Dead for a Dollar

source: Dead for a Dollar

Giving it 9 stars as good basic old western style entertainment. If this had come out 40 years ago it would likely have been considered a classic. Obviously some are judging the movie harshly based on some kind of modern film school doctrines. The movie is classical low budget fare and that's just fine. It delivers what is expected with strong performances across the board. Perhaps I would feel differently had I paid fifteen bucks at a theater...but as a streaming film on Showtime, Dead for a Dollar is golden bargain to be appreciated if not treasured...and yes, it's something of a morality tale in which some degree of justice is realized, along with strongly implicit anti-racist and anti-sexist messaging.

This movie has a great cast, for the most part. The cinematography is shaky and doesn't go with the background music. The overuse of cheesy dialogue made this movie almost put me to sleep, as well as the weak dressing. No bounty Hunter is out in the sun with a hat like that. This movie would've done better with cinematography of the old western films, more grit, and way better dialogue. Next time this production company wants to make a film, I'd offer my services to make them a film that looks at every aspect. Might make us a winner with such a budget. I've made film my entire life, and watching this film, with this cast come up short almost breaks my heart.

This film is a love letter to the iconic Westerns of the past. Little nuggets of framing and composition sprinkled throughout made me hungry for spaghetti. Judicious and sparse scoring creates a sort of uneasy isolation as dry as the Sante Fe desert. There are some departures from Western tropes; the good guys here are flawed....and murderous. Of course, the bad guys are too. Luis Chavez is sooo good. Somebody please tell him. His role is easy to overlook, but if there is a sequel.....that's the story to tell, for sure; his origin story.....or maybe a sort of 1890s "Better Call Saul". There is a bit of a misstep in the script balancing the abominable racism and sexism of the period with today's sensibilities. You'll know it when it happens. And the brief nudity seemed intrusive...it pulled me out of the action bit. I expect there was something there that I missed. Rachel Brosnahan is terrific in a character we haven't seen much before: a woman as hard as the times, and up to the task. Not to spoil anything...but I think this film may bump bullwhip sales. I haven't seen THAT fight before! This is for sure on my "watch again more closely" list.

I can't believe this came from Walter Hill. Has he had a stroke? Every aspect of this is unbelievably bland and unexciting. I'd expect from a veteran filmmaker that you'd know better than to have 20 million dissolves between scenes, even parts of dialogue - also at least have some knowledge of how to build tension, character and draw the audience in. None of that is present here. The sound and cinematography are second rate at best, almost as if their contribution was phoned in by assistants. But the most disappointing are the performances from Christoph Waltz and Willem Dafoe. They seem uninspired, uninterested. If you paid to see this I am sorry you wasted your money, because that is exactly what it is in every respect. Avoid at all costs.

Walter Hill making a Western with Christoph Waltz and Willem Dafoe? Count me in! At least that's what I was thinking before I saw the trailer, which was already a little underwhelming, to say the least. Unfortunately, the first impression didn't deceive: Everything here feels amateurish almost beyond belief. From the "color grading", which is really just a sepia filter reminiscent of FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 3, to the cinematography, the most obvious CGI blood and smoke as well as the editing with its constant and obnoxious fade-outs. If anyone would have told me that this is an amateur production made for YouTube, I would have believed them in an instant. The story is as generic as they come, the writing especially in the first act extremely uninspired, accompanied by wooden acting. If Christoph Waltz playing a bounty hunter sounds promising and somewhat exciting to you, make no mistake: He is the blandest I have ever seen him here. Always a joy to watch though and probably the only bright spot in this mess is Willem Dafoe - although his character ultimately surves no purpose for the main narrative. It's always baffling to witness former great directors reaching late-career lows - Brian De Palma would come to mind here. The problem isn't that Hill tried to make a B movie, as he successfully did before. DEAD FOR A DOLLAR is unfortunately just bad.

I'd start by saying Waltz, Dafoe, Bratt and the others are great actors. All did a great job with what they had here. Problem is, not sure what they had here. The scenes were a bit choppy and kept waiting for a tv commercial to play between them. Pretty sure I nodded off at one point and missed some, but it made no difference. This was a western, I think, but not one I'd recommend for western movie watchers. The actors are top notch but just couldn't save it. I would have tried for a spaghetti western vibe over this 50s American tv series type. The scenes with Waltz and Dafoe were good but the writing, no sir, I didn't like it. It was simply too elementary. Ah well, better luck next time.

I have been waiting for this movie for 2 or 3 months, maybe because i wanted to see another western role of Chriatoph Waltz, and maybe because the name of the movie attracted me, it reminded me of the Dollars triology First, i think 105 minutes are not enough for a western movie 2nd, the story of the film is not attractive, something happened a lot in other movies 3rd, please don't involve women in western movies, they are really not suitable for that role 4th, western movies should be more violent and brutal. 5th, expected end, and the plot twist is actually not surprising 6th, the role of Willem Dafoe should have had more effect on the scenario 7th, we were expecting to see more of Christoph Waltz cunning Sorry i wanted to like this movie, but it didn't help me.

It feels like a western but it is a little 'modern' for a lot of the people what watch westerns. Personally i find every casting historically accurate and yeah its diverse cast but that works in a post-civil war era story taking placing in a Mexican border town. Its a good movie that i found to have engaging dialogue and interesting characters. There was an unnecessary excess of fade to black shots that i started to get annoyed at; however, i enjoyed the cinematography a lot throughout the film. This film gave me a little bit of tombstone vibes. I loved Christoph waltz as a stoic no-nonsense cowboy. His performance felt the most classic Sergio Leone like spaghetti western character. Good film.

It's just that a review I just read said the film has a dated view of feminism and race...... well yeah, its a Western, set in the 1890s, FFS! Anywhooo, I think its all been covered. Mediocre acting, awful script, terrible directing, and awful editing. Through in a budget of $100....most of which was handed back, and there we have it. A bit harsh? Maybe, but as a lifelong Western fan, this is just an insult to that great movie tradition. They're telling me now my review is too short, but having come this far, I'll type a few meaningless words as filler....which is pretty apt, as this film is mostly 95% filler. Let's see if that's enough? WooHoo.