74 reviews
Average Western with disappointing action and plot
I am a fan of well done, action packed Westerns but this movie fails to deliver any exciting or believable fight scenes. The gun play sequences are poorly paced and not very believable and the transitions between scenes are awkward. The worst flaw was the lack of continuity between scenes. A young boy is shot in the right leg and we watch as the bullet is removed by a half drunken doctor but in a scene five minutes later, the boy is shown sitting with a bandaged LEFT leg, only to be shown later with an injured right leg again. Overall this was a promising movie that did not live up to my expectations.
- nevideo-92913
- Aug 14, 2017
- Permalink
Go ahead and watch it, you know you want to!
I liked this movie for the simple reason it was a western. While not spectacular, the show was still okay for late night viewing. Critics here giving 2's are not being fair with their overall assessment.
- texasamericanpatriot
- Jan 21, 2019
- Permalink
Hickok review
The dubious factual integrity of this tale of Wild Bill Hickok's tenure as the Sheriff of Abilene does nothing to enhance what is a stubbornly ordinary saga, despite the efforts of a decent cast. Liam, the older, arguably least successful, of the Hemsworth brothers works hard in the title role, and receives solid support from Trace Adkins, Bruce Dern and Kris Kristofferson, but the plot never really engages and Timothy Woodward Jr's direction lacks imagination.
- JoeytheBrit
- Jul 2, 2020
- Permalink
Doesn't get any worse than this
Disappointing is a word I would normally use when discovering a below par movie, but I did not expect much from this movie to begin with so the bar was set quiet low in my expectation. Somehow the director managed to lower that bar considerably. Terrible direction, no style of any kind whatsoever.. terrible sound editing,, a gunshot sounds like someone farted loudly.. awfully clichéd dialogue, wooden acting at its worst, lighting was poor, cinematography was childlike and vacuous,. This was a calamitous endeavour from start to finish. Watch it only to learn how not to make a western.
- chumgriffin
- Jul 6, 2017
- Permalink
What a shame.
This had so much historical fodder for storytelling and they did this. The writing was terrible, the direction worse, and many of the actors seemed to be just phoning it in fora paycheck.
The most sad thing of this had to be Kris Kristofferson who seemed to be reading from a slow loading dialogue delivery system of some sort. The only actors that did well were those with few paychecks behind them.
Action and SFX were beyond poor and the entire film was a train wreck in that you can't stop watching to see if it can get any worse.
Kris and Bruce? It's time to retire. You had great runs but it has gotten down to the point that peeps might think you just don't give a shot anymore. Loved you both in your earlier stuff.
The most sad thing of this had to be Kris Kristofferson who seemed to be reading from a slow loading dialogue delivery system of some sort. The only actors that did well were those with few paychecks behind them.
Action and SFX were beyond poor and the entire film was a train wreck in that you can't stop watching to see if it can get any worse.
Kris and Bruce? It's time to retire. You had great runs but it has gotten down to the point that peeps might think you just don't give a shot anymore. Loved you both in your earlier stuff.
- rareandfirsts
- Jul 7, 2017
- Permalink
don't waste your time
The most boring Western I've seen in a long time.
- admiraljoshhar
- Aug 18, 2017
- Permalink
Beyond awfulness
Where to begin. This movie was beyond awfulness. It is as if some guys had way too many beers and in a stupor wrote out the script on a dirty napkin. The acting was deplorable. It was as if they were reading cue cards that were to far to read. The acting was wooden and in slow motion. They had a excellent opportunity to make a half decent western with Kris and Trace in the mix. Even Bruce could have done much better even though he is as old as dirt and really needs to stop acting. I think he was thrown in the mix to make a interesting cast that fell flat. Who in their right mind would cast Hemsworth to play Hickok anyway. This man can't act out of a wet paper bag guys. The script was awful and the direction was just down right bad and the acting was on a whole level of terrible. It was just like someone else said, it was like watching a train wreck, you couldn't stop watching it because you was hoping it would get better but never did. This was a 101 lesson on how not to make a western or any other kind of movie. This really was a very bad movie. I was wishing for more because I really love westerns but man oh man this thing stunk.
- boggie4758
- Jul 8, 2017
- Permalink
Fun movie. Wouldn't buy a movie ticket but fun.
- wikzonenicho
- Oct 12, 2018
- Permalink
Amateurish
I was looking forward to seeing this and well well well, what a huge let down.
I really do not understand why the movie makers decided that this should see the light of day. It was bloody awful.
The story line was so bad, the scenes unrealistic and worst of all.....the acting. The acting is so wooden, there is no emotion from any of the cast.
One of the worst westerns i have ever seen
I really do not understand why the movie makers decided that this should see the light of day. It was bloody awful.
The story line was so bad, the scenes unrealistic and worst of all.....the acting. The acting is so wooden, there is no emotion from any of the cast.
One of the worst westerns i have ever seen
- andyreading666
- Jul 15, 2017
- Permalink
Surprising 👍🤙😍
Based on some other reviews, I wasn't sure. I read the Hollywood Reporter review and decided to give it a chance. Entertaining and well acted. It was worth my time.
- jett_julie
- May 30, 2019
- Permalink
Establishing Law and Order in Abilene
After getting into one scrape with the law after the next, "Wild Bill Hickok" (Luke Hemsworth) rides into Abilene, Kansas and heads directly to the saloon for a drink. While there he saves a young man from getting shot while in a poker game which happens to catch the eye of the local mayor "George Knox" (Kris Kristofferson) who subsequently offers him a job as the town sheriff. Although the town of Abilene is known for its lawlessness this doesn't faze him and so he accepts the job with the intention of establishing law and order one way or the other. Unfortunately, this doesn't please everyone-especially the richest and most influential resident named "Phil Poe" (Trace Adkins) who owns the biggest saloon and has benefited tremendously from the status quo. Likewise, the fact that his fiancé named "Mattie" (Cameron Richardson) seems to have kept a secret from him concerning her relationship with Hickok doesn't please him either. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this turned out to be an enjoyable Western movie with decent performances all around. Admittedly, the pony tail sported by Trace Adkins struck me as rather odd for this particular era but other than that it turned out to be a good, solid film and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.
Wild Bill's early years
The best film I've seen done on Wild Bill Hickok is White Buffalo where Charles Bronson played the legendary frontier marshal. It was set at a different time and place during his life. This film Hickok is set at the beginning showing some of his Civil War service and the beginning of his time as marshal of Abilene.
Unlike Wyatt Earp who rarely used his weapon and before the OK Corral business had only killed one man, Hickok was as fast as rumored and had a few kills listed to him. That's what is shown here. Luke Hemsworth who plays Hickok also carries a shotgun as most peace officers did. What counted was to make sure hit your target. He has quite the standoff with John Wesley Hardin who in real life never made it as far north as Kansas. He certainly wasn't Hickok's deputy. Hardin is played here by Kaiwi Lyman-Mesereau.
The film moves at a tortoise pace attributable to some bad direction and the characters never engage you the way the cast in the Bronson film did. Having such veterans as Kris Kristofferson and Bruce Dern help a bit. But this is not the final cinematic word on Wild Bill Hickok.
Unlike Wyatt Earp who rarely used his weapon and before the OK Corral business had only killed one man, Hickok was as fast as rumored and had a few kills listed to him. That's what is shown here. Luke Hemsworth who plays Hickok also carries a shotgun as most peace officers did. What counted was to make sure hit your target. He has quite the standoff with John Wesley Hardin who in real life never made it as far north as Kansas. He certainly wasn't Hickok's deputy. Hardin is played here by Kaiwi Lyman-Mesereau.
The film moves at a tortoise pace attributable to some bad direction and the characters never engage you the way the cast in the Bronson film did. Having such veterans as Kris Kristofferson and Bruce Dern help a bit. But this is not the final cinematic word on Wild Bill Hickok.
- bkoganbing
- Aug 28, 2017
- Permalink
Ruined
No attempt at all to bring Wild Bill back to life as seen in Deadwood and other great Hickok recreations will give young generations a completely false view, i hate this kind of dead sterile film making. From the acting to the sets nothing inspired. Was really looking forward to this but i am sure the legend of Wild Bill Hickok will survive this.
One of the worse Westerns you will see
A real stinker
One of the most poorly written and acted westerns ever. You will cringe at just how bad is the acting and direction. The video doesn't feel right, neither does the audio. And the dialogue. Wow. What a piece of garbage. Kris Kristofferson looks like he's almost dead. And delivers his lines like he's already a corpse.
- survivorcritic
- Nov 17, 2017
- Permalink
Watchable
Wild Bill Hickok (Luke Helmsworth) comes to Abilene, a western cow town that needs taming and Mayor Knox (Kris Kristofferson) makes him the Marshall.
This is somewhat disappointing because there are good acting scenes and poorly acted scenes. You decide how correct I am. The scenes with Hickok and Dr. O'Rourke ( Bruce Dern) were very good; and also the dialogues between Hickok and Mayor Knox were spot on; and I even liked the banter between Hickok and John Wesley Hardin (Kaiwi Lyman-Mersereau). All the rest of the scenes and dialogues were not as good, but the talks between Hickok and Mattie (Cameron Richardson) his love interest were okay. Trace Atkins is okay as Poe, the owner of the saloon. He originally likes Hickok, but after Hickok affects his business by not allowing guns in town, he does everything to have his boys kill Hickok.
Was I looking for a shoot-out between Hickok and John Wesley Hardin? Of course. Checking with Wikipedia we see that Hickok and John Wesley Hardin did know each other and when Hickok told Hardin to turn in his guns, he did. But in the movie he didn't. In the movie, Hickok made him a Deputy Marshall.
Yes, Hickok does pretend that John Wesley Hardin is not John Wesley Harden for if he was, then Hickok would have to arrest him because Hardin is a wanted man. Interesting take here.
Was this a really good western? No. A lot of stuff needed work, mostly quicker responses from the players at times. Let me say this: if the bad guys were better bad guys, then this may have saved the movie. Didn't happen. For example, the bad guys shoot into a cabin where Hickok and Mattie are and throw a stick of dynamite into the cabin. Hickok tosses it outside, but the bad guys think they killed Hickok and didn't check. See? This was just one small example.
Also I kept hearing that this was Drover town, but I didn't see one cow. A Drover is someone who drives cows to market. We should have seen at least one cow. Bummer.
A sort of interesting aside: I noticed most players wore their guns in not the usual place on their hips.
All in all this was watchable, and yes, somewhat disappointing, too, and we wished it was better. (5/10)
Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: Yes, almost when Hickok and Mattie get together. Language: Small stuff and not much of it.
This is somewhat disappointing because there are good acting scenes and poorly acted scenes. You decide how correct I am. The scenes with Hickok and Dr. O'Rourke ( Bruce Dern) were very good; and also the dialogues between Hickok and Mayor Knox were spot on; and I even liked the banter between Hickok and John Wesley Hardin (Kaiwi Lyman-Mersereau). All the rest of the scenes and dialogues were not as good, but the talks between Hickok and Mattie (Cameron Richardson) his love interest were okay. Trace Atkins is okay as Poe, the owner of the saloon. He originally likes Hickok, but after Hickok affects his business by not allowing guns in town, he does everything to have his boys kill Hickok.
Was I looking for a shoot-out between Hickok and John Wesley Hardin? Of course. Checking with Wikipedia we see that Hickok and John Wesley Hardin did know each other and when Hickok told Hardin to turn in his guns, he did. But in the movie he didn't. In the movie, Hickok made him a Deputy Marshall.
Yes, Hickok does pretend that John Wesley Hardin is not John Wesley Harden for if he was, then Hickok would have to arrest him because Hardin is a wanted man. Interesting take here.
Was this a really good western? No. A lot of stuff needed work, mostly quicker responses from the players at times. Let me say this: if the bad guys were better bad guys, then this may have saved the movie. Didn't happen. For example, the bad guys shoot into a cabin where Hickok and Mattie are and throw a stick of dynamite into the cabin. Hickok tosses it outside, but the bad guys think they killed Hickok and didn't check. See? This was just one small example.
Also I kept hearing that this was Drover town, but I didn't see one cow. A Drover is someone who drives cows to market. We should have seen at least one cow. Bummer.
A sort of interesting aside: I noticed most players wore their guns in not the usual place on their hips.
All in all this was watchable, and yes, somewhat disappointing, too, and we wished it was better. (5/10)
Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: Yes, almost when Hickok and Mattie get together. Language: Small stuff and not much of it.
No Oscars for this Performance
Not only a poorly written plot, but poorly executed by all the actors to boot. Too much suggestion to little action. I'm usually a pretty forgiving guy with a pretty good imagination to cover holes in a plot but this is ridiculous beyond my imagination. I was really looking forward to this movie, little did I know I was heading for the Big Crash of disappointment! I love westerns and I'm sorry to say this should be up for "Worst Film of the Year
Town-bound modern Western delivers the goods for Grade B fare
RELEASED IN 2017 and directed by Timothy Woodward Jr., "Hickok" stars Luke Hemsworth as the titular lawman and gunslinger, nicknamed Wild Bill, who is commissioned as Marshal to tame the wildest cow-town in the Old West, Abilene, Kansas. Kris Kristofferson plays the noble mayor and Bruce Dern the town doctor while Trace Adkins is on hand as the nefarious mogul of the town. Cameron Richardson plays the woman they vie for whereas Kaiwi Lyman appears as Hickok's gunfighter rival.
Except for the opening sequences, this is a town-bound Western similar in theme to those Wyatt Earp Westerns where Earp has to clean up a town (Dodge City, Tombstone, whatever). Since practically the entire story takes place in town it's irrelevant that California substitutes for Kansas. It's great to see old Western stars Kristofferson and Dern in fairly significant peripheral roles. Luke is stalwart as the protagonist and the movie really drives home the bold resolve it would take to tame a wild cow-town. Meanwhile the hulking Adkins is formidable as the heavy.
While this is a relatively low-budget adult Western (with a little bit of cussing, nudity, covert sex) and there are obvious mistakes here and there (e.g. the kid's bandage appearing on the wrong leg), not to mention the cast probably learned their lines the night before, as well as the predictableness concerning Mattie's kid, the script and main cast keep things compelling. There are several highlights and a few spectacular shots, like the train bridge in the opening act and, later, the moonlit sky.
In short, the movie's entertaining for a low budget Western that doesn't overstay its welcome. Western fans who don't demand Grade A quality should eat this up. Keep in mind that not every Western can have the mega-funds of blockbusters like "Dances With Wolves" and "Unforgiven." Just don't look to "Hickok" for accurate history. Nevertheless, I'd watch "Hickok" over the comparatively dull "Wild Bill" (1995) any day.
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour 28 minutes and was shot in Agoura (Paramount Ranch) & Santa Clarita, California. WRITER: Michael Lanahan.
GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)
Except for the opening sequences, this is a town-bound Western similar in theme to those Wyatt Earp Westerns where Earp has to clean up a town (Dodge City, Tombstone, whatever). Since practically the entire story takes place in town it's irrelevant that California substitutes for Kansas. It's great to see old Western stars Kristofferson and Dern in fairly significant peripheral roles. Luke is stalwart as the protagonist and the movie really drives home the bold resolve it would take to tame a wild cow-town. Meanwhile the hulking Adkins is formidable as the heavy.
While this is a relatively low-budget adult Western (with a little bit of cussing, nudity, covert sex) and there are obvious mistakes here and there (e.g. the kid's bandage appearing on the wrong leg), not to mention the cast probably learned their lines the night before, as well as the predictableness concerning Mattie's kid, the script and main cast keep things compelling. There are several highlights and a few spectacular shots, like the train bridge in the opening act and, later, the moonlit sky.
In short, the movie's entertaining for a low budget Western that doesn't overstay its welcome. Western fans who don't demand Grade A quality should eat this up. Keep in mind that not every Western can have the mega-funds of blockbusters like "Dances With Wolves" and "Unforgiven." Just don't look to "Hickok" for accurate history. Nevertheless, I'd watch "Hickok" over the comparatively dull "Wild Bill" (1995) any day.
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour 28 minutes and was shot in Agoura (Paramount Ranch) & Santa Clarita, California. WRITER: Michael Lanahan.
GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)
An Honest Review
I'm sorry, the movie has talent behind it. It also has talent familiar with westerns.
But the direction stinks and the entire film in hampered by poor production values.
It looks not unlike a movie of the week, if the movie of the week had half the budget of a single episode of a reality TV show.
Here and there you can spot a clever lighting trick, something that adds a little bit of beauty, a little bit of photographic excellence. But those moments are few and far between, and even then you can tell that they were giving all they could with next to nothing.
The sets just looked cheap, especially if you're watching it on a TV with any real resolution.
Even the blood looked cheap and fake.
The best thing this movie could have done was work in the shadows, make it dingy and dark in an effort to hide how cheap it all is.
instead, it went for decent lighting, and unfortunately, that didn't hide as much as it should have.
But the direction stinks and the entire film in hampered by poor production values.
It looks not unlike a movie of the week, if the movie of the week had half the budget of a single episode of a reality TV show.
Here and there you can spot a clever lighting trick, something that adds a little bit of beauty, a little bit of photographic excellence. But those moments are few and far between, and even then you can tell that they were giving all they could with next to nothing.
The sets just looked cheap, especially if you're watching it on a TV with any real resolution.
Even the blood looked cheap and fake.
The best thing this movie could have done was work in the shadows, make it dingy and dark in an effort to hide how cheap it all is.
instead, it went for decent lighting, and unfortunately, that didn't hide as much as it should have.
- generationofswine
- Nov 18, 2017
- Permalink
Slow but okay low budget western
Great movie
I thought the movie was great. Luke looked great as wild bill. Shame trace Adkins character was a bad guy, hes nice to look at and hear his sexy voice. Good storyline and great acting I thought!
- michelelewis88
- Aug 30, 2018
- Permalink
Super ever
Good movie watch it only learn how not to make western
Dreadful
- Canadian_KAOS
- Apr 15, 2023
- Permalink
Should have been called Hiccup.
The ONLY things decent about this movie were the sets and the acting by the 2 seasoned pros. The dialogue was horrible and sounded like they stole the script from a bunch of other poorly written westerns. Most of the acting was either lackluster or over the top. There were things in certain scenes that were NOT written into the script that made no sense whatsoever.
The dialogue was only made better because of the sound because you couldn't HEAR THEM half of the time. If I turned the sound WAY up to hear the dialogue, then fight/shooting scenes were WAY TOO LOUD. I had to restart the movie and put on the closed captions so I knew what they were saying. The musical score was also plain and boring, a real snooze fest.
I tried watching "The Making of Hickok" but stopped it early because you couldn't hear the comments of most of the actors, and the director...OMG! The director was like listening to crickets chirping. His deadpan and monotone way of talking was EXACTLY like the movie. DULL!
Don't waste your time or money on this one. As someone who has been watching a LOT of westerns from the mid-40's to more recent movies, this was one of the worst I've seen. The real Hickok probably deserved a better representation that this dud.
- daleg-34738
- Mar 8, 2019
- Permalink