The Gundown (2011) User Reviews

Watchable if not Want-able

[LeonLouisRicci · 5/10 · 22 June 2012]

If not for the language this looks exactly like a network TV show. The indoor scenes are way over-lit and even the fade to black scene breaks are expectant of a commercial.

The good-guy is cool but a bit over polite and the bad guy is menacing although much of his evil deeds are either verbal or off screen. There is plenty of death by gun, but no squibs or suffering.

Stealing the show is the lovable whore who you can't help but want to help. The supporting cast overall is unremarkable, flat, and uninspiring and most of the drama is delivered "by the book".

The four years later ending is straight out of a weak movie of the week, but despite all this it is watchable if not want-able.

Ok - but reduced by poor casting choices

[philbike · 3/10 · 21 January 2024]

This film was sort of doing ok with its scope & a decent story build. A good construction of tensions with good & bad character relations plus more individual character development was seen. (although a bit wooden in some cases).

Excellent camera work & lighting was clear from the very beginning & throughout. It is all going well until someone's over filled lips spoiled the whole film image & retro look with an obvious 21st century silicone plastic lip surgery. Tragically this became obvious to all as a mis-cast person. This was not an inappropriate look for this film. This made her character appear comical rather than intimidating - the opposite of what was intended.

What the casting crew were thinking of is unfathomable. They degraded this film from 'OK/Decent' to 'middling/poor' by this miscasting choice when everything else was open to them.

Watchable...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 26 April 2024]

Granted, while I am not particularly a fan of the Western genre, I do occasionally sit down to watch one such movie from time to time. And as I happened to stumble upon the 2011 movie "The Gundown" from director Dustin Rikert here in 2024, I opted to watch it, as it was a movie I had never seen before, much less actually heard about.

Writers Dustin Rikert and William Shockley put together a fair enough script and storyline here. It was a pretty straightforward type of Western story. So if you are a diehard fan of the Western genre, then you will definitely find something enjoyable in "The Gundown".

Of the entire cast ensemble in the movie I was only familiar with actor Peter Coyote. But I will say that the acting performances were actually fair. And there were some good talents on the screen, despite of them being unfamiliar faces and names. I've seen actor (and writer) William Shockley before in other movies, but he is not someone that I am overly familiar with.

It was so hard to take my eyes off of the lips of actress Veronica Milagros whenever she was on the screen. I am sorry, but what the Hell was going on there? I am sure that there wasn't that kind of Botox lips around in the mid-1800s America. It was just such a poor casting choice there.

I will say that the wardrobe, props and sets were good and definitely had a convincing mid-1800s Western feel to it. Well, except for those Botox lips.

"The Gundown" was a fair enough Western movie, though hardly a particularly memorable or outstanding movie. I can't claim that it is a movie that I will ever return to watch a second time.

My rating of director Dustin Rikert's 2011 movie "The Gundown" lands on a five out of ten stars.

Typical western with poor editing.

[Pasadenapauly · 16 July 2011]

For a western its the typical bad guys tear up a town and the good guy rides in to save the day. The town seems pretty small with only about 20 people in all but they seem to keep getting bad guys to pop up from everywhere. The editing is terrible, there's parts of the film where the fight scenes speed up and skip frames. The sets are nice and really believable, the one thing that isn't believable is the female "bad girl" named lulca or something like that. She has so much plastic surgery it makes her look out of place in the movie. Her lips are swelled and to big, she constantly looks like shes frowning. All in all it was fun to watch and helped pass the time, would I watch it again? would i recommend it to anyone? probably not.

No where near any good

[ray-131-113278 · 1/10 · 9 September 2011]

A really strange film, I could not bear to watch it very deeply and had to let it go. The big flaw with it is the pace, the camera, the dialogue, the moments of pregnant pause, sobby moments that go for too long, that were really not worth holding the camera. Its a mess, c'mon. Its crap. Really boring. Sickly cliché, too b grade to even register. No, its rubbish. The lighting and soft lens in the saloons are over done. The scenery does not vary, the set gets stagnant. The camera angles on the lead brunette are unbecoming and the kissing is revolting. There is no voyeur in the sex scene, its mechanical and droll. I hate this film and will erase it from my memory. I hope you guys have learned a lesson, this film looks and feels like a bunch of work mates hung out for a movie weekend on some hired movie set.

Truly Awful

[ObeseManWatching · 2/10 · 23 August 2014]

The storyline itself was not bad - although quite a lot of the lead's back story seems to have been lifted straight from the Hell on Wheels series and the script itself was really poor. Two different characters separately wishing him "Godspeed" in the space of a minute for example!

The direction and large parts of the acting however were so clunky that it was verging on spoof - even the worst of the Spaghetti Westerns were not as bad as this and they were made forty years earlier!

In the almost obligatory chase scene near the end of the movie the two protagonists seemed to constantly switch between cantering and trotting on their horses and that's not to mention the fact that bullets took an age to reach their target after being fired!

After watching this I had to check out the director's CV and could not believe that anyone ever sanctioned him to make a second film let alone the couple of dozen that he has done.

Not even a turkey - this was so bad that even "Colonel Sanders" would have rejected it!

Bad would be to flatter it !

[redx1708 · 1/10 · 29 January 2017]

And I thought that "The last rites of Ransom Pride" was the worst western I've ever seen. Well, I was wrong. The one star I give is for the first 5 minutes. They looked promising, but that was it. The rest is one big cliché. The acting, (what acting ?) is awful, and they obviously couldn't afford a decent scriptwriter. None of the characters were the least bit interesting, the only one who stood out was the female gunslinger, but only because of a disastrous botox job. We were also treated to the most unsexy sex scene ever made, and i can't help wondering why anybody thought that this rubbish was worth wasting money on. Low budget doesn't necessarily mean bad, but in this case it fits. I can't imagine what possessed people to write those positive reviews, unless they are all close relatives of the director.

Awful!

[deloudelouvain · 1/10 · 12 February 2015]

WOW, what is wrong with the people reviewing this movie? Are they the actors themselves? This is a terrible movie. A complete waste of time. Do not watch this movie without a bucket next to you because you are going to need it. Those actors are so bad, the story is so cliché that you think a 5 year old wrote it. And then that Allison Gordon... really? Did she do something special to have that role? What a lousy performance was that. This is one of the worst westerns I ever saw in my life. There is absolutely nothing good about it, absolutely nothing! This movie is only good if you have nothing else to do on a Sunday afternoon and you want to fall asleep in your couch. Avoid this movie at all cost! too bad it is impossible to give it a negative score...

Beware, don't waste your precious time in this crap picture!!!

[elo-equipamentos · 4/10 · 24 September 2019]

What a crap movie, they bring Peter Coyote to acting 20 minutes or so in hope to hook the attention to the audience, bad move, the picture doesn't uphold by itself, the premise is really insane , the Town is made by brand new woods, pine cheapest wood, the special effects on gunfire is outrageous laughable, we clearly see the blasters some sparkers, as it were possible, the villain Travis McCain is too malign that damage his own merchandise, in this case his prostitutes, provide under awful screenplay the picture survives just the charismatic Cole Brent in a convincing an reliable acting, anyway al rimainder is totally wasting of time, be warning!!

Resume:

First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 4

Attention to quality pays off

[cjw_media · 7/10 · 20 February 2012]

It was great to see a lower budget movie produced with attention to quality actors, quality costuming, quality sets, and even quality music. Yes the movie has some issues typical of a lower budget. You see sporadic problems with continuity and editing. And a few boo-boos with stunts and lighting. But those are sporadic. There's nothing so glaring to make you want to turn it off. The vision is clear from the beginning and despite a few oopsies it's a decent movie. I only wish the DVD cover floating around on Facebook had been used instead of the retro-art modern looking outlaw. At least you'd know what kind of western you are going to view (action and romance and morals)instead of a martial arts testosterone action only flick.

Independent western with all the right stuff.

[abebenrubi-1 · 8/10 · 25 September 2011]

I was really impressed with the overall quality of this little gem. It's hard to make a western these days, especially on an independent film budget. Director Dustin Rikert pulls it off with aplomb! Interesting shots and snappy pacing keep your eyes glued to the screen. It really feels hot and dusty like a good western should. Some great sets and production design. Fine performances all around by the cast, and some excellent stunt work. Fans of the genre won't be disappointed. It's a fun story with classic western elements and is well worth your time. Good escapist fare. Makes me want to see more independent film makers take a shot at a truly under represented tradition in modern cinema. Grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy.

Not bad.

[jetan · 7/10 · 14 January 2012]

I liked it. Old-fashioned, hokey derring-do. Whore with heart of gold? Check. Impossibly fast gunfighters? Check. Unbelievably bloody climactic gunfight at the end with bodies strewn everywhere? Check, check, check. What's not to like? In the good old days, Audie Murphy would have played the hero who is so straight arrow that one is surprised that he doesn't order a glass of milk in the saloon scenes. Furthermore, I could watch the actress who plays Cassie May for a long time without complaining. I admit that this one is in no way original, but that really isn't the point. If you ever hear yourself complain that they don't make 'em like they used to, then you really ought to give this one some love.

Action Packed with Great Acting

[seg-169-308187 · 25 September 2011]

This film was very well done, great acting, lots of action, great story, I love the scenery and that it was filmed in Arizona where much of the old west action actually took place....Great music, directing. Overall the film had a kind of desolate feel to it. If you liked the old Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns, then you will probably be very pleased with this film. William Shockley plays a wonderful Villain, while Sheree J. Wilson and the girl playing Cassey May also give solid performances. The Cole Brandt and Hicks actors played well off each other as well. Overall I thought it was just a really good film. The only one person that I felt didn't fit in the movie was Dulce. Few films are made these days that are true westerns, and this film fits the bill. If you want Cowboy's & Aliens this isn't your film, but if you want a good story, characters you can care about, and a movie that beckons back to the days of Wyatt Earp and Tombstone, except a little grittier like the show Deadwood, then this is your movie.

Oh, I'm so conflicted

[Gladys_Pym · 6/10 · 23 June 2011]

OK. Let me explain. This was such a good attempt. Some money's been spent, (not on the script, admittedly). It's been spent on some decent sets, a few actors, some (occasionally decent) cinematography.

And in these days, a straightforward Good-v-Evil western is refreshing, or, rather, SHOULD BE refreshing. And this tries hard. And (sadly) fails.

The storyline is OK, derivative, but modernised, and - well - OK, what can I say, it's just alright.

The acting's OK, pretty good, in parts. The hero, well, he's a hero. We are in NO DOUBT that he's a good guy.

The women are - well, women, really. The strong mother is OK, ('til the end bit, where she mainly screams and doesn't shoot anything), but mainly the women are pretty 2 dimensional, apart from the one who has so much plastic in her lips she looks like she has her mouth on upside down, and she disappears from the story in a really unconvincing way.

Oh, I don't know. I wanted to like this. I watched it to the end, (Parenthood meets Mum's Apple Pie), and I'm not left with an AWFUL taste in my mouth, just a bitter disappointment. It should have been better.

OK. To be honest? If the producer had hired a decent director, it would have been better.

And he also should have spent a few dollars on someone to direct his fight scenes. That last one is pretty bad.

But, OK, I gave it a 6 out of 10. Because it wasn't THAT bad. Just it should have, could have, been far better.

Cool Indy Western!

[HistoryProdADM · 10/10 · 25 September 2011]

Okay, so I love westerns. There aren't enough of them made today. So when I took a chance on this film "The Gundown" (despite the B-Movie Artwork) on the cover, I found myself really glad I did. Now, before I go further, I will admit that this film definitely had a modest budget. Not because of the costumes (great), sets (great), acting quality (great).. but mostly because the town appeared small, and their weren't a lot of wagons, horses etc.. like you saw in films like Tombstone, Wyatt Earp, etc.. (then again who has studio sized money these days). Still, what the film lacked in budget, it made up for in heart. The Director made you care about the characters, who did a good job making you want to like them with their performances. The movie has a gritty quality to it, with a simple story, yet one you wanted to see play out. One of love, and one of redemption. Overall, I think most people will like this film, especially if they like traditional westerns. Don't expect Jon Wu (like the cover may indicate).. Think more Tombstone, or maybe even Deadwood.. (cause there's a lot of language in this film!). I applaud the filmmakers for taking a chance with the western genre. I looked them up after I saw this and saw that they have another one in production.. will be there with bells on. Kudos for keeping the western genre alive... at least for a little longer anyway!

GREAT WESTERN!

[wetladz · 7/10 · 21 December 2017]

Sometimes I read negative reviews on IMDB and AMAZON and wonder what planet some of the reviewers are on. Not every film can have a budget of millions so it is not always fair to compare smaller indie films like this with the likes of the remake of The Magnificent Seven. But this is a cracking good western and if you like good action and fine performances in the old tradition of the western then this is for you. I can tell you from personal experience that negative reviews without any positivity in them simply shows a lack of understanding. We need more westerns like this to keep the genre alive and kicking!

Another western where the plot and idea are better then the actual movie itself. Not bad just very, very slow. I say C-

[cosmo_tiger · 12 September 2011]

"If you had been under my command I'd have had you hung. I will never pay you a cent for protection." Travis McCain (Shockley) has taken over the town of Dead River and the people are living in fear. When Cole Brandt (Walker) comes in to town looking for revenge for the murderer of his wife and child he finds someone that needs to be taken care of. This is a movie where the plot and idea is much better then the movie was. While it had some really good scenes and action, it was just much, much to slow moving and hard to get into. The acting was not bad and it was decently made, it was just really tough to get into. If you are a hardcore western fan this till appeal to you, if you like an occasional one it would be better to go find a different one. Overall, not a bad movie just way to slow to fully keep you interested for the entire time. I give it a C-.

Would I watch again? - I barely made it through once. No

"Son, you're either a hell of a gunfighter or a damn good liar."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 3 May 2024]

The user rating for this movie here on IMDb is woefully low in my judgment. Now it's no "High Noon" or "Unforgiven", but the story line is decent and the wholesome hero returning to the town of Dead River to exact his revenge on town boss Travis McCain (William Shockley), though derivative, shows some grit and energy in the telling. There's a fairly high body count in this one, beginning with the murder of town sheriff Thomas Morgan, portrayed by the only actor I recognized in the picture, Peter Coyote. Well, his wife too, but I wouldn't have known her name, Sheree J. Wilson as Sarah Morgan. So, for a cast of relative unknowns to this viewer, I thought they all did a credible job. Except perhaps for the overwrought and pouty Dulce de la Rosa (Veronica Milagros), doing her best to look menacing but coming across as a caricature. One thing you usually don't see in a Western is a cowardly sheriff who reverses himself to take on the villain bunch, so the character of Sheriff Deets was portrayed in fine stead by Newell Alexander, until he got his off-screen sendoff by McCain. The story even has a whore with a heart of gold, as Cassie May (Allison Gordon) warms up to Cole Brandt (Andrew W. Walker), a key factor in the gunslinger's decision to turn around after heading out of town on his singular mission to find the outlaws who killed his family five years prior. The stagecoach getaway was something I hadn't seen before, and though you knew it was a set up for the finale, the way this ended took some of the glory away from Brandt when Sheriff's Deputy Newman Hicks (Paul McCarthy-Boyington) put an end to McCain's reign of terror. As one of the outlaw gang, I really wanted to see how Dulce would have been dealt with in a final showdown, but it became a moot point when that stick of dynamite temporarily knocked the baddies down outside the Majestic. Since McCain survived that blast, I'm sure Dulce did too, but I sure would have liked to see her botoxed lips one last time as she met her Maker.

Like the old style westerns I remember and loved.

[popsy964 · 10/10 · 13 December 2022]

Ignore the negative reviews!! Give it a try!! I loved this movie,attracted by the fact that one of my favourite actors,Andrew Walker feature,albeit far from his feel-good Christmas movies. He showed his grint and,ability to make any of his movies worthy of watching. This brought me back to watching TV series like Bonanza or The High Chaparral,even though the colourful language was not at all necessary. Indie movies are often dismissed by many,who are always expecting modern Westerns to live up to the glitz and,glamour of Hollywood. This is what makes this one stand out from many. Thumbs up for me!!!

Every camera shot at perfect angle.

[charlesbushchase · 10/10 · 19 December 2018]

Well done great story perfectly shot action cought in every frame. From beginning to end keeps you memorized in the story .