Shadowheart (2009) User Reviews

Shadowheart: a film with many threads that cannot make a pattern

[jeromec-2 · 4/10 · 4 October 2010]

Shadowheart begins with a reference to Matthew 6:14 – 15. These two verses command people to forgive those who trespass against them as God forgives us for ours. We expect the film to connect somehow to this theme.

It never does.

In fact, there are so many murders (I lost track after eight), only a war movie could produce more. Yet of all the pointless mayhem, only one was justified or meaningful. If we were paying attention to the Bible verse at the beginning, no one was forgiven and therefore God should not forgive us.

Big Spoiler

Yet the very last scene shows the dead wife of James Conners, the main character, leading him through the white light to what lies beyond – presumably heaven. We expect to see something about forgiveness and we get pointless retribution.

I did not like this film not because of the violence. I think the Godfather Saga is a timeless masterpiece. I did not like this because it had Christian overtones. I think Fireproof is a good film that addresses the difficulties of modern marriage. Fireproof has many weaknesses, which a viewer has to overlook including what I think is an impossible problem to overcome. Still it's an interesting film. I disliked this film because it was disjointed. I disliked this film because it did not seem to know what it was trying to do nor where it was going.

I would like to say that there was some sort of redeeming feature, but I don't think there was.

I gave it a four because I kept hoping something coherent would happen. There was enough writing to create hope, alas never fulfilled.

good Disney movie

[dward-572-29963 · 4/10 · 3 November 2009]

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.

Not your typical western, but Will Tunney is a fantastic character

[sethrich · 4/10 · 25 August 2009]

Shadowheart is not your typical western and I have mixed feelings about it. If I want a true western I think I'll turn to Eastwood. Allow me to split my thoughts into pros and cons...

There are several things I don't like about Shadowheart. First of all, the movie doesn't exactly reflect the title. I think in the first minute the narration says something along the lines of "I refer to him as Shadowheart" and that's all we hear of that. You can forget about it and might as well make up your own title. I would call it Legend, which is where this takes place, a town in New Mexico set in 1865. Secondly, the beginning of the movie is boring and the child acting is borderline laughable. Obviously not all children are stars, but the acting just isn't good. Thirdly, the very end did not seem necessary. I won't say much so as not to spoil everything, but if it ended showing the yellow ribbon and nothing afterward I would have been happier. That would have been a great way to finish. Watch and you'll know exactly what I mean.

Now on to what I do like about Shadowheart. First of all, poor acting aside, this is a solid story. I enjoyed it despite dealing with the aforementioned cons. James Conners loses his father to murder as a child, he leaves town and returns an adult seeking vengeance. Would I recommend it as a western to see? No. Would I recommend it as a movie to see? Maybe. Secondly, Will Tunney is a fantastic character. He's the slimy guy everyone's afraid to mess with and he ultimately owns the town. Nobody likes him, likely even his own crew. Heck, I wanted him dead the entire movie he was that ruthless.

Dreck

[amills-18 · 2/10 · 26 July 2010]

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.

What happened to the bounty hunter?

[RVBUILDER · 3/10 · 1 January 2010]

Possible spoilers ahead.

Years after James left town he became a bounty hunter with the reputation of bringing his quarry back more dead than alive. He looked and acted like an hombre who could take care of himself and stay alive in his chosen profession.

So what happened to all that experience when he handed over Will Tunney to the ancient sheriff and his slow-witted deputy? Didn't anybody notice Spider and Tunney's two other minions leave town in a hurry? Did they all think Tunney would roll over and let himself be taken? Apparently so, since the whole town just went to a wedding, after which the newly-married couple were sitting out in the open with a flashing neon sign over their heads that said "KILL US".

Geez.

Shadow-Cliché

[fwomp · 2/10 · 31 August 2009]

Being a proud member of Amazon.com's Vine reviewers, I found myself pondering why some movies were available on occasion (usually ones I've never heard of), while others were not. I also consider myself a responsible reviewer; in other words, I'll read, sample, or watch whatever it is I get from Amazon's Vine program, regardless of what it looks like on the outside. Unfortunately, a pattern is emerging for The Vine program films. These are the seldom heard of ones I mentioned earlier. To give you an idea as to what types of films are being offered through The Vine, I'll use this one — SHADOWHEART — as an example.

First, let's take into consideration the fact that the film was produced by first-time film production company Desert Moon Pictures. Okay. So. Big deal. Now let's look at the main actor, Justin Ament. His film repertoire is not exactly stellar. He's had a lot of uncredited work (see "extra"), obviously trying to break into Hollywood's mainstream. He's written two screenplays: this one, and another for THE PATH OF EVIL. The Path of Evil, like Shadowheart, hasn't been lauded as very good cinema. But why? Well, the easy answer is that the films just aren't that well thought-out nor well put together. In Shadowheart, we see cliché after cliché, and old character after old character. It's a recycle mish-mash of seriously poor proportions. Think of just about every Italian western starring Clint Eastwood and you'll have seen every character in this film many times over.

The only exception to the poor characters is Angus Macfadyen (best known for his role as Robert the Bruce in BRAVEHEART) as the wicked — but still cliché stereotype — Will Tunney. He played (perhaps overplayed) the role of the ruthless and amoral killer and made it, at the very least, fun to watch.

Everything else in this story was completely predictable. When I saw the young protagonist with the young girl in the beginning, I knew what would befall them long before it actually happened. And when I saw the sheriff trying to take the dastardly Will Tunney to the next town for imprisonment and possible hanging, I knew they'd never make it there. And this list of obviousness goes on and on and on and on.

So, getting back to my original quandary: why are some films available on The Vine and others aren't. Well, it's becoming painfully obvious now. Those DVDs that can't sell are given away in hopes of finding a sympathetic audience. But I simply cannot sympathize with drivel such as this. I'll write my review and post it for all to condone or trash, but I simply cannot give this film a positive spin when there's simply none to be found.

Talk about predictable!!!

[cckling · 1/10 · 11 February 2010]

This was probably the worst movie I have seen in many years. It went from the youngster starting out on his own and returning after the war to retrieve his past. He saves the Indian couple who later return to save him. He takes on the bully who killed his father. The bully takes everyone's land because the railroad is coming. He marries the heroine, she dies, and he seeks revenge. Guess who comes out on top in the end? What a terrible movie...no wonder it never made the theaters...nobody would pay to see it. (the music was good however). The acting was as predictable as the movie itself...Spider as the wicked henchman who didn't say anything but carried out his orders...Connor who was beaten and shot, yet recovers in a matter of hours (in the same time frame that Mary's brother never knew she had been killed) gets a horse and a gun and rides into town for revenge only to be challenged by the brother to get the marshal. Talk about clichés.

A weak, unsatisfying effort

[adbmd · 1/10 · 28 August 2009]

I hate to write those words, as I can only imagine the work that the entire cast and crew puts into a production like this. However, it fell short -- way short. My 9 year old daughter, her friend, and I all agreed it was a "bad movie -- that was terrible" (their words.) No redemption as promised -- just revenge. Just plain bad acting early on; boring for the first 15 minutes; music intrudes constantly, not helping the dialog; many lines mumbled/unintelligible; continuity gaffes intrude; and so on. I will say the production values were pretty good -- lighting, color, some good shots. LMAO that the character of "spider" is the writer/director -- who, justly, gets it in the end. While the plot is entirely predictable, so what, it's a western. I take exception to the supposedly "Christian" values. Throwing in scriptural quotations, having a pastor as a sympathetic character and vague spiritual references do not count. "Shawshank" is a much more Christian film, IMHO, or any of a huge number of other films that actually engage your mind and faith in challenging ways. Sadly, this film was just plain disappointing. Even at $1 at Redbox.

ugh

[az-128 · 22 August 2009]

The bad guy was too bad, no redeeming qualities. (and the good guy was too good, no redeeming qualities.) When the sheriff didn't just shoot him in jail - when no one with a gun would shoot him, well, there were no characters to root for and we had to turn the thing off! I don't know what else to say about it except we think the other reviewer was being kind. Too bad. We were looking forward to a good western for the family. I have to write three more lines, but I have nothing more to say... The bad guy was too bad, no redeeming qualities. (and the good guy was too good, no redeeming qualities.) When the sheriff didn't just shoot him in jail - when no one with a gun would shoot him, well, there were no characters to root for and we had to turn the thing off! I don't know what else to say about it except we think the other reviewer was being kind. Too bad. We were looking forward to a good western for the family.

A man returns to a small town seeking vengeance and gets it.

[RyanBodieFilms · 7/10 · 17 August 2009]

I liked the movie. I shot a movie at Paramount ranch and I really liked how they used the town. It is not very big and yet they gave it a very large western feel.

Production Design was great.

I thought the acting was great in some parts and just OK in others.

The sound design and score was perfect. Subtle yet a character in itself.

It very much had a faith feel to me. It was like a Christian movie for adults...until then end. It only looses this faith feel as the man carries out his vengeance. In fact, the big title line is: A Man Comes for Revenge....and Finds Redemption. However. he never finds redemption. He comes for Revenge and eventually gets it.

Conclusion: a little long, slow at parts, but overall was a good film.

Couldn't bring myself to care

[marina-31 · 3/10 · 21 September 2009]

The first thing I pay attention to in watching a movie is whether I care about the characters. I couldn't bring myself to care about these people, mostly because the writing and acting was not good enough. The feel of the whole thing was that it was amateurish. The story didn't flow in a way that felt real. Also, I don't like stories where there's not a good resolution or denouement, even if not a happy ending. This didn't leave me with the feeling of satisfaction. The theme seemed to be relentless evil without any real hope of the good guy winning out in the end. Without giving away the end, I'll just say that if it was meant to tie up the plot, it failed to work for me. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone.

A Perfect Pulp Western

[chaoticprime · 8/10 · 27 October 2010]

This movie was, despite the claims of many others, an excellent western. I am not sure how people define how a western should be, but I look back to the horse opera pulp fiction of the former century.

This movie had a hero town between his want for revenge and moral convictions bestowed upon him with his father's dying words and a psychotic villain whose greed motivates him to acts of unspeakable horror.

This film is surely vilified by the double standard held by fans of film today. It is not high-budget enough to be considered as relevant as any film that gets a theatrical release and it is not low-budget enough to get passed off as camp. If this movie were made thirty years ago and starred Clint Eastwood, it would be a classic.

There has not been a villain in a western so good as this films since Gene Hackman in Unforgiven.

This movie is Pulp, it is not drama, neither is it one of the pointless morality lessons written by Cormac McCarthy.

There is a place in the middle between the highly stylized Spaghetti Westerns and the dramatic The Unforgiven. This movie belongs on that line.

The bottom line: If you are a fan of Westerns, particularly in novel format, you will like this film. If you are a fan of films and do not like it when a movie sticks to the formula of its genre, then you should probably look elsewhere.

This movie is not going to change your life; it does however entertain.

Not perfect... but entertaining

[beesley81 · 7/10 · 2 December 2009]

I found this movie to be very entertaining. Those who talk about problems in the set and costume are WAY too picky. First of all, it's an indie, so you can't expect perfection (you find the same mistakes in A-list films). These films have to be judged according to their script and acting. The script could have been better, but it wasn't bad. Anyone who watches westerns regularly knows that a good western typically is still pretty cheesy. What's important is that the storyline didn't go on and on and make me want to stab my eyes (like another indie western "Bounty"). It had the typical western story of a man out for revenge while fighting against becoming the kind of person his enemy is, but they did a good job with the acting. I felt like the inclusion of the Navajo siblings was a bit pointless, but overall I enjoyed the film.

horrible ridiculous movie

[chrislewis · 1/10 · 12 March 2010]

This movie was a terrible waste of time and $1 at Redbox. I have not hated any movie this much in years. I should have recognized this as direct to video, but I didn't because it was on Redbox and I was looking for a movie to watch with family who liked westerns. It makes for a good drinking game. If you drink every time something ridiculous is happening, you will be falling down drunk before its over. Please waste your money or just throw it away. Don't rent this whatever you do. It just gets worse as it goes along. I can't really relate how lame this film is. Movies are just not this bad. I am shocked that this was ever released. Its like a bad car wreck. You can't look away, except in this case you can, and you should. Like another reviewer said. NO REDEEMING QUALITIES.

Too many slips ups in authenticity prevented me from enjoying this movie.

[jorguy · 3/10 · 5 September 2009]

This movie could have been more fun than it was but some of the people in charge of doing it right either didn't care or lacked the knowledge to do it right.

Some of the plot was predictable and seemed amateurish. The plot lacked realism and it didn't have to do so. For example, at one point our star is seriously wounded, but recovers with amazing speed as does his brother-in-law who experiences a painful injury. Within a day or two both are up and moving around like there was nothing wrong them. The director could have shown these guys slowly recovering and show some pain from their wounds once they do get back into action. Come on. That would have been easy!

The film lacked period authenticity. There is an outdoor evening wedding dance that is illuminated by what appear to be round "Chinese lanterns." Inside can be seen light bulbs. This is suppose to be 1865 and post Civil War. The light bulb hadn't been invented yet! Who was your technical adviser on this show?

A period of time elapses from the opening scene to the later ones and yet some of the characters never aged. The sheriff looked older in the beginning of the movie than he did at the end. In the opening scene two women are seen walking down the street with dome like parasols over their heads. Amazingly these women show up walking down the street years later with the same parasols.

There was no need to make out two surveyors to be bumbling eastern hicks. They could certainly still show fear at having been threatened but surveyors in the west would not have looked, acted and been dressed like that. The costumer, Jenevieve Busseau, and Wardrobe supervisor, Fanny Mac, get low marks for authenticity in this movie.

During the early Civil War battle scenes we see Union infantrymen with bright white canteen straps. These appear to have been newly issued from the prop department. Canteen straps got dirty pretty quick during the war and the prop guys should have dirtied them up so they could hardly be seen.

In the battle scene we see the bright yellow stripe of a cavalry sergeant as he bayonets a Confederate soldier. Possible, but more believable would have been to see another Infantryman doing it. Cavalrymen didn't tend to carry rifles that had bayonets unless they were mounted Infantry and then they wouldn't be showing that yellow stripe.

Questionable authenticity is also true in the scene where a few Navajo Indians are being herded of by some Union troops and being taken to a reservation. In addition in that scene, neither the commanding officer or his subordinate officer wore shoulder straps or any kind of insignia. After the Civil War the volunteers were back in their home states. The Regular Army was back in charge and uniform regulations would have been more adhered to. It is doubtful that two officers would have been dressed like these two were in the herding scene. The subordinate's double breasted coat indicates his rank as being that of a major or higher. That means that you had a major and his superior officer, who had to be at least a colonel, leading a small band of less than a dozen Indians to a reservation. Nope. Wouldn't have happened.

In another scene, the first prisoner that our star brings in to justice doesn't have a hat. Why not? It was hot. Everyone wore and kept a hat. The prisoners face was well tanned though, as if during the day he didn't wear a hat. Maybe he was a 2009 tanned movie star and not an 1860's desperado! Take a look at today's cowboys and farmers. The tops of their foreheads are white from being shaded from the sun by their hats. Put a hat on the bad guy!

There were more but that's enough. In summary, while some scenes were well done and the actors were appropriately dressed, there were too many slip ups to let us just sit back and enjoy the movie. Let's hope the next attempt at a western or a Civil War period movie hires technical experts that will be listened to and will thus help make the film more believable.

Is this an "after school special" or what?

[Kelewyn · 1/10 · 14 August 2010]

Recently became more "aware" of western shows and movies, when I first started watching this movie I thought of an after school special.

This movie isn't even close to being realistic, not to the times nor to the demeanor of the era.

This movie had a lot of potential, but failed at every turn. I would not recommend this movie to an enemy.

The acting is horrid, the scenes not thought out. I just wasted nearly 2 hours of my time on this, but yes I had to give it a full chance.

The brother really bothered me with his "do the right thing" attitude which I don't think would even happen in those days, much less now.

I don't think this movie should have been made, the screenplay should have been burned.

I'm sorry to be so harsh but this movie is total rubbish and I'm actually ticked off about my wasted time.

A Christian western that extols violence and revenge

[adamgascho · 2/10 · 10 August 2009]

This is a poorly made and unintelligently written film. It has unbelievably atrocious production values considering that it had a 10 million budget. The pacing is slow and overall the film is devoid of anything that resembles entertainment or artistic merit. What is most disconcerting are the ideologies that the film promotes. A man seeks revenge for his wife's murder and kills people that stand in his way. He says that he doesn't believe in religion, but when he dies he goes to heaven anyway. For a film intended for Christian audiences this is a pretty controversial message. It even briefly equates the Navajo beliefs to Christianity. All that is fine, but this film is far from liberal. Consider these elements: When the Navajo's are given bibles, the bibles seem to have a magical power that entrances them. Legend is an whites only town that is portrayed as the ideal place to live. Fighting for slavery is okay if you don't own slaves. I think that this confusing film was written Sarah Palin. I would avoid this movie at all costs.

What a piece of junk!

[charles-copeland · 2/10 · 9 August 2009]

I really think me and my kid could have come up with a better screenplay. This totally predictable movie was one stereotype after another. Bad guys were tired old clichés and the hero was a total ZERO. What a loser. By the end of the movie I was hoping he would lose out to the bad guys! How do movies like this get into circulation? This movie showed me no creativity at all. Even the cinematography was bad-I found myself critiquing shot angles and I never have done that before. The dialog was clipped and poorly delivered, the character development was awful, the screenplay showed no imagination at all. Don't waste your time with this movie, read a cereal box instead, you'll get more out of it!

I don't know what this guy is thinking

[dsadler40 · 24 August 2009]

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.

It is just not good

[john-2660 · 2/10 · 10 February 2011]

I rarely bother to comment on bad movies there are so many, watching this on a snow day on Showtime I really had to wonder why this got made at all. To the people who did it, let me offer a few suggestions should they choose to try again. First buy a script from a good writer, he may even do it for free if just starting out. Without a good script nothing good can happen. Next do not cast yourself, if you are an actor others will hire you, don't waste a chance to make a good project out of vanity. The director is the key person, you must have a real one. If you can not get one with a good track record of success, then review student film projects for a new director with several great student films, you are looking for a visual story teller. His stuff will stand out, they do not grow on trees.

Having the obvious large amount of money it took to make this film it is tragic that so many young film makers struggle to find small amounts to film with, they are out there, please do not waste such resources again.

Quite an average Western but with some exciting gunplay.

[RatedVforVinny · 6/10 · 9 December 2019]

A modern revenge western, that would have been a far better prospect with a tighter script and less overplaying of the parts (especially the cartoon looking baddie). Some exciting action, so on the whole not a complete disaster.

Well made movie with stupid story and impossible plot

[ullern · 2/10 · 26 February 2011]

Well made movie with stupid story and impossible plot. Too bad movie-making skills were wasted on this. The holes in the plot are baaad. But in order to make the movie last almost two hours, all the logical chances to kill the killer bad guy must be ignored. It's a phenomenon to make a movie about such a contrived, nothing story.

Unbelievable actors - though some of them quite good - with bad make-up to make them look tough. Why this story should interest anyone is beyond me. The villain is so villainous his mere presence supposedly make people obey him. The sheriff doesn't even try to flee when he's attacked. No one uses any opportunity to fight back. Except at the very end - and then the hero has to be fatally wounded to get his mojo up, the wimp (sorry, for the plot-spoiler, but there's not much plot to spoil).

Not sure what the morals here are supposed to be, in spite of the ref.s to the "King James bible". (Protagonist is called James - supposedly very meaningful - but meaning what? - Not much). Maybe it's: "Turn the other cheek until you're mortally wounded."

Awful. 2 stars only because there might be even worse movies out there. The mind hurts at the thought.

great movie!

[reitejl · 10/10 · 30 August 2009]

My husband and I thought this was a great movie! I liked it because, although it was somewhat a typical western story line (and if you don't like that kind of a movie, then don't watch it)it was different in the fact the good guy does die in the end. But what really makes this a good movie is there is no sex scenes, I don't recall any bad language and it's not all shoot'em up. Sometimes Hollywood goes so needlessly overboard in those three areas. It also didn't have that dark dreary drab look that so many new movies have. As far as a Christian movie? Just because a movie has a Minister in it, a few bible verses sighted, and a redemption them, doesn't make it a Christian film. Take the story for what it is, It's just a movie. However, I would recommend it to my Christian friends. I did not think the movie was in any way slow or boring. maybe you all have been brain washed by the Hollywood mentality of what a good flick is.

No chance of an Oscar

[glengolf · 5/10 · 30 March 2020]

..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.

Good overall scheme but so lousy

[searchanddestroy-1 · 27 March 2023]

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.