CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

chaoticprime This movie was, despite the claims of many others, an excellent western. I am not sure how people define how a western should be, but I look back to the horse opera pulp fiction of the former century.This movie had a hero town between his want for revenge and moral convictions bestowed upon him with his father's dying words and a psychotic villain whose greed motivates him to acts of unspeakable horror.This film is surely vilified by the double standard held by fans of film today. It is not high-budget enough to be considered as relevant as any film that gets a theatrical release and it is not low-budget enough to get passed off as camp. If this movie were made thirty years ago and starred Clint Eastwood, it would be a classic.There has not been a villain in a western so good as this films since Gene Hackman in Unforgiven.This movie is Pulp, it is not drama, neither is it one of the pointless morality lessons written by Cormac McCarthy.There is a place in the middle between the highly stylized Spaghetti Westerns and the dramatic The Unforgiven. This movie belongs on that line.The bottom line: If you are a fan of Westerns, particularly in novel format, you will like this film. If you are a fan of films and do not like it when a movie sticks to the formula of its genre, then you should probably look elsewhere.This movie is not going to change your life; it does however entertain.

beesley81 I found this movie to be very entertaining. Those who talk about problems in the set and costume are WAY too picky. First of all, it's an indie, so you can't expect perfection (you find the same mistakes in A-list films). These films have to be judged according to their script and acting. The script could have been better, but it wasn't bad. Anyone who watches westerns regularly knows that a good western typically is still pretty cheesy. What's important is that the storyline didn't go on and on and make me want to stab my eyes (like another indie western "Bounty"). It had the typical western story of a man out for revenge while fighting against becoming the kind of person his enemy is, but they did a good job with the acting. I felt like the inclusion of the Navajo siblings was a bit pointless, but overall I enjoyed the film.

jorguy This movie could have been more fun than it was but some of the people in charge of doing it right either didn't care or lacked the knowledge to do it right.Some of the plot was predictable and seemed amateurish. The plot lacked realism and it didn't have to do so. For example, at one point our star is seriously wounded, but recovers with amazing speed as does his brother-in-law who experiences a painful injury. Within a day or two both are up and moving around like there was nothing wrong them. The director could have shown these guys slowly recovering and show some pain from their wounds once they do get back into action. Come on. That would have been easy! The film lacked period authenticity. There is an outdoor evening wedding dance that is illuminated by what appear to be round "Chinese lanterns." Inside can be seen light bulbs. This is suppose to be 1865 and post Civil War. The light bulb hadn't been invented yet! Who was your technical adviser on this show? A period of time elapses from the opening scene to the later ones and yet some of the characters never aged. The sheriff looked older in the beginning of the movie than he did at the end. In the opening scene two women are seen walking down the street with dome like parasols over their heads. Amazingly these women show up walking down the street years later with the same parasols.There was no need to make out two surveyors to be bumbling eastern hicks. They could certainly still show fear at having been threatened but surveyors in the west would not have looked, acted and been dressed like that. The costumer, Jenevieve Busseau, and Wardrobe supervisor, Fanny Mac, get low marks for authenticity in this movie.During the early Civil War battle scenes we see Union infantrymen with bright white canteen straps. These appear to have been newly issued from the prop department. Canteen straps got dirty pretty quick during the war and the prop guys should have dirtied them up so they could hardly be seen.In the battle scene we see the bright yellow stripe of a cavalry sergeant as he bayonets a Confederate soldier. Possible, but more believable would have been to see another Infantryman doing it. Cavalrymen didn't tend to carry rifles that had bayonets unless they were mounted Infantry and then they wouldn't be showing that yellow stripe. Questionable authenticity is also true in the scene where a few Navajo Indians are being herded of by some Union troops and being taken to a reservation. In addition in that scene, neither the commanding officer or his subordinate officer wore shoulder straps or any kind of insignia. After the Civil War the volunteers were back in their home states. The Regular Army was back in charge and uniform regulations would have been more adhered to. It is doubtful that two officers would have been dressed like these two were in the herding scene. The subordinate's double breasted coat indicates his rank as being that of a major or higher. That means that you had a major and his superior officer, who had to be at least a colonel, leading a small band of less than a dozen Indians to a reservation. Nope. Wouldn't have happened.In another scene, the first prisoner that our star brings in to justice doesn't have a hat. Why not? It was hot. Everyone wore and kept a hat. The prisoners face was well tanned though, as if during the day he didn't wear a hat. Maybe he was a 2009 tanned movie star and not an 1860's desperado! Take a look at today's cowboys and farmers. The tops of their foreheads are white from being shaded from the sun by their hats. Put a hat on the bad guy! There were more but that's enough. In summary, while some scenes were well done and the actors were appropriately dressed, there were too many slip ups to let us just sit back and enjoy the movie. Let's hope the next attempt at a western or a Civil War period movie hires technical experts that will be listened to and will thus help make the film more believable.

sethrich Shadowheart is not your typical western and I have mixed feelings about it. If I want a true western I think I'll turn to Eastwood. Allow me to split my thoughts into pros and cons...There are several things I don't like about Shadowheart. First of all, the movie doesn't exactly reflect the title. I think in the first minute the narration says something along the lines of "I refer to him as Shadowheart" and that's all we hear of that. You can forget about it and might as well make up your own title. I would call it Legend, which is where this takes place, a town in New Mexico set in 1865. Secondly, the beginning of the movie is boring and the child acting is borderline laughable. Obviously not all children are stars, but the acting just isn't good. Thirdly, the very end did not seem necessary. I won't say much so as not to spoil everything, but if it ended showing the yellow ribbon and nothing afterward I would have been happier. That would have been a great way to finish. Watch and you'll know exactly what I mean.Now on to what I do like about Shadowheart. First of all, poor acting aside, this is a solid story. I enjoyed it despite dealing with the aforementioned cons. James Conners loses his father to murder as a child, he leaves town and returns an adult seeking vengeance. Would I recommend it as a western to see? No. Would I recommend it as a movie to see? Maybe. Secondly, Will Tunney is a fantastic character. He's the slimy guy everyone's afraid to mess with and he ultimately owns the town. Nobody likes him, likely even his own crew. Heck, I wanted him dead the entire movie he was that ruthless.