Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Michael Ledo This is part of a series of bad westerns following in the footsteps of "A Cold Day in Hell," and "All Hell Broke Loose". Michael Madsen appears more on the cover than he does in the film. This is the story of Cole Younger (Cody McCarver) and how the Pinkerton agency tracked him down. The story comes from Frank James (Braxton Williams) telling the real story to a reporter Mr. Cummings (Nick Smith). The saga consists mostly of things Frank wouldn't know such as the inner workings of the Pinkerton Agency and their recruiting, but I was willing to give them that.Like the other films, the camera has a hard time being on the face of the person doing the talking. The lines were delivered in stereotypical western monotone, even the women simply read lines. The black train was owned by Emmet Black (Jerry Chesser) who drove the train up and down any track at will. It appeared to have been a symbol for death or the Grim Reaper, although it was haphazardly integrated into the plot. The movie attempts to be humorous by adding characters like Crazy Pa (Richard Kinsey) a man who once ate his horse and Shotgun (Ronald Bumgardner) a man who owns a shotgun pistol. Even Taylor-Grace Davis who played Alice was laughably bad.The film might be fun to watch because it is bad, although lacks some of the camp value of previous productions. If you thought "A Cold Day in Hell", and "All Hell Broke Loose" were good, then this film shouldn't bother you.PARENTAL GUIDE: No F-bombs, sex, nudity or acting. Uses "A" word and makes references to a shotgun up the butt.

cavelamb-952-142746 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.

chigwalla ...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.

Tonci Pivac The one and only reason I watched this film was because Michael Madsen was in it, and I am a loyal fan to him, I knew that this was going to be awful as its the same director that did A COLD DAY IN HELL, also starring Madsen. I understand there is only so much you can do with a small budget, but come on please, I made a film last year for $1000 that was 10 times the quality of this, and Im still struggling to get noticed, this is insane, For the love of god when people in this movie get shot, where is the blood?? if you cant afford squibs, at least put blood in the area the person was suppose to have been shot, how hard is that. Please for the love of god Mr. Madsen keep away from this. You are so much better, you are the king in my book. But this is below you.