Shiloh Falls (2007) User Reviews

Pretty bad

[artzau · 2/10 · 11 January 2008]

Where do they get the money to make films like this? I mean, there's nothing redeeming about this film. None of the actors are known, the writing is terrible, the photography is blurry, the story wanders between being a bad version of Repo Man and a nicklodeon western and the acting is unbelievable. For someone who watches all kinds of film, good and bad, I must admit that this film is about the worst I've seen since Attack of the Eye People back in the 50's. I don't really like to trash the effort of people trying to create some entertainment or, heaven forbid, art but this film would seem to appeal to no one. The story bends on a mystical contamination of a person who's a bad version of the Celtic Soul eater, although he functions more like a male succubus without the sexual overtones. The bad guys have to team up with the good guys in a town where they are unable to escape from. Take it from there as that, alas, is the best part. My advice is that unless you are into bad mythology, amateurish writing, unconvincing acting and tedious settings, you will best be served by leaving this one on the shelf when you're out renting videos.

To paraphrase Monty Python ... Must not be Scottish ...

[csfconsulting · 1/10 · 3 February 2008]

....CAUSE IT'S CRAP! The kind of movie that makes you want to go and smack the movie maker and say "WHY?". Horrible camera work...count the times the camera tries to remain steady on one person and can't. The dialog is ridiculous. The acting is comical. It looks like they took over a ghost town in the west to see if they could make a movie on the least amount of money possible. I'd bet $10 they used home video cameras to make this. Either that, or most of the cameramen were drunk. Truly the trailers are more entertaining than the movie. If you ever want to host a "Worst Movie Party", bring this one. Want more entertainment...stare at a wall.

My husband apologized to me for renting this

[shoesbetch · 1/10 · 2 March 2008]

I just got through watching this DVD at home. We love Westerns, so my husband rented it. He started apologizing to me half way through. The saddles, costumes, accents--everything was off. The part that made me so mad is where the guy didn't shoot the "collector" with his bow and arrow as he was taking the fat guy's soul. His only excuse was "he only had 2 arrows left." We watched it all the way through, and, as someone else said...too many bad things to single out any one reason why it sucked. I mean, the fact that the boy happened to snatch the evil stone from the collector on the same month and day it was found, what's the point of that? And why were there a grave yard where everyone died on April 25 but the people whose souls were taken by the collector were still up walking around? If you want a movie to make fun of after a few beers, this may be your movie. However, if you want a real Western, you will hate this movie.

Absolutely terrible.

[Lorenzo_Cruz1 · 1/10 · 10 February 2008]

I love Westerns. I could watch them all day. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is my all time favorite. I watched "Silverado" for probably the 8th time just the other day because it was being featured on CMT. However, this movie, Shiloh Falls is without a doubt the worst Western I have ever watched. The acting was terrible all around. They explain nothing at the end of the mysterious compass looking thing. The only good part I can think of is the good-looking cantina girl. The very noticeable long pauses between the dialog seemed intentional just to make up time to make the movie of acceptable length. This movie wasn't even worth the new rental fee I paid at our local movie rental store. I felt like I was robbed and deserving of a rental refund if there was such a thing. Only reason I finished it was because I hate to not see a movie through to the end. I turned it off half way through because it was so bad. To the director, please do a better job if you decide to make another. This is the kind of movie that has the potential to turn people off to Westerns.

very poor

[thinker-6 · 1/10 · 9 June 2008]

There is a scene near the beginning after a shootout where horses are running. If something red catches your eye it is because a white van is parked behind a bush by the trail. I thought I had seen bad but this is it. A white van in a western. Did they not catch this? Oh well, and I paid top dollar at the rental. It will make you want to grab your buddies and have them all put in 10 grand and make a better movie. The talking was so so slow, the acting was mostly OK but couldn't be taken seriously due to the poor nature of the filming. There is a door at the sheriffs that looks like a door today with the particular trimming. I say watch this movie, and move Cabin boy into #2 on the worst of all time.

Worst example of film-making

[juawand · 1/10 · 18 September 2008]

I still find it difficult to comprehend that a movie as bad as this could be made in Hollywood. The acting and story is simply pathetic & the direction is awful. I don't see any logic behind this trash except may be that the director had nothing good to do. I took me ten minutes to realize that i had wasted my precious thirty rupees. It filled me with dismay that i was going to waste some more time of my life on this crap. I bet the movie was made in less than a day. I don't know what category it falls into. Please, avoid this movie at all costs, just do anything, even bang your head against walls but don't go for this movie.

"We've been stuck here for a while now".

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 27 March 2011]

Well now, the reviewers on this board have not been kind to "Shiloh Falls". Some go so far as to call it the worst Western ever made, even the worst movie ever made. I can think of a few I've seen that were more dismal, "Cry Blood Apache" and "Deadwood '76" are a couple that immediately come to mind. Maybe by stating that I like the concept of a mystical Western I can bring a little balance to the argument. This one is told through the eyes of narrator and young deputy Sam (Jack Littman), on a mission with his Ranger father (Greg Littman) to bring in a trio of outlaws who have escaped from the Austin State Pen. What one might have considered instead of being so hard on the picture is the underlying theme of Sam's aspiration to become an artist instead of a lawman, drawing things that give him hope as he rides the countryside battling his fear of facing down bad guys.

Perhaps the film makers could have done a better job of exploring the Soul Collector's origin instead of just plopping him into the story to do his dirty work. Then positioning him with some Achilles heel would have given the Ranger and his outlaw allies a way to take him out. The bow and arrow remedy was effective for the Collector's previous victims, but Dalton (Brad Greenquist) choked at the final confrontation, so we never got to see that angle play out. Still, it did seem just a bit too easy for Sam to defeat the Collector by snatching the little doo-dad off his chest.

Maybe a better Western one might catch with this kind of mystical flavor is 1999's "Purgatory" with a stronger name cast and utilizing character names based on historical figures of the Old West. It has your standard blazing shootout at the finale, with a redemption for the picture's heroes who stayed true to their convictions even if it meant eternity in hell.

Crap with a capital C

[imperialdebubba-1 · 1/10 · 25 January 2008]

This movie was a stupid piece of crap. Bad everything. Why is it that we who love western movies get jilted nine out of ten times when renting westerns. It seems that if you don't see names like Robert Duval, Kevin Kostner, or Tom Selleck attached to the cover, it isn't worth messing with. For the most part the main action of Shiloh Falls was taking place in 1892, yet the revolvers used were 1860s models. Even the shooting was bad - in one scene the Marshal fanned his six-shooter about nine times and couldn't hit any of three large men who were only about twenty feet away. I had to turn it off after about 15 minutes of this inanity. Perhaps those who participated in this movie could have taken some lessons at the Sunset Carson School of Acting.

Okay Low-Budget Horror Western

[FightingWesterner · 6/10 · 18 November 2010]

In 1892, escaped outlaws are pursued by a stern lawman and his wet-behind-the-ears son/deputy into a weird ghost town, inhabited by zombie-like citizens and controlled by a soul-sucking supernatural entity.

The acting and direction are adequate, with a lot of creepy atmosphere. However, it's all a bit too talky and could have benefited from a little more suspense. Also, the climax should have been more harrowing than it turned out to be.

Still, it's not boring and better than I thought (and others would have you believe) it would be, definitely not the worst horror western ever made. I've seen a lot worse.

Close-ups!!!!!!!

[tbssic · 1/10 · 12 April 2011]

I love cowboy movies. From Gene Autry to Clint Eastwood. I'll even watch bad cowboy movies, but this has to be the worst cowboy movie ever made. Maybe even the worst movie ever made. I'm not sure what it's really about because I got sea sick after the first 15 minutes. The action is a bit hard to follow when you have one, 2 second long shot of a group of 6 men; 3 on each team, then, when they get into their verbal assaults, it's nothing but a series of 87 (very tight) close-ups, it's a bit difficult to tell who is on which team.

I'm no camera expert but from what I can see, one actor came to the set, stood under a tree and went through every line in his script (in close-up)and then they repeated this procedure with the other actors. Then they cut and spliced until it resembled a moving picture. I would think that if the weather Gods were with them, this movie could have been shot in one day. The editing may have take 2 or 3 years.

I realize and appreciate that close-ups are necessary and do enhance the final product but but after 632, 2 second close-ups in the first 15 minutes,,, pass me the bucket..... Had there been a warning at the beginning that Dramamine was required, I may have been able to do 30 minutes. But being a cowboy at heart and not an old sea salt, motion sickness is something I am unable to deal with. But hey,,,, if you've got a strong stomach, loads of Dramamine, been around the Horn a few times and sailed the Seven Seas,,,,, go for it.....

I must admit that this movie does have one redeeming quality, it serves as a "How To Not" make a movie. And I know for a fact there are lots better ways to waste money..

Plot: Interesting. Acting: Fine. Production: Amateurish

[M&J · 7/10 · 22 January 2011]

I stumbled upon this film early one Saturday morning. Maybe I was feeling especially receptive that day, but I instantly wanted to find out what was going on. The plot is interesting and the various story arcs make you want to care about the characters--something a lot of big-budget films lack. Unfortunately, the budget and production value prevented me from becoming fully absorbed in the film. The quality of the video is really great--for a home movie. For a professional film, this is worse than most mediocre made-for-Syfy creature flick. Cars in the background, doors from modern times. Corrugated metal roofs on buildings. Graves with names drawn on them with sharpies. If this film had a proper budget, it might of done well. I guess it says something that the plot and acting kept me wanting to watch even though the budget short-falls. It's akin to building a mobile home on top of a foundation for a mansion. Really nice foundation--but you only had enough money left to truck in a used mobile home and park it on top. I gave this one a 7 out of 10.