I am a fan of well done, action packed Westerns but this movie fails to deliver any exciting or believable fight scenes. The gun play sequences are poorly paced and not very believable and the transitions between scenes are awkward. The worst flaw was the lack of continuity between scenes. A young boy is shot in the right leg and we watch as the bullet is removed by a half drunken doctor but in a scene five minutes later, the boy is shown sitting with a bandaged LEFT leg, only to be shown later with an injured right leg again. Overall this was a promising movie that did not live up to my expectations.
71 Reviews
Go ahead and watch it, you know you want to!
texasamericanpatriot22 January 2019
Hickok review
JoeytheBrit3 July 2020
The dubious factual integrity of this tale of Wild Bill Hickok's tenure as the Sheriff of Abilene does nothing to enhance what is a stubbornly ordinary saga, despite the efforts of a decent cast. Liam, the older, arguably least successful, of the Hemsworth brothers works hard in the title role, and receives solid support from Trace Adkins, Bruce Dern and Kris Kristofferson, but the plot never really engages and Timothy Woodward Jr's direction lacks imagination.
Doesn't get any worse than this
chumgriffin7 July 2017
Disappointing is a word I would normally use when discovering a below par movie, but I did not expect much from this movie to begin with so the bar was set quiet low in my expectation. Somehow the director managed to lower that bar considerably. Terrible direction, no style of any kind whatsoever.. terrible sound editing,, a gunshot sounds like someone farted loudly.. awfully clichéd dialogue, wooden acting at its worst, lighting was poor, cinematography was childlike and vacuous,. This was a calamitous endeavour from start to finish. Watch it only to learn how not to make a western.
What a shame.
rareandfirsts8 July 2017
This had so much historical fodder for storytelling and they did this. The writing was terrible, the direction worse, and many of the actors seemed to be just phoning it in fora paycheck.
The most sad thing of this had to be Kris Kristofferson who seemed to be reading from a slow loading dialogue delivery system of some sort. The only actors that did well were those with few paychecks behind them.
Action and SFX were beyond poor and the entire film was a train wreck in that you can't stop watching to see if it can get any worse.
Kris and Bruce? It's time to retire. You had great runs but it has gotten down to the point that peeps might think you just don't give a shot anymore. Loved you both in your earlier stuff.
The most sad thing of this had to be Kris Kristofferson who seemed to be reading from a slow loading dialogue delivery system of some sort. The only actors that did well were those with few paychecks behind them.
Action and SFX were beyond poor and the entire film was a train wreck in that you can't stop watching to see if it can get any worse.
Kris and Bruce? It's time to retire. You had great runs but it has gotten down to the point that peeps might think you just don't give a shot anymore. Loved you both in your earlier stuff.
don't waste your time
sharpwar87 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was just plain bad. Nothing about it was remotely factual to true events of Hickok's life. That might be the only thing true to who he was. He was a notorious liar or blow hard about events in his life, but that is the only thing common to this movie that holds true. The acting is shyte. Not one person who is in this film has a sense of who they are playing, so they just seem lost as to what they are supposed to do. The opening of this movie depicts hickok in his union days having to leave a wounded soldier to die, thus leaving him with remorse........ no accounts of this at all in real life, so why put it in the script. In fact the only two things Hickok ever had remorse for was the very first man he killed, whilst hiding behind curtains. He paid that mans widow 35 dollars, and said he was sorry for doing it. The next was him killing his own deputy who was trying to come to hickoks aide. Nothing in the movie about these things. For heavens sake, they didn't even bother to look the part. Hickok had long curly red hair....... hemsworth short dark brown. I honest don't know why they would have made this movie, my guess is trying to capitalize off the success of films like Unforgiven and Tombstone, sadly they don't come close to either film. Hickok was a real piece of work, but he survived having tremendous luck, (until it ran out) and grit. A good story could have been told about that, and I am sure would have done well.
The most boring Western I've seen in a long time.
admiraljoshhar19 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Minor spoilers may follow. I picked up this movie I'd never heard of at Family Video last night. The cast list drew my attention, as well as the fact that it's a new western in an age with far too few of those. The stars who drew my attention were Luke Hemsworth (the other Hemsworth brother), Trace Adkins, Kris Kristofferson, and Bruce Dern. The latter three interested me the most, as one is a country singer I like and the other two I know as decent western actors. I figured it might actually be a decent western. Well...not so much. I mean, it was shot well and for a low budget direct to DVD movie it sure looks good, but that's about all I can say for it. For a movie about the legendary Wild Bill Hickok it is incredibly boring! The lead actor is alright, and I'm sure could've made a good character in another movie, or even a side character in this movie- but as the lead here he just does not have the charisma needed to pull it off. There are a couple of scenes where he almost does, but unfortunately it doesn't last. Trace Adkins plays the villain of the movie, and if I closed my eyes I would almost think it was Sam Elliot in the part, so that's... something. To his credit, he is perhaps the most convincing actor...but that isn't saying much. Kris Kristofferson plays the Mayor of the town who appoints Hickok as Marshall (unlike the real life Hickok, who was elected) and barely has any scenes. Also, I hate to say it, but you can tell he's barely trying with this movie. Bruce Dern is a little bit better as the town Doctor, but one misses the days when you could love to hate him as a dimwitted villain in Support Your Local Sheriff, or as the cold-hearted villain who (SPOILERS for a movie that's nearly a half century old!) kills John Wayne's character in "The Cowboys." Here he provides a moment of amusement, but that's about it. The movie itself is very by the numbers, and doesn't do anything new as a cowboy movie. In fact, it cannot even really be enjoyed as a tribute to old clichés because several of them are missing. For example, when Hickok enforces the new "No guns in town" law, one would expect to see a montage of him actually enforcing said law, but nope- it skips straight to having a bunch of people in jail with the town mostly quiet, with only a few grumbles from the denizens of the villain's saloon. At this point, I was so bored with the movie that I literally looked up the real life Wild Bill's Wikipedia page and read it while the movie played. And you know what? It was far more interesting than the movie! I learned quite a bit about the legendary gunslinger, including the fact that many of his exploits were wildly exaggerated by him and others, and everyone knew it, but let it go because they were good stories! Also, the movie has several inaccuracies, such as the fact that Abilene was not the first town he was a lawman in, as the movie suggests, but was in fact just one of several. Also, the love interest introduced in the movie, one of the main source of Hickok's rivalry with the villain, evidently does not exist at all, and was created solely for the movie. Which explains why her subplot felt so forced and tacked on- that's exactly what it was! At around the one hour mark I pretty much gave up on the movie and paused it to write this review, and I do plan to finish the last 20+ minutes of the movie, but I can't imagine how it could improve at all at this point. Maybe there'll be a decent final shootout, and maybe they'll even include the interesting bit of history that I learned from the Wikipedia page about the final confrontation Hickok had with the villain of this movie, in which wild Bill accidentally killed a fellow lawman while fighting the saloon owner, an event which cost him his position in the town and which evidently haunted him the rest of his life, but I don't see how they could do that Justice in the short time remaining. As it stands right now, this is the most boring Western I've ever seen (not counting old-school black and white westerns, which ranged from masterpieces to snore fests) and I give it 2/10 stars. It would have gotten one, but like I said, the movie actually looks really good for a direct to DVD movie. Heck, I'd have tossed in another star for some halfway decent music, but the score is extremely bland and unremarkable. Worst $3 I ever spent. OK, that's probably an exaggeration, but still- it's pretty bad.
Beyond awfulness
boggie47589 July 2017
Where to begin. This movie was beyond awfulness. It is as if some guys had way too many beers and in a stupor wrote out the script on a dirty napkin. The acting was deplorable. It was as if they were reading cue cards that were to far to read. The acting was wooden and in slow motion. They had a excellent opportunity to make a half decent western with Kris and Trace in the mix. Even Bruce could have done much better even though he is as old as dirt and really needs to stop acting. I think he was thrown in the mix to make a interesting cast that fell flat. Who in their right mind would cast Hemsworth to play Hickok anyway. This man can't act out of a wet paper bag guys. The script was awful and the direction was just down right bad and the acting was on a whole level of terrible. It was just like someone else said, it was like watching a train wreck, you couldn't stop watching it because you was hoping it would get better but never did. This was a 101 lesson on how not to make a western or any other kind of movie. This really was a very bad movie. I was wishing for more because I really love westerns but man oh man this thing stunk.
Establishing Law and Order in Abilene
Uriah4323 September 2018
After getting into one scrape with the law after the next, "Wild Bill Hickok" (Luke Hemsworth) rides into Abilene, Kansas and heads directly to the saloon for a drink. While there he saves a young man from getting shot while in a poker game which happens to catch the eye of the local mayor "George Knox" (Kris Kristofferson) who subsequently offers him a job as the town sheriff. Although the town of Abilene is known for its lawlessness this doesn't faze him and so he accepts the job with the intention of establishing law and order one way or the other. Unfortunately, this doesn't please everyone-especially the richest and most influential resident named "Phil Poe" (Trace Adkins) who owns the biggest saloon and has benefited tremendously from the status quo. Likewise, the fact that his fiancé named "Mattie" (Cameron Richardson) seems to have kept a secret from him concerning her relationship with Hickok doesn't please him either. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this turned out to be an enjoyable Western movie with decent performances all around. Admittedly, the pony tail sported by Trace Adkins struck me as rather odd for this particular era but other than that it turned out to be a good, solid film and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.
Amateurish
andyreading66616 July 2017
I was looking forward to seeing this and well well well, what a huge let down.
I really do not understand why the movie makers decided that this should see the light of day. It was bloody awful.
The story line was so bad, the scenes unrealistic and worst of all.....the acting. The acting is so wooden, there is no emotion from any of the cast.
One of the worst westerns i have ever seen
I really do not understand why the movie makers decided that this should see the light of day. It was bloody awful.
The story line was so bad, the scenes unrealistic and worst of all.....the acting. The acting is so wooden, there is no emotion from any of the cast.
One of the worst westerns i have ever seen
Surprising 👍🤙😍
jett_julie31 May 2019
Town-bound modern Western delivers the goods for Grade B fare
Wuchakk25 December 2017
RELEASED IN 2017 and directed by Timothy Woodward Jr., "Hickok" stars Luke Hemsworth as the titular lawman and gunslinger, nicknamed Wild Bill, who is commissioned as Marshal to tame the wildest cow-town in the Old West, Abilene, Kansas. Kris Kristofferson plays the noble mayor and Bruce Dern the town doctor while Trace Adkins is on hand as the nefarious mogul of the town. Cameron Richardson plays the woman they vie for whereas Kaiwi Lyman appears as Hickok's gunfighter rival.
Except for the opening sequences, this is a town-bound Western similar in theme to those Wyatt Earp Westerns where Earp has to clean up a town (Dodge City, Tombstone, whatever). Since practically the entire story takes place in town it's irrelevant that California substitutes for Kansas. It's great to see old Western stars Kristofferson and Dern in fairly significant peripheral roles. Luke is stalwart as the protagonist and the movie really drives home the bold resolve it would take to tame a wild cow-town. Meanwhile the hulking Adkins is formidable as the heavy.
While this is a relatively low-budget adult Western (with a little bit of cussing, nudity, covert sex) and there are obvious mistakes here and there (e.g. the kid's bandage appearing on the wrong leg), not to mention the cast probably learned their lines the night before, as well as the predictableness concerning Mattie's kid, the script and main cast keep things compelling. There are several highlights and a few spectacular shots, like the train bridge in the opening act and, later, the moonlit sky.
In short, the movie's entertaining for a low budget Western that doesn't overstay its welcome. Western fans who don't demand Grade A quality should eat this up. Keep in mind that not every Western can have the mega-funds of blockbusters like "Dances With Wolves" and "Unforgiven." Just don't look to "Hickok" for accurate history. Nevertheless, I'd watch "Hickok" over the comparatively dull "Wild Bill" (1995) any day.
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour 28 minutes and was shot in Agoura (Paramount Ranch) & Santa Clarita, California. WRITER: Michael Lanahan.
GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)
Except for the opening sequences, this is a town-bound Western similar in theme to those Wyatt Earp Westerns where Earp has to clean up a town (Dodge City, Tombstone, whatever). Since practically the entire story takes place in town it's irrelevant that California substitutes for Kansas. It's great to see old Western stars Kristofferson and Dern in fairly significant peripheral roles. Luke is stalwart as the protagonist and the movie really drives home the bold resolve it would take to tame a wild cow-town. Meanwhile the hulking Adkins is formidable as the heavy.
While this is a relatively low-budget adult Western (with a little bit of cussing, nudity, covert sex) and there are obvious mistakes here and there (e.g. the kid's bandage appearing on the wrong leg), not to mention the cast probably learned their lines the night before, as well as the predictableness concerning Mattie's kid, the script and main cast keep things compelling. There are several highlights and a few spectacular shots, like the train bridge in the opening act and, later, the moonlit sky.
In short, the movie's entertaining for a low budget Western that doesn't overstay its welcome. Western fans who don't demand Grade A quality should eat this up. Keep in mind that not every Western can have the mega-funds of blockbusters like "Dances With Wolves" and "Unforgiven." Just don't look to "Hickok" for accurate history. Nevertheless, I'd watch "Hickok" over the comparatively dull "Wild Bill" (1995) any day.
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour 28 minutes and was shot in Agoura (Paramount Ranch) & Santa Clarita, California. WRITER: Michael Lanahan.
GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)
Wild Bill's early years
bkoganbing29 August 2017
The best film I've seen done on Wild Bill Hickok is White Buffalo where Charles Bronson played the legendary frontier marshal. It was set at a different time and place during his life. This film Hickok is set at the beginning showing some of his Civil War service and the beginning of his time as marshal of Abilene.
Unlike Wyatt Earp who rarely used his weapon and before the OK Corral business had only killed one man, Hickok was as fast as rumored and had a few kills listed to him. That's what is shown here. Luke Hemsworth who plays Hickok also carries a shotgun as most peace officers did. What counted was to make sure hit your target. He has quite the standoff with John Wesley Hardin who in real life never made it as far north as Kansas. He certainly wasn't Hickok's deputy. Hardin is played here by Kaiwi Lyman-Mesereau.
The film moves at a tortoise pace attributable to some bad direction and the characters never engage you the way the cast in the Bronson film did. Having such veterans as Kris Kristofferson and Bruce Dern help a bit. But this is not the final cinematic word on Wild Bill Hickok.
Unlike Wyatt Earp who rarely used his weapon and before the OK Corral business had only killed one man, Hickok was as fast as rumored and had a few kills listed to him. That's what is shown here. Luke Hemsworth who plays Hickok also carries a shotgun as most peace officers did. What counted was to make sure hit your target. He has quite the standoff with John Wesley Hardin who in real life never made it as far north as Kansas. He certainly wasn't Hickok's deputy. Hardin is played here by Kaiwi Lyman-Mesereau.
The film moves at a tortoise pace attributable to some bad direction and the characters never engage you the way the cast in the Bronson film did. Having such veterans as Kris Kristofferson and Bruce Dern help a bit. But this is not the final cinematic word on Wild Bill Hickok.
Ruined
pxaulm22 July 2017
No attempt at all to bring Wild Bill back to life as seen in Deadwood and other great Hickok recreations will give young generations a completely false view, i hate this kind of dead sterile film making. From the acting to the sets nothing inspired. Was really looking forward to this but i am sure the legend of Wild Bill Hickok will survive this.
One of the worse Westerns you will see
tpasa-13 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Sometimes you take a chance on a movie you never heard of and you find a little gem. Other times, you end up wasting an hour and half of your life like you do when you watch this movie.
It's rare that I watch a movie where the writing and direction is so bad that I actually looked up who the writer (Michael Lanahan) and director (Timothy Woodward Jr.) were for no other reason than to make sure I never watch anything from either of them again. It's almost like the director read the script, knew it was going to suck, then decided to see if he could one up the script by directing a jumpy movie with no flow.
The writing was so bad that you could almost feel the actors not wanting to say the lines. some of the scenes were so stupid you had to actually laugh, like when the bad guys shoot up Wild Bill's house, throw a stick of dynamite in there, then when the dynamite gets thrown out by Bill, one of them goes, "We must've got him!" Sure buddy, most dead guys throw dynamite back.
Then there was the rip off of Gladiator where Trace Adkins' character brings his fiance and son in for a little questioning before eventually smacking them both. The makeup person, who may have also been the director based off the ridiculous "black eye" they put on Cameron Richardson after getting smacked, seemed to want to one up the other ridiculousness by putting on a "black eye" that basically made it look like she got hit by a 2x4 across the side of her face.
And who did the casting? Luke Hemsworth looks nothing like Wild Bill Hickok and I'm telling you, he's definitely the worse acting Hemsworth and that's saying something. Kris Kristofferson has a look on face in every scene like he knows he's just phoning this gig in and Trace Adkins just is not a very believable bad guy. Maybe it's those commercials he does for Wounded Warrior. It's hard to take him as a bad guy and he doesn't have the acting chops to pull it off.
Bruce Dern? His yellow teeth were the best part of his role. He was also involved in one the dumbest scenes of the movie and that's saying something. Hickok tries to distract the kid (who was randomly shot when some guys come into town shooting their guns) by telling him some dumb story while Dern (the doctor) takes the bullet out. It might have made more sense if the doctor actually took the bullet out while the kld was being distracted but no, he waits until the story is over and then the kids screams in agony as the idiot takes out the bullet.
Want to know why the movie gets two stars vs one? There's a nice sunset scene with a train in the beginning that fools the viewer into thinking this movie might be decent, but alas, it's mirage as you soon enough will be inundated with dialog a 10-year old might write for his school play. Oh, and there's a nice side boob scene with Cameron Richardson. That's about it!
It's rare that I watch a movie where the writing and direction is so bad that I actually looked up who the writer (Michael Lanahan) and director (Timothy Woodward Jr.) were for no other reason than to make sure I never watch anything from either of them again. It's almost like the director read the script, knew it was going to suck, then decided to see if he could one up the script by directing a jumpy movie with no flow.
The writing was so bad that you could almost feel the actors not wanting to say the lines. some of the scenes were so stupid you had to actually laugh, like when the bad guys shoot up Wild Bill's house, throw a stick of dynamite in there, then when the dynamite gets thrown out by Bill, one of them goes, "We must've got him!" Sure buddy, most dead guys throw dynamite back.
Then there was the rip off of Gladiator where Trace Adkins' character brings his fiance and son in for a little questioning before eventually smacking them both. The makeup person, who may have also been the director based off the ridiculous "black eye" they put on Cameron Richardson after getting smacked, seemed to want to one up the other ridiculousness by putting on a "black eye" that basically made it look like she got hit by a 2x4 across the side of her face.
And who did the casting? Luke Hemsworth looks nothing like Wild Bill Hickok and I'm telling you, he's definitely the worse acting Hemsworth and that's saying something. Kris Kristofferson has a look on face in every scene like he knows he's just phoning this gig in and Trace Adkins just is not a very believable bad guy. Maybe it's those commercials he does for Wounded Warrior. It's hard to take him as a bad guy and he doesn't have the acting chops to pull it off.
Bruce Dern? His yellow teeth were the best part of his role. He was also involved in one the dumbest scenes of the movie and that's saying something. Hickok tries to distract the kid (who was randomly shot when some guys come into town shooting their guns) by telling him some dumb story while Dern (the doctor) takes the bullet out. It might have made more sense if the doctor actually took the bullet out while the kld was being distracted but no, he waits until the story is over and then the kids screams in agony as the idiot takes out the bullet.
Want to know why the movie gets two stars vs one? There's a nice sunset scene with a train in the beginning that fools the viewer into thinking this movie might be decent, but alas, it's mirage as you soon enough will be inundated with dialog a 10-year old might write for his school play. Oh, and there's a nice side boob scene with Cameron Richardson. That's about it!
A real stinker
survivorcritic18 November 2017
One of the most poorly written and acted westerns ever. You will cringe at just how bad is the acting and direction. The video doesn't feel right, neither does the audio. And the dialogue. Wow. What a piece of garbage. Kris Kristofferson looks like he's almost dead. And delivers his lines like he's already a corpse.
Watchable
rutzelb16 August 2017
Wild Bill Hickok (Luke Helmsworth) comes to Abilene, a western cow town that needs taming and Mayor Knox (Kris Kristofferson) makes him the Marshall.
This is somewhat disappointing because there are good acting scenes and poorly acted scenes. You decide how correct I am. The scenes with Hickok and Dr. O'Rourke ( Bruce Dern) were very good; and also the dialogues between Hickok and Mayor Knox were spot on; and I even liked the banter between Hickok and John Wesley Hardin (Kaiwi Lyman-Mersereau). All the rest of the scenes and dialogues were not as good, but the talks between Hickok and Mattie (Cameron Richardson) his love interest were okay. Trace Atkins is okay as Poe, the owner of the saloon. He originally likes Hickok, but after Hickok affects his business by not allowing guns in town, he does everything to have his boys kill Hickok.
Was I looking for a shoot-out between Hickok and John Wesley Hardin? Of course. Checking with Wikipedia we see that Hickok and John Wesley Hardin did know each other and when Hickok told Hardin to turn in his guns, he did. But in the movie he didn't. In the movie, Hickok made him a Deputy Marshall.
Yes, Hickok does pretend that John Wesley Hardin is not John Wesley Harden for if he was, then Hickok would have to arrest him because Hardin is a wanted man. Interesting take here.
Was this a really good western? No. A lot of stuff needed work, mostly quicker responses from the players at times. Let me say this: if the bad guys were better bad guys, then this may have saved the movie. Didn't happen. For example, the bad guys shoot into a cabin where Hickok and Mattie are and throw a stick of dynamite into the cabin. Hickok tosses it outside, but the bad guys think they killed Hickok and didn't check. See? This was just one small example.
Also I kept hearing that this was Drover town, but I didn't see one cow. A Drover is someone who drives cows to market. We should have seen at least one cow. Bummer.
A sort of interesting aside: I noticed most players wore their guns in not the usual place on their hips.
All in all this was watchable, and yes, somewhat disappointing, too, and we wished it was better. (5/10)
Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: Yes, almost when Hickok and Mattie get together. Language: Small stuff and not much of it.
This is somewhat disappointing because there are good acting scenes and poorly acted scenes. You decide how correct I am. The scenes with Hickok and Dr. O'Rourke ( Bruce Dern) were very good; and also the dialogues between Hickok and Mayor Knox were spot on; and I even liked the banter between Hickok and John Wesley Hardin (Kaiwi Lyman-Mersereau). All the rest of the scenes and dialogues were not as good, but the talks between Hickok and Mattie (Cameron Richardson) his love interest were okay. Trace Atkins is okay as Poe, the owner of the saloon. He originally likes Hickok, but after Hickok affects his business by not allowing guns in town, he does everything to have his boys kill Hickok.
Was I looking for a shoot-out between Hickok and John Wesley Hardin? Of course. Checking with Wikipedia we see that Hickok and John Wesley Hardin did know each other and when Hickok told Hardin to turn in his guns, he did. But in the movie he didn't. In the movie, Hickok made him a Deputy Marshall.
Yes, Hickok does pretend that John Wesley Hardin is not John Wesley Harden for if he was, then Hickok would have to arrest him because Hardin is a wanted man. Interesting take here.
Was this a really good western? No. A lot of stuff needed work, mostly quicker responses from the players at times. Let me say this: if the bad guys were better bad guys, then this may have saved the movie. Didn't happen. For example, the bad guys shoot into a cabin where Hickok and Mattie are and throw a stick of dynamite into the cabin. Hickok tosses it outside, but the bad guys think they killed Hickok and didn't check. See? This was just one small example.
Also I kept hearing that this was Drover town, but I didn't see one cow. A Drover is someone who drives cows to market. We should have seen at least one cow. Bummer.
A sort of interesting aside: I noticed most players wore their guns in not the usual place on their hips.
All in all this was watchable, and yes, somewhat disappointing, too, and we wished it was better. (5/10)
Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: Yes, almost when Hickok and Mattie get together. Language: Small stuff and not much of it.
No Oscars for this Performance
ljsf6418 August 2017
Not only a poorly written plot, but poorly executed by all the actors to boot. Too much suggestion to little action. I'm usually a pretty forgiving guy with a pretty good imagination to cover holes in a plot but this is ridiculous beyond my imagination. I was really looking forward to this movie, little did I know I was heading for the Big Crash of disappointment! I love westerns and I'm sorry to say this should be up for "Worst Film of the Year
Super ever
vlrreddy5 February 2018
An Honest Review
generationofswine19 November 2017
I'm sorry, the movie has talent behind it. It also has talent familiar with westerns.
But the direction stinks and the entire film in hampered by poor production values.
It looks not unlike a movie of the week, if the movie of the week had half the budget of a single episode of a reality TV show.
Here and there you can spot a clever lighting trick, something that adds a little bit of beauty, a little bit of photographic excellence. But those moments are few and far between, and even then you can tell that they were giving all they could with next to nothing.
The sets just looked cheap, especially if you're watching it on a TV with any real resolution.
Even the blood looked cheap and fake.
The best thing this movie could have done was work in the shadows, make it dingy and dark in an effort to hide how cheap it all is.
instead, it went for decent lighting, and unfortunately, that didn't hide as much as it should have.
But the direction stinks and the entire film in hampered by poor production values.
It looks not unlike a movie of the week, if the movie of the week had half the budget of a single episode of a reality TV show.
Here and there you can spot a clever lighting trick, something that adds a little bit of beauty, a little bit of photographic excellence. But those moments are few and far between, and even then you can tell that they were giving all they could with next to nothing.
The sets just looked cheap, especially if you're watching it on a TV with any real resolution.
Even the blood looked cheap and fake.
The best thing this movie could have done was work in the shadows, make it dingy and dark in an effort to hide how cheap it all is.
instead, it went for decent lighting, and unfortunately, that didn't hide as much as it should have.
Slow but okay low budget western
Wizard-823 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
New westerns in this day and age are a rare breed indeed, and many of these new westerns aren't very good at all. So although I am a fan of westerns, I wasn't expecting too much with "Hickok", especially seeing that it bypassed theaters and went straight to DVD. But while I wouldn't say that I was pleasantly surprised by the end results, I did all the same think that it's a decent movie that should please western fans. It is a low budget affair, and sometimes the lack of ample funds does rear its head (particularly during the Civil War battle scene that opens the movie.) But director Timothy Woodward Jr. for the most part manages to squeeze every last penny out the limited budget, and the movie generally looks decent, such as with the professional lighting and photography. The script does play out in a way that won't be surprising at all to anyone like me who has seen their share of westerns. Yet all the same, the story is fairly compelling. The performances are good, and the scenes play out in a way that is convincing enough. It end up being almost comforting to see familiar elements again. The only real stumble the movie makes is during the action sequences; they are somewhat confusing at times, though fortunately there are not many of them. If you like westerns, and don't mind seeing familiar characters and situations for the umpteenth time, chances are you'll find this a competent rehash.
Great movie
michelelewis8831 August 2018
Fun movie. Wouldn't buy a movie ticket but fun.
wikzonenicho13 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I liked how they reused the intro scene to American Outlaws (2001). 100% serious, no shade. I think they did a better job with the classic duel weild on horseback than the Jesse James movie.
One thing that bugged me was how the whole movie seemed to have major scenes cut out of the storyline so it wasn't as good as I believe it could've been.
Dreadful
Canadian_KAOS16 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was absolutely dreadful, horrible script, bad directing and even worse acting.
There have been so many portrayals of Wild Bill Hickok, this one is by far the worst I have ever seen.
The actor who portrayed Wild Bill was a casting error, his portrayal was completely off the mark. He seemed awkward in the role and often seemed like he was reading cue cards, there was zero chemistry between him and his wife, everything just seemed forced.
The only decent character was Kris Kristofferson as mayor, and he was only in it for a few lines.
It could have been so much better, save yourself the 88 minutes and watch something else.
There have been so many portrayals of Wild Bill Hickok, this one is by far the worst I have ever seen.
The actor who portrayed Wild Bill was a casting error, his portrayal was completely off the mark. He seemed awkward in the role and often seemed like he was reading cue cards, there was zero chemistry between him and his wife, everything just seemed forced.
The only decent character was Kris Kristofferson as mayor, and he was only in it for a few lines.
It could have been so much better, save yourself the 88 minutes and watch something else.
Should have been called Hiccup.
daleg-347389 March 2019
The ONLY things decent about this movie were the sets and the acting by the 2 seasoned pros. The dialogue was horrible and sounded like they stole the script from a bunch of other poorly written westerns. Most of the acting was either lackluster or over the top. There were things in certain scenes that were NOT written into the script that made no sense whatsoever.
The dialogue was only made better because of the sound because you couldn't HEAR THEM half of the time. If I turned the sound WAY up to hear the dialogue, then fight/shooting scenes were WAY TOO LOUD. I had to restart the movie and put on the closed captions so I knew what they were saying. The musical score was also plain and boring, a real snooze fest.
I tried watching "The Making of Hickok" but stopped it early because you couldn't hear the comments of most of the actors, and the director...OMG! The director was like listening to crickets chirping. His deadpan and monotone way of talking was EXACTLY like the movie. DULL!
Don't waste your time or money on this one. As someone who has been watching a LOT of westerns from the mid-40's to more recent movies, this was one of the worst I've seen. The real Hickok probably deserved a better representation that this dud.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
