I really wanted to like this movie. Henriksen & Berenger give very good, solid performances. However, aside from a very brief appearance by Danny Trejo, most of the other actors seem to be on loan from the Eldorado school of bad acting. The story is a good old fashioned, slow burning western. But the supporting characters, more so than the leads, just seemed so clichéd (it might have been the bad acting, but I think even good actors wouldn't have helped their roles.) None of the scenes 'in town' or on the train near the end - just nothing seemed authentic. It's a shame because I suspect with more competent direction, a better supporting cast and cinematographer, this actually could have been a great film and character study.

I watched the first part last night and decided to go to bed, see if the next half got any better tonight. This is not slow moving it's slovenly to the point of tedium. I've watched over half of it now and still don't know what it's about. Who are these characters, what's the story about, when I don't know, I don't care. Have a general idea now that it's about the woman hanging from a tree and the sheriff, along with a possible outlaw gang. Don't understand the Virgil or river man parts, unless it's taking an eternity to build up to good versus bad. If you have the patience of an angel, it might be good.Personally I wished I'd watched the good, the bad and the ugly yet again.