VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

SnoopyStyle It's 1875 Texas. Mexican bandits are ravaging the land. John King Fisher (Alfred Molina) and his men steal cattle and massacre a town. Lincoln Rogers Dunnison (James Van Der Beek) survives but his family is killed. George Durham (Ashton Kutcher) is a fellow survivor. Leander McNelly (Dylan McDermott) and his sergeants Frank Bones (Randy Travis) and John Armstrong (Robert Patrick) arrive to recruit new Rangers. Randolph Douglas Scipio (Usher Raymond) joins. Fisher takes traveling circus performer Perdita (Leonor Varela) prisoner. Richard Dukes (Tom Skerritt) is a cattle baron and Caroline Dukes (Rachael Leigh Cook) is his daughter.Director Steve Miner started with Friday the 13th sequels, made a couple of worthwhile films but mostly weaker efforts like this movie. He has settled into TV shows. This is loud and bombastic. McDermott is gruff and trying a little too hard to be cool. The Beek is the sincere boyscout. Kutcher is the comic relief and really annoying. This is an inferior western but I've seen worst.

DiamondGirl427 I never heard of this film before seeing it listed on Showtime. I thought it was a fairly decent film...even when I saw "Dawson" and then "Kelso" come on the screen. Nevermind Usher being there too. I thought..Oh great...this will be so lame. Not so. It could have had less scenes where the good guys were riding hell-bent for leather across the plains...it was shown over and over..I wondered if the same areas were used for each of those scenes? It was some what predictable most of the time too...of course you knew the Mexican girl wasn't dead...the attraction between her and Lincoln was too obvious for her to die so soon. I was surprised that Aston could do serious acting..his stint as Kelso seemed to be the extent of his screen talents in my opinion...sorry..he isn't a big deal to me as far as Hollywood "stars" go. Being married to Demi means na-da..big deal. Anyway...I liked it..enjoyed it...and wished it had been a stronger movie all around. The characters needed more depth..we needed to know when, why and how they came to all be where they were. The director, producer and others cashed in on the two main stars being so hot at the moment when this film was made. With a little more effort it could have been a HUGE film...which I think it should have been. Instead..it ended up on a video store shelve somewhere and of course..offered for free on channels like SHOWTIME. Pity. I would have paid to see it on the big screen if it had been showcased as a blockbuster.

Sandcooler I had never heard of this movie and whatever reviews were written about it, but the best I can recreate is that it's "inaccurate". Well I get over these things easily if I'm enjoying myself. I stumbled upon it as one of the many delights of daytime TV and hell, it beats fresh air. The opening credits alone already amused me, how do you cast James Van Der Beek, Ashton Kutcher and Usher Raymond(which is a way classier movie credit than "Usher" by the way. Think of the hassle when he plays an usher)and sleep at night? Ashton Kutcher still talks like he could fall of a water tower any minute, and it doesn't help that Van Der Beek's last name here sounds a lot like Dawson, but Usher proves to be a halfway decent actor, he might be one of the only rappers/singers/businessmen that actually took lessons and is believable in any way. Director Steve Miner gets everything filmed, probably within time and budget, but really doesn't have a lot of creative input, this looked like a job for him, the splatter from the two better/less awful "Friday the 13th"-installments suits him better. The story is not that compelling but provides quite a lot of surprises, even though they're not all that well written. The big problem really is that our main actor needs an extra dimension which he can't provide. We can't all be Clint Eastwood and we don't need a bad imitation of him, but try to make what you feel seem genuine,not like you're still that guy from "Dawson's Creek" trying to get into bigger projects. The casting just ruins it a bit for me, it could have been very good but it's not.

den-barry1 The film was pretty entertaining, very noisy but ultimately fairly ridiculous. The acting was wooden, but fun (not sure it was meant to be so funny....but was nonetheless entertaining because of that!). I also firmly believe that the good guys SHOULD be better looking than the bad guys, so have no problem with the casting overall! Although most of the reviewers mention Kutcher, Van Der Beek et al, am I the only person in the world who believes the narrator who only introduces the story at the very start of the movie was none other than the late, great, legend that was James Coburn? I scanned the closing credits (yes I watched the WHOLE thing!) but the narrator wasn't mentioned at all....was Mr Coburn embarrassed by his contribution or involvement, or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely....can someone PLEASE put my mind at rest (and settle a dispute with my partner!)?