Q: Randolph Scott is heading into Albuquerque to take a job with his uncle. However, on the way there, the stage is held up--even though they are not carrying a strongbox. However, a nice lady on board is concealing $10,000 for her and her brother's business...and the robbers seem to know this.

Once in town, Scott goes to this uncle about the job. However, he soon learns that this uncle is a jerk--the typical bad guy from Westerns. You know, the rich guy who only wants to become richer by cheating and stealing and threatening until he owns everything. And, it just so happens that this jerk was behind the robbery. Scott demands that the uncle returns the money and then Scott goes into business with the nice lady and her brother.

Not surprisingly, this is NOT the end of the problems---just the beginning. Again and again, intrigues of various types occur to try to crush the uncle's opposition. One trick is to bring in a pretty lady to befriend Scott and his partners. She's a crack shot and it looks bad for Scott--until he figures out why she's come to town.

Unlike most later Randolph Scott films, this one shows Scott as a bit more headstrong man. All too often in his films he's the last one to suggest violence, but in this film he's quick to suggest a lynching (screw the law, let's have a hangin') and later he's quick to threaten the uncle. What a surprise to see him as such a hot-head--though in most other ways, he's the same old Scott you'd expect.

As far as the film goes, there's nothing particularly unusual about it. Gabby Hayes plays the usual character, Scott is a hero, the baddie cannot be reasoned with and ultimately is destroyed and Scott gets the girl. Despite this very typical plot, it's all handled very well and as a result is well worth your time.

By the way, there are two weird scenes in the film. First, late in the movie, there is a fist fight between Scott and the uncle's #1 henchman, Lon Chaney, Jr.. In it, Chaney smokes as he fights--something I never saw before and I did admire how he could puff away as he got his butt kicked. Second, get a load of that runaway cart scene with the whip--now THAT was one impossible feat! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: But it is kinda hilarious, at least if you grew up on Weird Al, like I did. It's a mockumentary about his life and career, beginning with superstardom and going back to trace the origins. It's uneven in places, but some of the segments are still very funny, particularly when he goes to Japan. Although it's not quite as emotionally textured as Lost in Translation, and he doesn't find love however fleeting, he does capture in a bottle the absolutely bizarre cultural melange that is Tokyo street life.

Perhaps Weird Al isn't recognized as the insightful cultural commentator that he is; perhaps a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Still, this is a funny movie. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: This film is "riveting" but in much the same way a car crash is riveting. It's hard to look away. Overall, this film is nothing more than an incredibly irresponsible social experiment--and a futile, biased experiment at that. The filmmakers are manipulative and seem to have no problems going for the lowest possible denominator. The manner in which the money is presented to Ted is pure exploitation. The intervening steps that the filmmakers force Ted to participate in (meeting with so-called experts) were empty and devoid of any substantive attempt to connect with Ted. Instead, it's painfully obvious that they serve to cover the filmmaker's posteriors and to further exploit Ted's situation. The worst part is that the filmmakers stop following Ted after 6 months; and seemingly are cut off entirely from the subject they had followed so closely months before. If they had cared, they would have found better "experts" to help Ted. If they truly wanted to see what Ted would do, then they should have let him spend the money without any intervention. This film is at best a high-brow Jackass stunt and not a documentary. It's sad to think how much $100,000 could have actually changed a homeless person's life had it been put in the right hands. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: This is one of the worst films I have *ever* seen! It is bad, even at TV Movie level standards. The plot is diabolically flawed, and the known names in this film are wasted on confused, uncertain characters. I don't know how the director managed to keep this excuse of a film together - it is that bad. Billed as a 'Psychological Horror Thriller' - it is certainly Horrific. There is nothing Thrilling about it. And it could do you Psychological damage! The initial opening scenes held such promise - a possible embarkation on whether the soul is just an aspect of the brain, but the utter shambles that followed the car-crash scene is beyond belief. No matter how hard you try, you couldn't care less about the characters. There are so many sprinkled ideas that the film is at best a collage of disconnected phrases from Chinese philosophers, and at worst the film would actually make you go Brain Dead!

I have purchased over 300 films on DVD, and this is the FIRST one I'm going to get my money back on. STEER CLEAR. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative