The Man Who Came Back

Moviecut—The Man Who Came Back

This is an example of welfare for once famous actors. Poorly written, directed, and videotaped, with one dimensional caricatures, instead of characters, who are used as plot pawns to advance a story that is so obvious, you see what is coming from the next county. I gave it a view, as I do all western type films, because it is a uniquely American genre that I wish would be rediscovered by present day film makers. A simple story, about a slower pace of time, doesn't have to be obvious and contrived, it can ring true and be compelling, but this effort is simply not up to the task.

I just went to Blockbuster to find a film and came up with this one. The western genre drew me in, so I decided I'd give it a shot. I'd agree with the other post that this is certainly not your regular western, but I tended to like the extra edge it provided. It's not for young children, or for folks who are bothered with scenes presenting violent conflicts, but it left me wondering what would I do it a similar situation. Overall, I thought Eric Braeden did a great job as did George Kennedy. But I thought the real show stealer was Billy Zane. His characterization was worth the price of admission. The female roles were fun to watch too. Carol Alt was great, Sean Young did a good job of presenting a pretty interesting character, but on the female side, I was most impressed with Jennifer O'Dell. I really believe she is up and coming.

I just watched this and I feel sick. This is one of those movies that tries to make itself appear to be a story of good and evil because the bad guys are so bad that you don't mind what evil the good guys do. It represents the worst that humanity can lower itself to and then brings the "hero" down to that level. It is a movie that fuels the fires of hatred and represents revenge as something that is pleasurable, and worse, desirable. It's my opinion that after watching this movie any normal person will be left with either a sick feeling in their stomach or a craving for violence, depending on various factors such as their mood before watching this, company they are in , their propensity to violence etc. . If what happened to the main character happened to me, I would want justice as well, but that is not what this movie is about. This movie is about killing people one by one in strange ways, like the Friday the 13th movies. I really didn't like it.

The only reason i couldn't give this movie a zero is because it chose to talk about a very interesting period of time. Usually, we see movies about the civil war, but never about AFTER the civil war. I am a history buff, and while i'm not expecting this movie to replace a documentary on the topic, i think that it brings up an interesting point about how a society deals with the aftermath of a huge event like the civil war. The concept of the white landowners trying to go back to pre-civil war days, but black people suddenly understanding that they no longer need to take this kind of treatment was interesting. I liked seeing the origins of the KKK, and honestly, while i think what they stand for is despicable, i can understand how it came about. It came about at a period where white men were desperately trying to control a changing social environment they felt they were loosing control over. So we see the origins of the image we have of white guys riding horses with white covers over their faces and an outfit reminiscent of the crusades. That was the good. Now the bad. Actually, if i had to say what was bad, this would be a never-ending post, so i'll mention the 2 main points. I think that the poor actors were victims of terrible directing and writing. Every single character was either really bad and despicable with NO redeeming qualities, or was the strong silent type super hero who is chivalrous and considerate and passionate. The comic relief of Billy Zane was the only saving grace, it's like he knew this was an awful movie and figured he'd make the most of it by being utterly comical. But as a woman, what offended me the most, was that every female character was there only to be raped or abused. It felt like i was watching a really bad * movie (no not for the sexual content) where every single scene is a direct unrealistic fantasy of its director. The white men walked around like they owned every woman in town, but more than that, the woman are depicted as enjoying how they are treated (thus my comment about being a director's fantasy). Having said that, it just occurred to me that this was produced by the star of the show, same guy who plays in the Y&R daytime soap opera i believe. and that explains the way this movie is filmed, with the glossy headshots of the star, damsels in distress and white man chauvinism.

K...normally I completely HATE westerns - I mean, I'd go to sleep within the first 5 minutes of them. We got this movie at Blockbuster because my husband loves them. ANYWAY, this movie had me watching it from beginning to end. I got on amazon and ordered it today. I don't know why it was so good!!! I think it's because of the 2 sexy main actors :-) But I thought it had a great plot to it and it will tug at your heart in some parts. I consider a HORRIBLE western movie "Dead Man's Bounty" and this was tons better than that - TONS. I would highly recommend this to anyone who likes westerns AND to the ones like me who HATE them, because you'll love this.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I even rented this film, though I could not bear to watch it. As the crappy after effects title revealed itself at about 5 frames per second over the first shot of the film I said to the girl next to me, "Uh oh. That's not a good sign." I am torn with whether or not to dignify this movie with the designation "film," as it appears to have been shot with a 1998 prosumer video camera. Poor, poor Billy Zane. I feel bad for everyone in this film actually. The acting, from the few scenes that I watched, looked as though it might have been okay. It's hard to tell when the only mic used seemed to be the one that came mounted on the camera. I really wonder what it cost to produce this movie. I was fooled because the cover art of the DVD looked pretty good. Why does Hollywood video even stock this thing? There should be a warning next to it. "This movie was shot with a video camera!"

This is a good example of a bad movie happening to decently good actors. I really feel sorry for most of them and they should probably fire their agents. I think the casting was all wrong. I mean you have some good actors just not in the right part. The only thing good about this movie was Billy Zane. Seriously. Not kidding. His character was good and he plays it well. Probably his best since Titanic. This could have been a decent movie, (and I use that phrase lightly)-- but as usual Hollywood has destroyed another "western" type movie with way too much violence and unnecessary sex. Its the same story line, just different characters, you can almost see whats coming before it happens. Just leaves you feeling.... confused and ill. Its no wonder it went strait to DVD.

It looks like one of those movies shot by a college student using his own back yard as location and his friends as actors. You know: dv camera instead of film, cheap props, too few actors etc. The sad thing is that someone probably invested money in this movie. If you are curious of what once great actors like George Kennedy and Sean Young are doing nowadays, here's the answer. They appear in this kind of garbage. Kennedy seems to be intoxicated most of the time, but Young is sober, but almost as embarrassed as I was. The main character (Braeden) is also the producer, so it's fair to assume that he decided to pay up to realize his childhood dream of becoming a western hero. I didn't know this guy from before, but when I saw him act I understood why. A critic once wrote a one-sentence review on a movie: "The acting is bad, the script is bad and the directing is bad." In this case it's on the generous side. Make sure you have a pillow at hand. You will need it.

This is the worst western I have ever seen. Braeden's acting in this movie is horrible. He didn't suit the character at all, in fact looked plain stupid trying to be the lethal assassin. The very basic idea wasn't too bad, but the substance story to fill it out was feeble, stupid and too far unbelievable. The editing and scenes were badly put together. The sex was only a grab for something to peak interest and failed at that. The whole thing was awful awful awful. It could possibly be the worst movie I have seen, much less in just the western genre. Unforgiven, Open Range, 3:10 to Yuma, Silverado, Young Guns, Lonesome Dove, Dances with Wolves, Tombstone, are all some of the very best westerns. Acting, editing, filming and story in these are excellent. Even some of Clint Eastwood's old spaghetti westerns as old and tinny as they are, are still a cut above the abysmal The Man Who Came Back. I am not a Liberal, nor do I pay much attention to who was Confederate or not. I live in Canada. I do not specifically rent movies for the political correctness. I have watched movies that show the incredible horrible depths that humans are capable of and it does bother me... but I can put up with it sometimes and see the story surrounding it, even if I have to close my eyes sometimes.The brutality in this movie is not what makes it bad. Nor did I expect it to be a block buster. I Knew it was going to be bad, but it was my husbands choice. Just because it's not going to be a block buster, doesn't mean it can't be far better than this. Even if a movie were to be predictable and just another version of a tired script, it can still be far better than this movie was.