It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

This is essentially a Western Film as imagined by a child whose only exposure to Western's is via old public domain cartoons and whose budget consists of the contents of their piggy bank. If "so bad it's good" is a thing, then this film is a definite contender for best worst film ever made. It's not just the "funded by sales at the lemonade stand" budget, but the combination of that with absurdly melodramatic and pretentious nonsense about a personified death figure, and the profound depth of ineptitude displayed by this film's director, that really makes this turd "shine." There's a character that keeps getting shot without reacting, until the movie suddenly realizes he should be dead and everyone shoots him at once about a hundred times, a scene where a character gets shot point-blank in the stomach, with a rifle, and is fixed up, without a scratch, in five minutes, by the miracle of bed-sheets and boiled water, a guy bites down on a cherry tomato for "blood" effects, practically every interior location is the same sparse barn with a new sign telling you where they're supposed to be now, almost every outdoor location is the same field, money is shown as white sack cloths with dollar signs on them, and the one moment of CGI in the film has painfully obvious glitches, and that's just what I can recall off the top of my head, years after watching this!

I've only watched it once. It's more of a history lesson than a western adventure. But if might qualify as both, if you let it.What was it about? It was about the lives of Cole Younger and Jessie James. And the lives they led and the lives they took.Was it good, bad, indifferent, what? Maybe. It was certainly different. But I would not say indifferent.The scenery was magnificent, settings quite authentic, and the symbolism was effective and compelling.Was it really that bad? Not really. But maybe. Kinda depends on what you expect, doesn't it?Was it interesting? Yes. At least I think so.Did it make sense? Not too much. But what in life does?Will I watch it again? Yes. If just to see what happened.

...as a drinking game. Seriously: some buddies and I were talking about the worst movies ever made and it just sort of grew from there. Dead simple: every time there's a blatantly obvious mistake in the filming or plot, pause it and everyone drinks. If there's disagreement, only the one who pointed it out drinks. We've played it twice now...and only made it about halfway through the movie.Other than that, it's not worth the bandwidth....seriously. My grandma taught to say something nice or not say anything at all, so...it left me 'speechless'. It also left me glad to have this bit of roadkill coyote fading into the rearview behind me. Meep, meep.

I enjoy trains and westerns, so not knowing anything about this movie I saw the cover and decided to give it a try. The first two minutes of acting gave me a sinking feeling this wasn't going to be pleasant. I should have turned it off then, but I gave it about 30 minutes before I did. I could no longer handle the bad acting or camera work. Any sets looked like they were made out of balsa wood in a garage. Character development didn't exist and most of the cast might as well have been cardboard cut-outs. If there is any positive for me with this movie; I did like the few shots of trains used. Beyond that, I would suggest that this movie only be used as a learning tool for other movie makers.