Westender (2003) User Reviews

Good effort

[sinyra · 4/10 · 15 July 2006]

This movie becomes better upon learning that it is a student film. However, it lacks a well developed plot. The film gives good set up originally but fails to follow through on important details like why his lost love was burned, where the random characters he meets go, what the dog represents and what a "westender" even is. I rated this film a 4 because where it lacks in plot it has very good camera angles and scenery choice. With a better script it could have been vastly improved.

To those who think that this film requires thinking unlike the spoon fed Hollywood formula, there is something to be said about plot development.

Crummy

[TensersFloatingDisk · 3/10 · 14 January 2007]

This movie actually deserves a '2.' I give it one half-point bonus for being a low-budget production (they tried) and another half-point bonus for clever packaging mentioning their independent film-festival awards, rather than anything about the actual movie inside.

This is quite clever of them, for you see there ain't much movie there. Westender is an off riff on the medieval/fantasy genre: it's the middle part of a trilogy which doesn't exist. Our protagonist, a Doughty Knight (tm) is wandering the countryside. As he goes from minor scrape to minor scrape, he gets visions of some mysterious past 'failing' so we can piece together that he USED to be some big hotshot in the army, but quit when his sweetie was torched as a witch or some similar thing. By film's end, he has decided to recommit to his knighthood, and take the army back to victory.

But that's it. We never really see the initial problems which led to his downfall. We never see what happens once he takes the reigns of the army again. All we see is this kind of lumpy-faced guy lurching drunkenly around the forest, occasionally in grave-robbed armor, weeping about what a failure he is. Sometimes these lurching scenes take place on sand dunes. Sometimes in waterfalls. Sometimes they last for up to fifteen minutes, with no dialog whatsoever.

Verdict: boring. I am all for psychological exploration, but to indulge in it I have to GIVE A DAMN about the character. I don't, in this case. Oh, and special anti-kudos to the hapless dweeb who plays our hero's sometimes traveling companion and minstrel: poor delivery doesn't magically improve when it's delivered in a louder whine.

Grade: D/D-

err, it was better than Dragon. :D

[Vevy · 3/10 · 12 March 2007]

I watched this last night with my family. While I appreciated the fact that most of the acting was pretty good, the setting was beautiful and the cinematography was nice, I did not enjoy watching a movie with half of the movie being a silent film watching a down-n-out knight wander about the desert. A lot of the scenes could have been considerably shorter, and on one of the sideways shots, when they rotated it up to right-side-up, they didn't get it all the way. :D It needed a prequel and a sequel to really explain the storyline, the story just was really lacking.

I liked Glim, but the kind of cut him out in the middle of the movie with no real explanation.

This movie was not up to par, get a new screenwriter, and it would be considerable better.

The swordplay choreography, costumes, and weapons I thought were very good, except for the fact that all the girls were practically losing their shirts. :D

Quite an achievement for much less than a big-league budget.

[gregcouture · 12 March 2004]

Filmed entirely in Oregon, on some amazingly atmospheric locations, this film was reportedly made on a budget that probably wouldn't provide the perks for one of today's overpaid Hollywood super-stars.

Its evocation of a medieval world has quite a bit more flavor than many of the big studio efforts of, say, fifty years ago, and its flaws are not terribly distracting or disappointing.

It is true that the editing could be considerably tightened and that some plot points are not elucidated too well, especially since flashbacks are used, though not to any true advancement of the linear storyline.

Blake Stadel, as the questing knight of the title, while not a very expressive actor, nevertheless contributes a stalwart presence (and makes the abuse he suffers look convincingly real, by the way).

The cinematography is the real star of this show and the music score is blessedly free of the droning and the bombast that afflicts too many big budget films these days.

All in all a very worthy effort and one that certainly makes a viewer look forward to future efforts from its makers.

Would have been better as a postcard

[sasseriansection · 2/10 · 15 August 2005]

The scenery is beautiful, and many times you'll be thinking to yourself, "Where is this place??" In particular, there is a scene with a waterfall that just cries to be walked to and explored.

So far as an actual film, it would have been better served as a series of postcards, as you get breathtaking vistas with only little snippets of storyline on the back to figure out what is going on. And while the acting is pretty atrocious, it is both good and bad to note that the dialog is thin and minutes pass without any words being spoken. A little voice also appears in your head after about 20 minutes whispering in your ear, "Come on, something has to happen to move the story forward". But it never comes, and you're just watching, plodding along waiting desperately for the next ill conceived plot device taking set in overwhelming scenery shots.

If you're looking for anything remotely interesting, stay away.

Unbearable

[kvonnegut · 4/10 · 23 December 2004]

This movie is awfully unbearable.

For awhile, I thought it was produced by Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation as a good amount of the film is an exposition of Oregon's forests.

The plot...well I wasn't sure if there's any. OK, let me try - it's a man's quest to find the one ring and on his journey he supposedly find himself. Well, I think that's what they're trying to illustrate but the writer and the director failed miserably. The writer failed to explain several aspect of the film. For instance, how the protagonist fell from grace, or who was the woman, who burned the woman, who was the gypsy etc. Moreover, it seemed like, there are only about 2 pages of dialogue written for this movie and the little dialogue it had, it was very weak. It did not helped that the actors delivery of the dialogue is equally terrible and the acting is not very convincing. The only convincing acting in the whole movie I found was the old man in the cave. However, he can't seem decide if his accent should be Celtic or English.

The director makes up for the lack of dialogue and weak plot with a stunning cinematography. Not bad for a first time director. However, I do find it very boring and exhausting after awhile when all you see is a man walking scenes after scenes with a gorgeous landscape in the background.

This film is not even worth a rental albeit, the DVD cover looked like a John Waterhouse painting.

Terrible

[OnlyLucky13 · 2/10 · 23 November 2004]

This movie is absolutely terrible.

The acting throughout this movie is melodramatic and the characters are appallingly shallow. Some of the characters don't have a purpose at all and even the main character is completely unconvincing. The director and screenwriter didn't bother with background information: about the kingdom or the main character or why he left the kingdom or even why the event that apparently keeps him in anguish ever occurred. The emotions of the characters are completely contrived.

The acting talent is poor, but I don't blame the actors for this catastrophe. The plot line is 100% generic and unoriginal: a bland, pointless heroic journey during which the main character finds himself. This movie is simply a disaster. Perhaps its only good quality is some of the cinematography, which quickly gets boring after you watch the cardboard hero walk through the same woods and the same desert, scene after scene.

A Good First Effort

[skobb · 7/10 · 8 March 2004]

Considering the film was done with a very small budget by a first time film-maker, "Westender" is a noble effort and has many quality bits. There are a few snags here and there, but most of these will fade with experience.

The story follows a down on his luck knight in a medieval fantasy world. After a night of hard drinking and gambling, Sir Asbrey of Westend bets and loses a precious ring. The movie follows his journey to reclaim his ring, and of course along the way rediscover himself and what truly matters.

To get the negatives out of the way, "Westender" felt much longer than the hour and forty-five minutes it was. Many scenes, while beautifully shot, could be tightened. There are simply too many long environment shots that do not movie the story forward. A few of the actors, mostly first timers themselves I imagine, that are a bit wooden in acting and line delivery -- some less than stellar dialog surely contributes to this. As long as the movie felt, it left several plot lines dangling without closure.

On a more positive note, as I mentioned earlier, the film is visually beautiful. It proves that a quality director goes further than a big budget. Scene composition, lighting and movement are all handled really well. The score to the film really helps to compliment the wonderful shots.

Overall, a strong premiere for a new director. There is certainly room for improvement, but many of the fundamentals are here and very strong. I look forward to future films.

one of the worst movies I have ever seen

[shebacat · 1/10 · 4 June 2005]

And I'm not kidding. To say this movie is slow is an understatement. The screenplay must read: He walked through the forest. Then he walked through the forest some more. He walked through the forest even more. Now he walks through a desert. He walks through the desert some more. He walks through the forest... Not much there. The characterization is horrible and the acting is so stilted it hurt. The lines sounded like they were read on a teleprompter - badly. We never do learn who the main character is and just why he is in his current state. The characters that he crosses paths with are one dimensional at best. I rate this one of the worst movies I have seen in the past 10 years. 1 out of 10.

Good movie

[TheNewspaper03 · 7/10 · 20 May 2005]

Westender is the breakthrough film for M.O.B. Productions. Shot in the filmmakers' home state of Oregon, it is only the beginning for these guys.

The characters are well developed, the cinematography is beautiful, and the story is satisfying. If you're paying attention, you get all the information you really need to know about the characters. I'm not saying the movie is perfect, all movies have their flaws and weak moments, but for being an Indy film early on in the career of M.O.B. Productions, it is very impressive.

I'm personally a M.O.B. Productions fan and I'm excited to see what these guys have in store.

Not the worst movie, but close.

[thelawrences · 1/10 · 12 July 2005]

I'm one of those people that, once into a movie, must see how it ends. Good or bad. The fast forward button on my DVD player couldn't go fast enough through this movie.

I agree with other comments on this movie: Not bad acting, but not great acting, long drawn out scenes of someone walking through forest/desert, no character development and forced dialog. When I watch movies as bad as this one I actually feel pain for the person who spent $8.00 for a ticket and $10.00 for popcorn and pop to watch it. My 99 cents I paid even seems a little too much.

DL

Darn close to a masterpiece... but not an action film!

[FlashHSU · 9/10 · 3 March 2005]

First off, "Westender" is not a swords-and-sorcery action film. It's a beautiful medieval tale, with some really nifty action, but at it's core it's an independent style film about a man's struggles with inner demons.

The fighting and action is really about as good as I've seen in this level of indy flick. This is appreciated more with a look at the "making of" feature and learning they had no stuntmen.

The symbolism/deep stuff is done really well, being clear without being obtuse, and being moving without being distracting.

The story follows a fairly understandable path, but there are some connections the audience has to make for themselves, and there are some questions intentionally left unanswered about the backstory. I would like to have seen a better resolution to the Jester character.

Some scenes were really poorly lit, which was my main beef with this otherwise wonderfully shot film.

All and all, if you want some cool knight action you might want to check out this movie, but be prepared to think. If you want some moving human drama, check out this movie but be prepared to enjoy the ride. If you want some gorgeous scenery, CHECK OUT THIS MOVIE now.

How did I miss this one?

[Lord Vukodlak · 7/10 · 25 July 2009]

Having quite an extensive collection of medieval and quasi-medieval movies, i was awed that a movie this good has escaped my attention. No, it is not a great movie but, it is what it is, a really, really good fantasy movie. The costumes were above average, compared to most of the drek that Hollywood has put out. (some of which were purported to be historical epics.) I was very impressed with the armor. The chainmail was real, as opposed to the "chainmail-ish fabric" that is so popular with most big budget movies. HEY Hollywood: if you have a "big budget", spend less on stars and their egos and more on costuming and voice coaching for actors that think just because they are Huge mega-stars that they can speak the way they do normally. This is fine if you are playing yourself, guys but, at least try to help me suspend disbelief.

I would say that if you enjoy fantasy/medieval movies, and do not care whether or not it has a "big name star" in it, you will enjoy this movie.

Not a good first effort

[brandnameemail · 2/10 · 23 January 2005]

this is not a "good first effort", as many here have been saying. if you have to make allowances for the inexperience of the cast and crew to justify the film, then it is most definitely and average to bad first effort. I've seen many a first effort that stand on their own as films without requiring excuses to be made on their behalf. and I can allow for bad acting (oh, and there is certainly an abundance of that here), and I can allow for bad dialog (again, were talking Costco proportions in this movie), and though the basic story was vague, that does not necessarily make a bad movie either. when combined though with self-indulgence on the part of the director, and a screenwriter that I can only assume is a high school sophomore who wanted to impress his friends at the D&D table, well it all adds up to a pretty shabby attempt. the one shining light of this movie was the cinematographer. HE has a good future ahead of him if there's any justice in the world.

this is however a great movie to make fun of MST3K style, especially if you're from oregon, so by all means, get some friends together and get some beer, and tear into it!

Artfully directed travelogue.

[Akai_Ekoti · 4/10 · 27 February 2005]

Westender is, if nothing else, a showcase for some of the nicer scenery of the state of Oregon. As an Oregonian I can appreciate that. We've got some nice rain forests and some breathtaking deserts. It's a nice state to visit, but for God's sake don't come here to make a movie. Seriously, we're the kiss of death for just about any movie that is filmed here. I wish I could be more supportive of my state and say otherwise, but the evidence is piled too high so I've got to be honest about it. Movies made in Oregon, even in part, face some serious problems. Westender is a good example of that. It has some great location shots and the director has a talent for framing a pretty scene, but the film just cannot manage to rise above feeling like an end-of-term film school project. The story is pretty straight forward: a downtrodden warrior named Asbrey thoughtlessly gambles away a ring that belonged to a lost love. When he comes to his senses he pursues the man who won it and in the process gets caught up chasing a band of slavers. Simple enough, except that the protagonist is also prone to hallucinations, bizarre dreams, and fits of madness. Don't get the idea that this is an action movie, by any means, but it's more a journey through the protagonist's soul. And since the story is told from his perspective it is all too easily led astray, wandering off on tangents that hint at his past and his motivations, but never tells you enough to make much sense. Supporting characters occasionally show up, hoping to help ground Asbrey and help to provide some means by which he could be better understood, but they are all to easily discarded. And so without any anchor, Asbrey spends way too much time wandering about in a stupor, taking the audience on a journey that makes sense in the end but is too long and too dull in the process.

Heroic Attempt, Terrible Movie

[rudden · 1/10 · 3 July 2005]

I love fantasy and SF in film, from cheesy Japanese rubber suiters to big budget Spielberg. Bad films have their own peculiar charm. It pains me to report that "Westender" is a bona fide bomb that fails on just about every level.

It's an attempt to combine several genres, which as we've all seen can work pretty well. The problem is, it does all of them badly.

The "Heroic Quest" forms the basis of the plot. Without giving too much away, the story line is as formulaic and generic as you can get...MINUS the final moment of resolution/redemption that usually caps this kind of film. It didn't really end...it just sort of...stopped. Roll credits.

But there are a few other film styles that waft through this stinker like farts on a breeze. They include:

• The "Metaphysical Journey of Exploration", exemplified (and much parodied) by directors like Bergman and Antonioni. This accounts for the interminable sequences of the sun-baked hero staggering across vast wastes. This is Symbolic, you see, of his Inner Emptiness: and the grass on the far side of the desert is Symbolic of his Newly Awakened and Heightened Spiritual Consciousness. Phew. Pretty darned mystical. With all due respect to the reviewers who found profundity in this excruciating exercise in undergrad angst...there isn't an interesting idea to be found in the whole nine hours of the film. (Yes, I know what the duration on the label says. But it FEELS like nine hours. At least.)

• "Revisionist Medievalism" (in the style of "Ladyhawke" or "Princess Bride") wherein people in Middle Ages costumes and settings exhibit contemporary characters and language. It can be funny. Here, it's just inconsistent and annoying.

• "Hommage", in which characters and situations borrowed from other films pop up, presumably to show us the director is aware of them. So we have little moments that resemble low-budget Kurusawa, Boorman, Fellini, and others. If the film worked, these might have been amusing. It doesn't, and they're not, except as a mild distraction on your descent into torpor.

And one final comment for folks who have commented on the "stunning beauty" and "epic grandeur" of the scenery: you know, if you take a camera somewhere beautiful and shoot a wide shot, you're going to have a nice looking shot. There's not much trick to it.

I want my rental money back ><;;

[thatidhasalreadybeentakenbub · 1/10 · 29 January 2005]

I rented this movie with some friends because we heard it was supposed to be a good lo-budget movie and that it was shot in Oregon, where we live. I can't possibly convey how disappointed I was in this movie. The plot is muddled and the acting terrible and unconvincing.

Why is our hero on his quest? Why did his object of affection die by burning at the stake? Why would he gamble away the one precious item he has in her remembrance? Why would we care if none of these things go unanswered? The only one of these questions I posit (there are more, but I don't have the time or space to pick apart every terrible aspect) is the third one. He gambled it away because he was drunk. That's pretty flimsy. Maybe he got so drunk because he misses his girl, but jebus, if thats the reason, he wouldn't put down his only keepsake of her on the table for a bet.

The characters in this movie are paper thin. There are no proper introductions and their dialog is abhorrent. One may be glad though, that there is hardly any dialog. When a character opens his mouth and utters something, you will know what I mean. But as far as characters go the best one is at the end. I won't spoil it but he has blonde hair and speaks in a "foreign" language. This is priceless!

Now for the only good aspect of the film. It has some stunning views of Oregon countryside ranging from forest to desert. This part looks great but I'm an Oregonian, so surely I am biased. Besides if you want to watch a truly beautiful film that has no dialog watch "Baraka." Sure its not lo-budget but it has better dialog (haha) better cinematography, and a way better score.

An extraordinary achievement, given it's budget.

[panpiper · 7/10 · 12 March 2006]

If we are to judge this movie by Hollywood blockbuster standards, then it deserves it's average 5/10 stars rating that it has here on IMDb. This is not a great movie, but I have paid to see many out of Hollywood that are worse.

That said I am mightily impressed with the quality of result that was achieved with virtually no budget. This was largely shot with volunteer work, on a shoe string budget most of us could come up with by begging from parents and friends. This movie stands as an example to all of us that we really could make movies ourselves if we really put our minds to it.

Bad acting, bad story

[Bebopaloola · 1/10 · 18 September 2006]

Really, I wasted more than a hour of my life watching this stinking movie. I know is low budget but this doesn't mean it has to stink so badly; The story line is awful, the costumes are ridiculous, the soundtrack made me want to spit at the screen. But let me tell you: I got a DVD (thank Gowd it was for free)and on the cover they displayed a white horse (???), that blond weird-alien looking character that appears in the desert and dies in 5 seconds, and A CASTLE. Funny because NO CASTLE APPEARS on that movie. The cover had nothing to do with the actual story! Talk about cheating the public... And what was that make-up stuff? Purple eyeshadow everywhere. "- Hey I cut my face!" Purple eyeshadow. "- Hey, i got punched in the eye!" Purple eyeshadow for ya! I bet they bought 5 tons of that stuff. Half of the budget was spent on purple eyeshadow. When the main character feels cold in the woods, what do they do? Light Purple eyeshadow all over him! He looks like a blue zombie of the old Dawn Of The Dead. The acting is ridiculous. When that Asbrey guy gets mad he looks like a fat nerd who didn't got his internet connection to watch porn. That black wolf sightings Cliché thing, it had to be there? Really? Asbrey felt like a black lone wolf? Pleeeeaaaase. To me, he should have visions of Yogi Bear. That fatty knight. Don't get me talking about that desert scene... How boring can they get? It seems like forever for a scene that supposed to mean something deep like "a chubby bastard lost in the desert searching for his dignity" and gets going like "Fatso, you could die right now and that ridiculous movie would end".

not a bad first attempt

[hobbitaur · 7/10 · 11 January 2006]

Now... before people start comparing this film to the likes of Ridley Scott's Gladiator or Peter Jackson's LOTR, let's all remember that this is a movie created by a film student fresh out out of film school with a bunch of his friends and NO budget (in fact, according to the documentary on the DVD, all the extras for the army and battle scenes brought their own armor to the set). There are many many things wrong with the plot, dialogue, character development and pacing (this is especially bad) of the film... but I truly see potential in this director once he gets a decent budget and PAID actors. The musical score was quite good and the cinematography was top notch. If you see this movie in the $5 bin, I would recommend grabbing it for about 70 out of 105 minutes of decent fantasy entertainment. Based on first movie attempt... 7 out of 10

Go watch he grass grow

[lord_jeanquev · 2/10 · 25 February 2005]

Go watch the grass grow rather than watch this film its cheaper and you get about the same entertainment value. This film runs hour and five minutes but you would swear it was much much longer. Why? Because it seems or feels like anyways that 45 minutes of it is spent with the WEstender walking yes walking either by himself or gasp occasionally with an ally. Some people have talked about the great cinematography but that alone can not carry a film people. Are the backgrounds great yes but I don't need to see them as he treks through the forest through the desert for more than half the film. Spoiler Below By the time he catches up to the slavers gets his redemption so to speak and returns to help lead the armies you no longer care to be honest or at least I didn't. This film had so much more potential and it was ruined by the lack of directing more so than inexperienced acting. Bottom line is please don't waste your money on this one unless you enjoy watching someone walk and walk and walk (oh sorry he does run sometimes).

One of the most believable fantasy movies ever made!

[Efenstor · 10/10 · 23 July 2005]

The visually perfect endless series of paintings: astoundingly beautiful, surreal and lifeful. One of the most atmospheric movies I've ever seen, fresh and worthy of remembrance. No, it's no action, it's even somewhat slow. Out of all standards, sometimes it even looks like a sort of a video-clip put to the majestic (not bombastic!) symphonic music of Rob Simonsen. Despite of a plenty of dramatic moments the film still leaves a good trace. The story looks really like a part of the main character's life, not just a story written by an author: characters appear and disappear playing their roles in the spiritual quest of the hero, the hero moves to his ghost-like aim haunted by the memories of his recently lost love, analyzing his chivalrous past and finding himself on the rediscovered path of honour. A little-known gem. Hardly believable that someone is still able to make such movies in 2003. 10 out of 10.

Open-minded or not, this is an atrocity to the art of film

[kegerreism10 · 1/10 · 7 September 2012]

If you view the trailer for this film you will see every single remotely "exciting" scene in the entire movie. I feel like the dialogue couldn't have been more than a few pages total. The best parts are where you get to see some beautiful scenery during the protagonist's walking. The only consistent thing about this film is that you will be consistently tired of watching the protagonist walk. I had to look this movie up on the internet to make sure it was a satire (and even if it was I didn't think it was a very funny joke).

It's not that the constant walking is what turned me off the most. The slow pace of the travel, along with the slow (if not nonexistent) pace of the movie, both help portray how long, hard, and slow a real journey would be (compare that to the absurd, montage-heavy movies of today). However, he spends all this time on his obnoxiously slow "journey", but there is no indication to the audience that the protagonist is anywhere different than where he started, geographically or in character development.

The protagonist is also pretty unlikable. He even grunts sporadically throughout the entire movie, and I don't even know how to critique that other than saying that I hated it. I hated those stupid grunts so much. There were a few times where he was supposed to be portrayed as epic/dangerous/mysterious/etc. but they tried so hard that these moments were absurdly over-the-top or heavy-handed. The same try-too-hard attitude can be said for the "symbolism" in this movie (much of which felt like symbolism for symbolism's sake).

Between the various failed attempts at being "artistic", the poor pacing, contrived "plot", lack of meaningful dialogue, mediocre or completely laughable acting, poor lighting, unlikable protagonist, and all other negative factors, you get a bad movie.

I've seen some bad movies. I like plenty of movies that I know are bad. This movie is so horrible its not even enjoyable to make fun of. I created an IMDb account just to write this review and say this: This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. I hate it more than I hate Baby Geniuses and Crossroads combined. I've never watched a movie in which I cheered for the bad guys, but this movie changed that. I found myself begging for someone to kill the protagonist before the movie was halfway over. I wanted someone to put him and me out of our misery, and yet I couldn't walk away. I watched it to the end because I couldn't believe that a movie could possibly be this bad. Surely it had to do something/go somewhere/get better by the end of it, and I suffered through the whole thing with nothing to show for it but 2 hours down the toilet.

TL;DR: My least favorite movie of all time. Don't see it even if you like "artsy" movies. Don't see it even if you like "bad" movies. Don't see it, ever.

Adolescent

[mpeak23 · 1/10 · 14 February 2010]

Young men who haven't figured out who they are or how they are supposed to live should not tell stories. This silly movie teaches that it's better to run away when the going gets tough than to be brave and loyal and fight for your buddy, or family or whatever. It also teaches that if you are doing really stupid selfish things but you are special in some way, that you can continue to do really stupid selfish things and the good spirits will come help you anyway. It also teaches that when you are doing these really stupid selfish things and you go into the desert and you face difficulty and some really scary looking women in the distance that it's alright to throw a temper tantrum, and be really reckless with your stuff and the good spirits will reward you by coming and taking care of you anyway.

I was quite annoyed by this movie because it doesn't teach anything worthwhile and instead teaches the exact opposite - that it's all quite random and pointless. That the decisions and choices we make don't really matter and that you fate is really out of your hands, so go ahead and be a dumb, selfish, petulant ass and it's all good. This movie teaches entitlement and rewards bad behavior. It's shocking to me that some young men who created this movie tried to take the trappings of a 'hero journey' and didn't get the substance of it AT ALL, put the ingredients in there, but COMPLETELY missed the point. Grrrrr

I've seen some turkeys but this one really takes the stuffing

[popcol · 1/10 · 28 February 2012]

I persevered with this movie thinking that somewhere along the line it would all come together. I really wish that i could have those 102 minutes of my life back so that i could do something worthwhile with them. No real storyline, no real plot, no real idea of what it was trying to be. Just a series of unrelated scenes with a lead actor who makes Clive Owen look like Olivier. At one point near the end in the desert scene a young child ran off crying, i really thought that she was going to ask her mother to get her out of this picture.... The ending made me think that this was a really bad pilot for a really bad series that hopefully will never be made.