The Unholy Trinity

I'm only seeing this movie because it stars two of my favorite actors, Pierce Brosnan and Samuel L. Jackson. Brosnan was great as James Bond, I love his performances in all those movies back in the day. Samuel has made lots of great movies from the early 90's and 2000's. People consider Pulp Fiction to be his best.

But unfortunately in 2025, these actors were given a boring and weak story in this western movie. I honestly couldn't care less about a western, I'm more into modern storylines. The actors were the only reason I decided to see this.

Go ahead and watch it if you want but I certainly don't recommend it. It's not a bad movie but it's not a good one either, it's boring.

Growing up watching reruns of "The Big Valley" and "Gunsmoke" and westerns from the 60's and 70's, this movie had a similar feel. The scenery and sets were well done. Samuel L Jackson and Pierce Brosnan were good in their parts. Samuel L. Jackson was particularly good at playing a self-centered character and playing it in a way that he does very well. The supporting cast was solid albeit they their two-dimensional character development left them with not a lot to work with. The story and character development could have been a bit better. The motivations of certain characters were either never explained or fell short in advancing the overall story.

Overall it was a decent film.

My title speaks for itself , those are some really big names and so I was anxious to see it and they both, Jackson , Brosnan deliver. But the the script is tacky, no, cringe worthy. Predictable and sappy. I thought I was watching a bad soap opera despite all the mayhem, killing and violence. The story at first glance should have had lots of suspense, like you can't look away, I couldn't wait to get away, no suspense here dear reader. The production design was not even at an amateur's level. I do not know what the budget for this film was but somebody somewhere must be feeling some buyer's remorse : I know I am for the time and money . . . I . . . Expended. Steer clear.

I know it is matter of taste, however if be fair this movie does not earn more than 3*

Probably Samuel L Jackson has far more the best performance from the rest of the main characters, however as the story was very badly executed (although the story was not too bad), he could also not able to save the film. I really do not want to be very harsh, therefore I'll not mention about the performance of the rest of the casting crew.

Other problem was that the dialect of English. Of course except Pierce Brosnan, Samuel L. Jackson and Brandon Lessard, dialect was terrible. I had never have a feeling any part of the movie that they shot this film in USA, although knowing that location was at Rocky Mountains, however because of the lack of quality of the costumes and dialect you feel like location was somewhere in Europe or England.

Picture quality was also not good especially there were some shootings where you can see easily the corruption of the color in the sky.

I'm terribly sorry to write this above, however this is as it is from my side. If someone likes this movie, I'm fine with that as said it is matter of taste.

Cheers,

Hope Zurich/Switzerland.

I normally don't watch movies like this, but the opening scene led me to expect more from the narrative. It's an okay story with elements of western movies from days past.

The action was decent, though most of the cast isn't memorable. Maybe I'm alone in feeling this way however many characters lacked development or seemed flat. I personally don't care for the main character, he's too bland for my taste.

Despite the movie's shortcomings I still appreciate an attempt to do something "new". It's a short movie and that's perfectly fine. The fact they didn't pad it into 2hrs or more is great, because brevity works here. This isn't a must see in my book but a fun watch nonetheless. It had a few funny moments.