Inferno no Faroeste

I'm a huge fan of both Trejo and Rourke and seeing them on screen together was a lot of fun. But their star quality charisma sadly fails to lift this movie out of the muck of poor writing and pacing.

The production seems to be about on par with a Sy-Fy channel "original" movie, better than a straight to DVD production but not by much.

The western elements are played for full cartoon caricature stereotype and look decent enough while being obviously anachronistic, there's just no real excitement to the movie at all. It's very standard revenge plot action wannabe without the budget and flash to carry it off. You know everything you need to know in the first 5 minutes of the movie and if you are like me and have seen a lot of action movies you'll even be able to accurately predict many of the set action sequences before they happen.

I would have liked to see a less action oriented flick with the same premise that let Trejo and Rourke's acting chops shine. As it stands the movie is pretty forgettable.

Not recommended.

Westerns... so hard to find a good one, and mixing evil, I mean the devil, guns and horses… after watching "Gallowwalkers" a deep sense of disappointment made me sight with disapproval, because if I remember well I haven't seen a good one since "Good for Nothing" because "True Grit" was just a remake, so cautiously I started watching "Dead in Tombstone". To begin with, Mickey Rourke is more likable than when he was in his youngest days and Danny Trejo no much to say: always looking tough and mean. Both actors are a good-odd combination; one as Lucifer, and the other one as undead, make this clear, not a zombie!, I could say that this is one of the best performances of Danny Trejo; "Guerrero" fitted him like a ring! This movie has the entire elements to keep you entertained, is believable as a western and visually acceptable with its supernatural theme. The direction and writing is at his best, and considering its budget very well done, the editing keeps the pace of the movie and the soundtrack keeps up with it, it reminded me of those old movies where the actors where "forced" to act, back then when CGI wasn't so imposing. Of course this movie is far to be Silverado, but between choosing to watch the latest entry of "Chucky" or "Dead in Tombstone" I'll stick with the black horse and the long leather trench coats, in a way that I wouldn't mind a sequel as long as the story is as good or better than this one, to tell the truth I like this movie better than I did "Machete" with all its stars. Sometimes, less is better!

I saw this movie because i like the story but after watching it i felt its a pretty average movie in fact not worth watching.

The story looks good but implementation is not good at all actions scenes are below average, Trejo looks like little old for this particular role.

Old fashion dialogues, poor acting nothing new in this one,its a western movie which generally good but this doesn't succeeded to provide any entertainment.

It is a action Thriller but nothing in it. its a waste of time. just avoid it

For me dead in tombstone is not a terrible movie. But it is also not that great. Danny trejo being the star is the whole selling point of this movie and without his gruth gun slinging talk it would not be entertaining. Bassically in this movie trejo is the lead of a band of men that gets killed by some bandits. We think he is dead and I thought great now the film will be boring. But not. He wakes up in hell and micky rouke playing a type of devil says he can be alive if he brings the souls of the six men responsible for his death. Then he gets bloody revenge there are some explosions and fire and its alright. Not a great movie altogether. Alright cast but entertaining for what it is.

Man, what happened to Rourke? After "The Wrestler," he had a second act career resurgence that appeared to be another great Hollywood comeback story. He had a string of high-profile blockbuster films -- "Expendables," "Iron Man 2" among them -- and a whole list of films on IMDb that were slated in pre-production, many with large casts and studios.

He swore in all his cover story interviews around the release of The Wrestler that he'd "learned his lesson" the hard way by bad-mouthing Hollywood in the '80s and '90s, and that he wouldn't allow his career to become ruined again, as he had resorted to straight-to-video flicks in the late '90s and early '00s when his career was in truly dire straits. (He claims a narrative that he was out of work entirely for a decade, but the truth is, he was just appearing in really crap films.)

But he didn't heed his own words of wisdom. Within a couple years, these things had happened: he publicly dissed The Expendables 2, claiming he wouldn't return unless they paid him more. He was never cast in the film, and the plot was re-written to involve a younger character in his place. After the worldwide success of EX2, which could have been another franchise for Rourke, a producer on the film was asked whether he'd be back for round three. "Maybe if he doesn't act so crazy," was the reply from the producer. As of September 29th, the third film is in production, and Rourke's name is absent from the cast.

He also publicly bad-mouthed writer/director Martin McDonaugh (In Bruges), claiming he wasn't being paid enough by the "creep" to star in the film Seven Psychopaths; he dropped out, and was replaced by Woody Harrelson. The film wasn't a big hit financially, but critics loved it, and it had a huge ensemble cast. Instead of starring in that film, he starred in a straight-to-video movie with Kellen Lutz...if you don't know who that guy is, it's because he was one of the shirtless vampires in Twilight.

Then he bad-mouthed Marvel Studios, claiming they butchered Iron Man 2. Not a huge deal since his character had no chance of coming back anyway, but it's more burnt bridges. He also annoyed the crap out of Robert Downey Jr on the set of the film (RDJ went out on a limb for him and fought to have him cast in the film after Rourke's pay demands were deemed too high by Marvel, btw); apparently his Method Acting routine was hugely obnoxious to cast and crew, as he demanded odd flourishes such as blaring Gnarls Barkley's song "Crazy" at full volume before filming every one of his scenes.

My point of this long-winded rant is that Mickey Rourke has essentially ruined what could have been a golden opportunity comeback to fulfill his early potential as one of the great actors of all time, and now he has resorted to starring in utter dreck like this film, which is an absolutely abysmal production and something that any actor should be embarrassed to list on their resume.

It's a standard revenge flick, set in a western atmosphere. It is poorly made (the low budget stands out at every turn), poorly acted (Anthony Michael Hall is the villain - enough said), and poorly shot (the lighting is atrocious at times). Danny Trejo has experienced some kind of grindhouse-type career revival thanks to Robert Rodriguez, but he's best buried as a minor character in ensemble films, and he does not have the charm or charisma to carry a full-length picture.

The only remotely interesting thing about this film? Rourke plays the devil incarnate. Which, if you've ever seen his 1987 psychological thriller "Angel Heart," is an interesting twist. Unfortunately this film isn't remotely similar to Angel Heart in any other regard, which was one of the best films of the 1980s in this humble critic's opinion; Dead in Tombstone, by contrast, is Dead On Arrival (har, har) and a truly bad film.

Rourke, you only have yourself to blame for this.