funded by sales at the lemonade stand" budget, but the combination of that with absurdly melodramatic and pretentious nonsense about a personified death figure, and the profound depth of ineptitude displayed by this film's director, that really makes this turd "shine."
There's a character that keeps getting shot without reacting, until the movie suddenly realizes he should be dead and everyone shoots him at once about a hundred times, a scene where a character gets shot point-blank in the stomach, with a rifle, and is fixed up, without a scratch, in five minutes, by the miracle of bed-sheets and boiled water, a guy bites down on a cherry tomato for "blood" effects, practically every interior location is the same sparse barn with a new sign telling you where they're supposed to be now, almost every outdoor location is the same field, money is shown as white sack cloths with dollar signs on them, and the one moment of CGI in the film has painfully obvious glitches, and that's just what I can recall off the top of my head, years after watching this!
If "so bad it's good" is a thing, then this film is a definite contender for best worst film ever made. It's not just the "funded by sales at the lemonade stand" budget, but the combination of that with absurdly melodramatic and pretentious nonsense about a personified death figure, and the profound depth of ineptitude displayed by this film's director, that really makes this turd "shine."
There's a character that keeps getting shot without reacting, until the movie suddenly realizes he should be dead and everyone shoots him at once about a hundred times, a scene where a character gets shot point-blank in the stomach, with a rifle, and is fixed up, without a scratch, in five minutes, by the miracle of bed-sheets and boiled water, a guy bites down on a cherry tomato for "blood" effects, practically every interior location is the same sparse barn with a new sign telling you where they're supposed to be now, almost every outdoor location is the same field, money is shown as white sack cloths with dollar signs on them, and the one moment of CGI in the film has painfully obvious glitches, and that's just what I can recall off the top of my head, years after watching this!
This movie has some merit...
chigwalla11 June 2013
...as a drinking game.
Seriously: some buddies and I were talking about the worst movies ever made and it just sort of grew from there. Dead simple: every time there's a blatantly obvious mistake in the filming or plot, pause it and everyone drinks. If there's disagreement, only the one who pointed it out drinks. We've played it twice now...and only made it about halfway through the movie.
Other than that, it's not worth the bandwidth....seriously. My grandma taught to say something nice or not say anything at all, so...it left me 'speechless'. It also left me glad to have this bit of roadkill coyote fading into the rearview behind me. Meep, meep.
Seriously: some buddies and I were talking about the worst movies ever made and it just sort of grew from there. Dead simple: every time there's a blatantly obvious mistake in the filming or plot, pause it and everyone drinks. If there's disagreement, only the one who pointed it out drinks. We've played it twice now...and only made it about halfway through the movie.
Other than that, it's not worth the bandwidth....seriously. My grandma taught to say something nice or not say anything at all, so...it left me 'speechless'. It also left me glad to have this bit of roadkill coyote fading into the rearview behind me. Meep, meep.
Unbelievable
dlt-320-5688317 January 2013
I enjoy trains and westerns, so not knowing anything about this movie I saw the cover and decided to give it a try. The first two minutes of acting gave me a sinking feeling this wasn't going to be pleasant. I should have turned it off then, but I gave it about 30 minutes before I did. I could no longer handle the bad acting or camera work. Any sets looked like they were made out of balsa wood in a garage. Character development didn't exist and most of the cast might as well have been cardboard cut-outs. If there is any positive for me with this movie; I did like the few shots of trains used. Beyond that, I would suggest that this movie only be used as a learning tool for other movie makers.
Interesting - sorta
cavelamb-952-14274619 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I've only watched it once. It's more of a history lesson than a western adventure.
But if might qualify as both, if you let it.
What was it about? It was about the lives of Cole Younger and Jessie James. And the lives they led and the lives they took.
Was it good, bad, indifferent, what? Maybe. It was certainly different. But I would not say indifferent.
The scenery was magnificent, settings quite authentic, and the symbolism was effective and compelling.
Was it really that bad? Not really. But maybe. Kinda depends on what you expect, doesn't it?
Was it interesting? Yes. At least I think so.
Did it make sense? Not too much. But what in life does?
Will I watch it again? Yes. If just to see what happened.
But if might qualify as both, if you let it.
What was it about? It was about the lives of Cole Younger and Jessie James. And the lives they led and the lives they took.
Was it good, bad, indifferent, what? Maybe. It was certainly different. But I would not say indifferent.
The scenery was magnificent, settings quite authentic, and the symbolism was effective and compelling.
Was it really that bad? Not really. But maybe. Kinda depends on what you expect, doesn't it?
Was it interesting? Yes. At least I think so.
Did it make sense? Not too much. But what in life does?
Will I watch it again? Yes. If just to see what happened.
THERE AIN'T BUT ONE BLACK TRAIN
nogodnomasters19 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This is part of a series of bad westerns following in the footsteps of "A Cold Day in Hell," and "All Hell Broke Loose". Michael Madsen appears more on the cover than he does in the film. This is the story of Cole Younger (Cody McCarver) and how the Pinkerton agency tracked him down. The story comes from Frank James (Braxton Williams) telling the real story to a reporter Mr. Cummings (Nick Smith). The saga consists mostly of things Frank wouldn't know such as the inner workings of the Pinkerton Agency and their recruiting, but I was willing to give them that.
Like the other films, the camera has a hard time being on the face of the person doing the talking. The lines were delivered in stereotypical western monotone, even the women simply read lines. The black train was owned by Emmet Black (Jerry Chesser) who drove the train up and down any track at will. It appeared to have been a symbol for death or the Grim Reaper, although it was haphazardly integrated into the plot. The movie attempts to be humorous by adding characters like Crazy Pa (Richard Kinsey) a man who once ate his horse and Shotgun (Ronald Bumgardner) a man who owns a shotgun pistol. Even Taylor-Grace Davis who played Alice was laughably bad.
The film might be fun to watch because it is bad, although lacks some of the camp value of previous productions. If you thought "A Cold Day in Hell", and "All Hell Broke Loose" were good, then this film shouldn't bother you.
PARENTAL GUIDE: No F-bombs, sex, nudity or acting. Uses "A" word and makes references to a shotgun up the butt.
Like the other films, the camera has a hard time being on the face of the person doing the talking. The lines were delivered in stereotypical western monotone, even the women simply read lines. The black train was owned by Emmet Black (Jerry Chesser) who drove the train up and down any track at will. It appeared to have been a symbol for death or the Grim Reaper, although it was haphazardly integrated into the plot. The movie attempts to be humorous by adding characters like Crazy Pa (Richard Kinsey) a man who once ate his horse and Shotgun (Ronald Bumgardner) a man who owns a shotgun pistol. Even Taylor-Grace Davis who played Alice was laughably bad.
The film might be fun to watch because it is bad, although lacks some of the camp value of previous productions. If you thought "A Cold Day in Hell", and "All Hell Broke Loose" were good, then this film shouldn't bother you.
PARENTAL GUIDE: No F-bombs, sex, nudity or acting. Uses "A" word and makes references to a shotgun up the butt.
need a better script to tell this story
ksf-224 January 2023
A newer version of the cole younger story, who was a real guy, about twenty, during the murrican civil war. This is about younger joining up with the james gang, and robbing banks. You can read about his actual story of their criminal acts in wikipedia dot org. The script, the direction, and the acting performances are all less than optimal. At twenty minutes in, two guys have the most idiotic argument about whether or not a gun is real or not. And that scene just goes on... and on.. and on. Lots of stationary shots, where the camera is set up and stays right there, right near two people talking, or making threats, or arguing. Very few wide angle or action shots. Can't really recommend this one. It needed a bigger budget all around. And someone with more experience with cameras. Written and directed by christopher forbes. He has directed forty three films, many of them about the confederacy, or the south.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
