Shadowheart

The overall topic and also the ending are excellent, but it is unfortunately spoiled by an awful directing and acting. Cast is so bad and the script doesn't bring much to enhance the bad actors performances, not convincing at all. It is a shame because this western had everything to be far far better than this stuff. I watched it dubbed in French and that doesn't help either. Supporting character could have brought something unusual, some subplots if you prefer, but again, the bad directing and cast smash the whole efforts. I caught this western from Amazon Prime; from time to time, you can get good material. Only a matter of luck.

The movie was great. The first comment was absolute trash and he needs to just enjoy movies for movies, and not "critique shots" and think that him and his child could write a better plot. It isn't always about the technical aspects. You are just looking for something to be wrong with every movie and can't enjoy a fictional tale. It's like getting upset with the Matrix because there's no way you could do any of that. So I guess what you are saying is that Tombstone sucked too eh? (No I bet you liked that one even though the good guys had a fraction of a chance. But I guess that's OK since it's Kilmer and Russell, right?) It is essentially the same story, which most westerns are. Good guy comes in to clean up town controlled by bad guys. Just GAD and learn to enjoy the stories for once.

As I watched this terrible film, I was reminded of a bad High School drama project. The characters are one dimensional, the story line is something that any HS kid could come up with, very formulaic.

The score leaves nothing to the imagination. You have the soaring violins and happy sounds when we meet the dad and are expected to learn what a good man he is, as an example.

Bad guy goes from having rotten teeth in the beginning of the movie, and 15 years later has a set of pearly whites. I guess they invented cosmetic dentistry in the interim.

And even small things, like the guns are from the early 1800s, but are supposed to be late 1800s models.

Looking at the film, you realize there was some budget here, as the cinematography is fine, but the rest of the film is just dreck.

..But a way of passing an hour and a half during Lockdown time. Angus McFadden makes the effort to turn the film into something it could never be without him. Respectable. His portrayal of Will Tunney for some peculiar reason reminds me of the cocky, arrogant Dean Morris's Hank Shrader. I kid you not. Watch it and see.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Justin Ament...you are not leading man material, or a producer. PLEASE, PLEASE...stop making movies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I believe you have let your ego overwhelm you good judgment. You area supporting actor at best. Clichéd, predictable and formulaic! "Not that there is anything wrong with that!" There are reasons movies are released to video, not the theaters, that go beyond being an independent production. Under the above stated circumstances, Angus MacFadyen did some exceptional work, set in an environment of simplistic or unenlightened sets, dialogue, camera angles, lighting; etc., etc., etc. Or maybe I was just in a bitchy viewing mood.