I haven't bothered to comment in here on a movie before, but instead of beating myself up over having watched the whole thing, maybe someone can be saved by reading this. Not much to add to the other comments except that continuity seemed to be thrown out the window for this horrible movie. It definitely wasn't considered during editing. The only good things I can say about this movie is that there is great scenery (of the Canadian Rockies, I believe), and the movie is bad in a way that could possibly make it enjoyable as a movie to riff on. I'd advise anyone against watching this with the mindset that it could be good in any other way.
Watching young Eastwood is a strange experience. If his dad had been bereft of talent and put into the movies anyway into really lousy parts this would have been Clint.
It is a disturbing and twisted movie (although with beautiful landscapes & music). Not recommended -- skip this one.
Dirty Harry + Van Gogh + Sybil = Diablo. Scott Eastwood is a physical reincarnation of his father Clint Eastwood. To bad his career is starting off playing characters doing wrong (not the underdog bad guy doing right like Dirty Harry or The Mysterious Man With No Name.)
Read the across the board negative reviews but sold by the "action packed" "killer" "Western" story line. Well, first 20 minutes was not good. The next 20 minutes was more of the same. There was an unusual "Post Traumatic Stress syndrome" twist in the next not-good 20 minutes and closed with the final 20 minutes of thank-goodness-it-ended script, starring Clint's son as the protagonist in a western no less. 1 star for the intended story and double it for the expansive aerial cinematography of the Canadian landscape.
Yep it was pretty bad, not worth 90 minutes of my time and a complete waste of some talented actors skills
1 star because it is a western--and who doesn't love a western. 1 star because there was a real effort to cast non-white actors in non-white roles.
I have so many questions. Was the script that bad at the beginning or did Eastwood's lack of talent make it worse? Did Eastwood's daddy tell him not to worry about acting--just whisper and the critic would love it? Did anyone one get more than 20 minutes in before they figured out the story? Do the idiots in Hollywood really think this was the start of a "Rocky-like" franchise? With so many good actors and screenwriters in the US today, why does Hollywood insist on sticking with their incestuous "insiders-only" policy? I have more, but you get the idea. Acting and script sucked. Plot as transparent as glass. If you want to throw away an hour and a half of your life, there are better things to do--like a spaghetti western.
Horrible! ,No one knows how to aim and shoot but him..Very weak cowboy movie...
Though this is by no means a great movie, I didn't think it was as bad as most of the critics here.
Granted, Scott Eastwood is not a compelling actor, but "Rowdy Yates" was pretty shallow in his youth as well. As another reviewer mentioned, the scenery and cinematography was beautiful.
Walton Goggins (Boyd Crowder in Justified) was a chilling and captivating killer, yellow rotten teeth and all. Danny Glover's cameo was mostly confusing and forgettable. I did like the twist at the end of the movie, though you kind of suspected it might be coming.
Yikes. Another stinkeroo from Scott Eastwood. Can't this guy get work in "normal" movies?
There are no age suitabilities for this title yet.
There are no summaries for this title yet.
There are no notices for this title yet.
There are no quotes for this title yet.