Very well executed

Better Late Then Never

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

With a title like "Aces 'N' Eights", you know it's only a matter of time before the obligatory reference is made to Wild Bill Hickok's dead man's hand. That was provided by villain turned good guy D.C. Cracker (Bruce Boxleitner) later on in the story, but you know, it's funny because there was nothing even remotely related to playing cards or gambling that had anything to do with the picture. Take another movie with the same title, 1936's "Aces and Eights" starring Tim McCoy; in that one McCoy's character is a card sharp and all around tough guy who's wanted posters tell prospective gamblers to just stay away from him. He could tear a pack of playing cards into quarters he was so tough! Now Westerns are my favorite movie genre, so don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way. There's only so many times you can tell the greedy land grab story before it gets to be redundant. That's one of the main reasons Westerns eventually fell out of favor with the public, which is why it takes something like Eastwood's "Unforgiven" to encourage the genre's revival. The story here is another one of those formula pictures repackaged and made over the top violent to appeal to Western movie junkies like myself, but after just so many (I've reviewed well over six hundred on IMDb before losing track) it seems more like going through the motions.Even with all that said I thought this was an OK film. Casper Van Dien made for a staunchly rugged hero opposite Jeff Kober's sadistic Tate character. I started to get a little distracted when Jack Noseworthy showed up looking just a little too much like a young Val Kilmer. Then later on when Monty (Rodney Scott) made his way back to Oak Hill, I got distracted even more when the bruises on his faces kept changing shape and position. But then it's all balanced out by Ernest Borgnine at ninety one years of age! riding horses and throwing down with his shotgun making me wish once again he could have made it to a hundred.

I was surprised at first when Bruce Boxleitner (D.C. Cracker) starts out as a gun thug with a murdering leader named Tate, who is thoroughly despicable and ugly too. He leaves the gang because he will not kill a kid. Ernest Borgnine is the old rancher who refuses to sell to make way for the railroad. So if you have seen this plot before guess what happens now? Ernest gets killed off while in town but so does every one of the gang except, of course, Tate. He has to live so he can die by the right man. Casper Van Dien character also left Tate's gang when Cracker did. Then there is the hot love interest schoolmarm played by Dierdre Quinn. If you watch many westerns you are led to believe that all school teachers are at the least pretty and always falls for the hero. The showdown happens at the ranch property fence. Here a Chicago RR man offers a plan that both sides agree on. So Tate makes his move and shoots at the ranchers. Many of the RR men that came along get shot, Bruce gets shot up and dies. Tate is about to finish Van Dien, who has been shot to doll rags as they say, when the Chicago man kills him. I guess CVD lives to marry the teacher. There a couple minor points that were very unrealistic. CVD fanned his gun. Doesn't work, your shots go all over the place and you have no accuracy. CVD was using a double barrel, breech loading shotgun. He used it one handed, rather hard to be accurate. Also he shot it twice and then without reloading, shot it two more times. Got to love those Hollywood infinite ammo weapons!!!

Yes, sadly, we have a look into DVD Perdition, where ex-actors who used to be something are consigned to doing bad films.This film has three guys who used to have name recognition- Casper Van Dien, Bruce Boxleitner and Ernest Borgnine. Hell, Ernie won an Oscar. (He's also 91 and still acting, that says a lot.) The plot is that the railroad is coming through, and Ernest doesn't want to sell his land. The railroad hires a bunch of thugs, who used to know ranch hand van Dien. A bunch of clichéd western themes, you aren't going to mistake this for Deadwood, that's for sure.The movie is plodding and slow, there is little chemistry between the characters. The ending is the typical showdown that John Wayne did 50 years ago and much better. Boxleitner could have been John Wayne 40 years ago, but maybe we've outgrown a need for John Wayne.

The railroad is coming and not all people want to sell their ranch to make way for the new rail line. The local officials working for the railroad are violently encouraging the families to sell their ranches at the railroad's price. A railroad official from Chicago has come to help speed matters up, but in a non-violent manner.Ernest Borgnine is one of the ranchers who are refusing to sell. Working for Ernest Borgnine is a former gunfighter (Luke Rivers / Casper Van Dien) who has tried to leave his violent past behind, and a teenage boy (Michael H. Barnett). Among those working for the railroad is a former gunfighter friend (D.C. Cracker / Bruce Boxleitner) of Luke River.I generally liked this movie as I favor Westerns. I did feel the script needed more work. I thought there may be a connection between Luke Rivers and the teenage boy - and if there was - I missed the explanation.Connections/relations/conflicts between other characters could have been developed more. I am uncertain if this is because of the script, the direction, or if the actors didn't have the 'heft' to pull it off. James Stewart, or other 1950s Western actors, had the gravitas to imply much with little.Because a Mexican shawl is so reminiscent of Clint Eastwood in his 'Man With No Name' spaghetti westerns, Casper Van Dien looked 'wrong' when he took to wearing one late in the movie. Instead of enhancing his gunfighter status, it diminished him in my eyes as he could not compare to Eastwood.The director has a different visual style. Occasionally his tilted camera angles was distracting. I disagree with his overuse of tight closeups - especially during fight/brawl scenes. I couldn't get involved in the fight/brawl when I only saw the person who threw the punch or the person who received it with no good establishing shots as to which person was fighting who.I also felt the violent scenes of the railroad enforcers terrorizing the families were too many and went on too long. It was more than I expected from a TV movie. It says something when the credits lists as an actress: "Terrified Woman".On the plus side, the movie did try to present people on both sides of the conflict being right and wrong, good and bad. You may be right but sometimes it is hard to stop progress. I believe the "Aces and Eights" referred to losing with a winning hand. Within the Western clichés the movie tried to be different, and while it didn't always succeed, at times I admired the effort.