200412: Well done, well done. For an obviously low budget western these creative folks did a pretty damn good job. Fun film with weak acting but one great story. Features unique transistions through time. Unexpectedly enjoyable.

Low budget. poor direction. bad acting. other than that, not bad LOL. The only good thing I can come up with is the actress who played Scarlet did a good job. The rest was melodramatic and hard to watch. One other annoying thing was how they kept jumping back and forth with repeated long scenes. These were hard enough to watch the first time. It really felt like they had only a 45 minute movie, so they tried to stretch it into 84 minutes by chopping some scenes short so they could replay them in entirety later. I really hope I don't run across any more work by these clowns. Oh, and there was a VERY huge continuity mistake. So I don't have a spoiler, I won't say who. But someone with a very noticeable bullet wound on the left shoulder suddenly has the wound on the opposite shoulder.

Not good, but somehow riveting. Some cool camera angles, reasonably good period costumes, acting was either wooden or good but limited by the writing. The story line was interesting, but wrapped up too quickly with little finesse. I did, perversely, enjoy the odd insertion of twenty-first century phrases i.e. "gross" and "weird, right?". I had to rewind to verify that, during one scene, the gunshot injury was to the woman's right shoulder when it was consistently on her left shoulder before and after this scene. Weird, right? I think they should try again, but run the dialog past a writer first and take the time to have continuity checked.