Morto per un dollaro

In old-school-style 1890's-based Western "Dead For A Dollar" Christoph Waltz & Warren Burke head to Mexico after Brandon Scott who's abducted (or ran off with) Rachel Brosnahan (excellent), wife of sleazy tycoon Hamish Linklater. They all converge (with Waltz's nemesis Willem Defoe) in a small dust-bowl town in the territory of crime-lord Benjamin Bratt & his gang (inc Luis Chávez) where shoot-out show-downs beckon. Stylishly shot in sepia tones by iconic veteran action writer / director Walter Hill (his first film in six yrs (and only second in ten)) it's simple & straight but decent fare, especially for those who don't necessarily need their Westerns to be 'modernized'.

With the help of a solider a bounty hunter takes a job to search for a businessman' wife who has been kidnapped by a deserter.

Walter Hill returns to directing delivering a bitter sweet Western. Hill offers tension, twists, whippings and shootouts with a great cast including Christoph Waltz, Willem Dafoe, Brandon Scott, Warren Burke and Benjamin Bratt to name a few. Waltz and Defoe are on form; but Scott is a screen stealer. Writers Matt Harris and Hill's story has all the Western high jinx you'd want from a genre piece. However, considering Hills past work, the camera work is lacklustre, shaky, the sound design, the scene transitions and colour timing is off, giving it a rough low budget TV feel. This sucks the life out of the great locations sets and costumes that not even the fitting traditional score can lift.

Overall, if your expecting the grandeur of great Western's you may be left disappointed, however, it offers top performances and a good old fashion western yarn.

With all the cheap B westerns lately, finally a decent one comes along.

The cast is superb. You can't beat Christoph Waltz. He does a great job as the bounty hunter. Rachel Brosnahan played her part as a strong female character. I really liked seeing Willem Dafoe in a new movie.

It has a good story. Complements to the writer, director and casting agency. The movie was entertaining to watch.

It didn't have that big Hollywood feel but I enjoyed it very much.

Coming from 50 years of watching a lot of westerns.

I'm afraid after the mishap with Alex Baldwins movie "Rust", we may never see another decent western.

I read the poor reviews, and I think I saw a different movie. Either that, or those who don't like Westerns because . . . They're Westerns, decided to vent their frustrations after junk like Batgirl, The 4400 remake, the Bros flick, and the other Hollywood trendy junk people don't want fell flat. Who knows?

This is Walter Hill being Walter Hill. Gritty, realistic, devoid of Technicolor fluff. The landscape is unpleasant, uninviting, because that's what it is in this area of the southwest. People are living on the hard edge, because there isn't much else.

This tale, in the mold of The Professionals and The Wild Bunch, is not in the same category as The Undefeated. There's no sweetness and light, just the reality people of this era faced.

The acting is fine, the script is good, and the directing, that's Walter Hill. My only knock on this one, the same lighting and filtering used in the exteriors was applied to the interior shots in a way that's noticeable. That's not something one should notice.

I'd start by saying Waltz, Dafoe, Bratt and the others are great actors. All did a great job with what they had here. Problem is, not sure what they had here.

The scenes were a bit choppy and kept waiting for a tv commercial to play between them.

Pretty sure I nodded off at one point and missed some, but it made no difference.

This was a western, I think, but not one I'd recommend for western movie watchers. The actors are top notch but just couldn't save it.

I would have tried for a spaghetti western vibe over this 50s American tv series type. The scenes with Waltz and Dafoe were good but the writing, no sir, I didn't like it.

It was simply too elementary. Ah well, better luck next time.