pasquill-l-s Not a bad film, unlike other reviews I have seen for it I believe that this film is a perfect example of a B-Film. The story line isn't too deep and the actors are not unbelievably gripping.This being said the reasons most don't seem to like it are the exact reason it is an okay film, and an excellent example of a b-movie. Like all b-films it can be a mini-cult classic like almost every Bruce Campbell film and a background noise film, entertaining enough to be on in the background and for you to have focus every now and again.If you want to watch an okay film I would recommend this for the sheer novelty, if you want to insult a b-film I would recommend another one like, erm, I know how many runs you scored last summer.

Jan Strydom I remember years back as a kid the first Albert Pyun movie I saw was CYBORG, then after that I saw NEMESIS, and I enjoyed them both mainly because they looked cool, and as a kid I never really paid attention to the flaws or tried to over analyze the plot, I just liked CYBORG because I was a big Van Damme fan, and I liked NEMESIS because it was something different, and over the years every time I saw Albert Pyun's name on a film, I would immediately say that's the guy who directed CYBORG & NEMESIS, but of course, he has directed some terrible films, such as that URBAN MENACE junk and a few others that made me wonder if this actually was directed by the same guy.LEFT FOR DEAD was the first Pyun movie I saw since TICKER, and compared to the other films I've seen before, it was nothing like any of Pyun's previous work, and I mean that in a good way, sure its no masterpiece, but it is also not the worst movie out there, I actually liked the storyline, it was very original and unfolded nicely, I'll also add that I am not a die hard fan of the spaghetti western genre so I guess its easier for me to accept it as it is, the acting was not all bad but also not all good, entertainment wise, a lot of people might find it a bit on the boring side, because it doesn't have any major action sequences or anything that will make you jump out of your seat, it is mainly focused on being more of a ghost story than anything else, other than that it has a part near the ending that is pretty gross.I actually liked this film, and for those that consider it the worst movie you've ever seen, check out these titles, HUNTING SEASON, THE CAVERN and FIVE ACROSS THE EYES, then you'll know what's worse.

carlos_b84 So, I finally got to see Albert Pyun's most recent effort. A strange western about a foreign woman (along with a bunch of local women) hunting down her ex (who happens to have impregnated the daughter of one of them) into a town haunted by a ghost who's sworn revenge over those women.I was drawn by this film. Firstly, because it's Albert Pyun, and no matter how bizarre the film is, there's always something I find cool in his film. Secondly, the movie was shot in my country, and now checking with IMDb, it has an almost completely local cast.Pyun abuses of the slow-motion effect in this movie. That and an excess of cutting during the "action" scenes produces annoyance. Other than that, the story was good, and it could have been improved with a better budget (no, I didn't say director). THere're tons of blood, deaths and gore too, which will please fans of horror/slasher movies.Victoria Maurette, of whom I've noticed in stupid teen flicks, has left me stunned. I didn't know she could actually act, and matter of fact, I didn't even recognise her (again, thanks IMDb). The rest of the actors are OK too, especially the one playing Moebius Lockwood (who looks terrific), but she delivered quite a good performance. Too good actually.This film should be held in the same light as Pyun's "Omega Doom". It has its resemblances and differences, some more noticeable than others. But they're both unusual, peculiar movies, which depart from standards.Overall, it's watchable. Not a film to watch again, though. So much for a film which was supposedly the second part of a trilogy started with "Mean Guns", which is a film that I personally have watched at least 20 times, and I'd watch it 20 times more if I had the opportunity.Albie, get back to that sort of flicks!

JoeB131 Okay, I wasn't going to give it a 1 originally, but seeing as people on the crew have come on here and given it 10 ratings, I have to strike a balance.The plot, if you want to call it that, is that this band of prostitutes slaughter all the decent folk in town out of retaliation for a preacher having a fling with one of them. The Preacher renounces God, and is trapped as a vengeful spirit killing anyone unlucky enough to wander into the town looking for gold.Meanwhile, the prostitutes set up a lesbian-American community outside of town, until a woman looking for her husband wanders into their camp, and they agree to follow him into the town because he knocked up one of their number.The whole movie is a convoluted mess, with a lot of violence against women, (where are angry feminists when you really need them?) The male hero for some inexplicable reason, speaks half his lines in Spanish, and yet everyone can understand him. More mysteriously, they put subtitles on half his English lines as well, probably because he garbled his dialog so badly you couldn't understand him, anyway. Not that his female co-stars do any better.Oh, yeah, and all the women have dirt on them. I guess no one bathed in 1895. They're dirty, dirty girls.Really, you should avoid this film. I wish I had.