Red Stone

OK, the good points:

1) great camera work 2) good music 3) some great actors

the bad points:

A) shockingly poor story B) totally unbelievable characters C) WAY too slow D) simply nothing to get invested in.

How on earth did something this bad every raise the budget to get made?

Seems like they are trying to be camp but it comes across slow and dumb. If you like pure violence... you will be happy. If you are looking for action... the overall story here is lacking.

This was probably one of the worst directed films I've seen in a long time. Novice writer and director Derek Presley also failed miserably in directing his cast, as everyone - except McDonough, seemed lost, bored, and didn't know how to act. He kept filming scenes that should've been ended, with the cast just standing around waiting for him to say "cut". Then you have a convoluted story with random unexplained scenes. What was the entire first 5-10 mins about? Drive up to a bridge, see a car, look around, a phone rings and you leave. Total amateur hour filmmaking. Never mind the ridiculous and easily avoidable plot and technical issues. Then you add the slow as molasses pacing, and the unnecessarily long - and what seemed unedited 97 min runtime, and you'll be pulling your hair out wanting it all to end. Presley should've at least had a seasoned writer fix his screenplay, because with such little substance and too much filler, this may have worked as a short or made-for-TV 1 hour film. Low budget B film or not, inexperienced filmmaker or not, there was no excuse to leave so many easily fixable flaws. I wouldn't even expect such a mess from a 5th grade drama class. The score started off loud and annoying, but either I got used to it, or it simmered down towards the end. This film did have some hope and promise to allow overlooking some flaws, but it just had too many of them, and knowing even a decent editor could've fixed most of them, is inexcusable. It's a very generous 3/10 from me, all going to McDonough who was the only one that did anything to hold up this mess while it was drowning.

So found this one along and thought it looked like a modern western and it has one of my favorite actors in Michael Cudlitz - Shout out to Gross Point Blank- McDonough is always fun as a baddie.

POSITIVES; The cinematography was awesome. It was gritty and had a weird red vibe. It was old school with long shots and let the actors act. The sparse action scenes were cool and the f/x were solid and old school. This was definitely a love letter to old gangster films. The acting for the most part was great. Loved the Hutch role. Billy Blare was awesome.

NEGATIVES; It was billed as an action film. An article I saw said it was a western film too. It is not either. There is action in it and it was made in Texas, I think. But it's not a western. It's closer to a dixie mafia type film. Or like Justified without the action.

I didn't like the music. I appreciate what they were doing but it wasn't my favorite.

The film moves slow and that's okay for some people. But I think the way the movie preview made it look, some will think it's more action.

Overall really cool little gangster film. Some gritty moments too.

7/10.

Your wife might even like this one, too, because it has Neal McDonough in it! Something about him really flips their love muscle!

Sure, the plot has been done - it's the quintessential story about a burnout hitman who grows a conscience and simply cannot kill for hire anymore. In this case, his target is a young man, Dash Melrose as Motley Adams, who does an excellent job in this role - he reminds of a young Patrick Dempsey ("Run"). Michael Cudlitz menaces as Jed Haywood - the boss - while Billy Blair menaces all as Hutch, the loyal psychopath tasked with managing Boon, who is clearly having a "bad day on the job".

I know you won't see this one at the Oscars, but I bet you watch it all the way through once you start it. My advice? Pack a lunch and plan to stay a while - this is a fun ride!

PS - also checkout the sequel, "Boon" - it's even better.