bfd21552 Not bad at allThinly veiled re-spreading (Mennonites instead of Mormons?) of Zane Grey's "Riders of the Purple Sage"--previously made into at least five films . . . Naomi Watts and others do a more-than-passable job of carrying off this version--despite a contrived happy ending for starry-eyed teens and readers of romance novellas. Indeed, it is the acting that makes this one a better-than-average (for modern westerns) effort. The 1941, George Montgomery film is notably more revealing of social and religious conflicts and dogmas than any of the later films--under whatever title and despite their somewhat dubious originality. Still, perhaps these works fall into the category of "imitatio" rather than straight copying?--at least one may always hope!

freemanpatrick7 One reviewer noted that it was obvious that this was written and directed by women. I thought the same thing. After all, it is a romance, first and a western second...distant second. The cinematography is brilliant, a bit dark at times, but considering how little electric light there was in the 19th century, it's appropriate. For the most part the acting is right on. The dialog, at times a bit forced, but is well written. But overall the film is predictable, the story line, as others have noted, is all too familiar. There's a scene where Johnny Gault tells Rebecca his life story. In a violation of the classic show, don't tell, rule. All of that would have been much more powerful had it been shown in flashback. Probably the worst part was the final shootout, yes, of course, you knew there had to be one. After Johnny had claimed to be good at killin', that he had "eyes in the back of his head", he doesn't see the old sneaking up behind 'em trick. But all in all, for a romance novel, it wasn't all bad.

sally-69 This film delivered on two things that the film world rarely does well: 1. the struggles of believers, submitted to God, in a world of violence and self-centeredness and 2. romance Both my husband and I enjoyed it.Critical to the success of the film was Timothy Daly's acting. He was fabulous! He made his character believable and interesting to watch. Naomi did a great job also. The setting (and the way it was filmed) was enjoyable also. I thought the script was good. The story moved along nicely while developing the characters. A person who was an orphan, who was tortured, without love, cut off emotionally, and involved in soul-scarring violence found love, a home, a family, and peace.

Peter Slade This movie travels such well-worn ground that -- despite the best efforts of the actors -- the stereotypes and plot clichés leave you wondering if the script writer or novelist should be sued for plagiarism. Jack Schaefer did this all (and better) in Shane.We have the same stand off between cattle rancher and homesteaderWe have the same relationship between the stranger/gunfighter and the homesteader's boy. We have the same journey into town and the boy witnessing a set piece between an aggressive cattle hand and the reluctant gunslinger.We have the same romantic interest between the homesteader's wife and the stranger (only this time the farmer is conveniently out of the picture so the tension built up in Shane is absent).The second stolen plot is from High Noon: We have the same good guy with the gun facing down the bad guys on his own with a pacifist wife objecting to the confrontation.We have the same good women who repents of her passive ways just in time to save her man -- having apparently just won the shoot out against superior numbers -- from a sneaky shot in the back.I could go on . . .the plot departures from these two great stories, rather than being a relief, are almost universally annoying. Most noteworthy are the miraculous recoveries from bullet wounds by the main characters so that love will prevail.