Please don't spend money on this.

Absolutely brilliant

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

This effort by a band of six young cinephiles works well. Don't watch it expecting "High Noon" quality acting and scripting. But if you're looking for a highly original, yet true to genre Western, I recommend "The Scarlet Worm."It was released by "Unearthed Films" so I expected a 30-or-more year old film, literally dug up out of old B movie archives. But this is a new effort, made in 2010 and released in 2011. The setting is the early 1900s, and plot is complex, including traditional cattle rustling, revenge killings and more. It's dark, gritty style is evident in the gunfight sequences and in the sympathetic, non-sensationalist treatment of the girls in the brothel. It held my attention right to the last as it unfolded.A couple of things to note: First, it has some pretty violent scenes so I wouldn't make it a family-night movie. Second, it features some classic Western movie stars whose heyday was decades ago but whose names you might remember, like Montgomery Ford and Dan van Husen. They and their young compadres give this low-budget movie panache. Enjoy, pardner.

Nowadays I reckon we're lucky if we get a great western every decade or so. This doesn't qualify for great, but it is good. If you're expecting "Hollywood" - raise your expectations... this is better.The action in the movie plays well. With influences of Peckinpah mixed with ("early not quite there yet") John Woo; credit where it's due, it didn't get unreal.The dialog could have been tweaked better, I reckon, there was ample opportunity through the settings which were done well. The scene in front of the barber shop is an example of where the script could have gone deeper, and pushed this movie into great. Overall I liked the pacing, the arc and the various spread of characters. It didn't get overly deep into the characters, but neither were they shallow - there's an edge to all of them. I thought Montgomery Ford did a fine job.One thing I really liked about this western? It treats the audience with a bit of respect - allowing me to draw my own conclusions; meeting with my expectations in terms of credibility, there were no "cop outs" in plot. What happened was a logical, if whacky series of events.If you really like westerns, I don't think you'll be disappointed. I am very surprised by the low rating the movie seems to have - strange; maybe good, hard-boiled westerns are just out of style...

The Scarlet Worm: Finally! Wild Dogs in mass-release! Longtime fans had a lot to get salivating over: Fredianelli free from starring and cinematography and able to focus on directing, Lambert writing (after his wildly successful two previous outings with Fredianelli), Stielstra starring, special guest stars, and a solid, sordid grindhouse set-up. Everything was in the right place, but with all of these elements, the final product ends up feeling a bit too restrained, a bit too tame to live up to its premise and the promise of all involved. If the earlier Fredianelli efforts sometimes felt a bit slapped-together or a bit rough around the edges, this effort feels a bit too pretty and concerned with professionalism (a gambit that seems to have paid off in some ways). A perfect point of comparison is A Habitation of Devils, Lambert's previous collaboration with Fredianelli. That movie is super rough around the edges, with a script that barely manages to bounce between generic stereotypes and digital video cinematography sometimes so underlit to the point of indiscernibility. However, it manages these hiccups due to a sense of what, for lack of better terms, I'll call "going for it." This same "going for it" mentality is all over other WD pics like The Minstrel Killer and even the recent Apocrypha. Why then does even Stielstra, normally a maniac when facing the camera, play it so cool? Why can't the genre kings (Fredianelli and Lambert) deliver on some of their promises? Why does Print have a reputation for being such a dirty bastard and such a merciless killer but never show us why? Why can't we see what makes his work such poetry to him (as he says over and over and over again)? Even the flick's abortion subtext feels pretty inoffensive and tame (unexpected, consider the distributor Unearthed Films, generally known for stuff like the Guinea Pig and Slaughtered Vomit Dolls). Money was well-placed to grab Dan van Husen, who provides most of the flick's best scenes, but even his work and the (as- expected) excellent shoot-outs feel bogged down by a laborious execution of the basic genre steps. There is a nice father-son dynamic between van Husen and Stielstra, but even that seems to too frequently be displaced in favor of other beats and concerns. I wanted to love this one so much, but in the end, I just can't find as much to love about it as in the cast and crew's other various projects.

Kind of surprised this film (despite being well regarded by critics) holds only a 4.1 rating on this site (as of today). Even though it is so far the only film of Michael Fredianelli's to receive a really wide DVD and Blu-ray release, such is a bit odd given this film is easily Fredianelli's most accomplished and (all around) best film to date. This is a movie that despite being made on a meager budget stands as perhaps one of the best Westerns of the last 12 years or so. It is gritty, violent, and hearkens back to (and was clearly influenced by) some of the genre's best entries in the 1960s and 70s.One critic described this film as a cross between Terence Malick and Sam Peckinpah and they are largely right. Nevertheless the film is quite unique and is perhaps the first Western to deal with abortion. That said, this subject matter is not all that central (the movie just happens to represent it as a reality) and the film doesn't play politics at all or resort to being a message film because this subject is explored. Aside from examining this topic, the film manages to feel fresh and unique all around (even if it's just because films, particularly Westerns, just aren't made like this anymore).David Lambert penned the script for this film and shows great skill paying particular attention to the period in which the film takes place. His characters are interesting and well fleshed out and Print (the lead character) in particular is an extremely memorable protagonist. Actor Aaron Stielstra shines in his portrayal of Print who is a middle-aged gunman; a dandy who has a knack for poetry and a penchant for religion. It's really difficult to compare Print to any other Western protagonist, but Stielstra's character lands right up there with being as interesting and and as memorable as some of the icons of the genre. The rest of the cast is for the most part also spot-on in their performances with veteran actors like Dan van Husen and Brett Halsey making nice additions to the cast. While a Spaghetti Western influence isn't quite apparent, fans of the sub-genre will no doubt recognize these two along with cameos from actors/dubbers Michael Forest and Ted Rusoff.Director Fredianelli and cinematographer Michael A. Martinez craft a great looking film with some truly well crafted scenes and shots. Fredianelli proves to be a highly skilled director especially with the larger budget he has here (although still pretty meager by most standards) and really shines through this work. Set-pieces are abound and many of the shootouts that take place are thrilling and tense. If Fredianelli continues to make films on this level (which I hope he does), he will no doubt be a force to be reckoned with in the film world.THE SCARLET WORM stands as a fine film that fans of Westerns or tough-guy genre and action films in general should find thoroughly enjoyable. Highly Recommended.