One of the best films i have seen

Better Late Then Never

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Blistering performances.

When movies that are very recent are on Hulu I get suspicious of it being a very bad movie. This is another movie that confirms my suspicions.The idea of this movie is good, but the movie was rushed and could have used a better script. The longer you watch the movie the worse the movie will seem. It's as though funding or interest in the movie was running low, so the creators just ended it any way they felt. The camera shots are not too bad, and set designing is your typical idea of a western, but with very few people in the movie. The script for me is what ruined the movie. I suggest not to watch this movie if you're looking for a GOOD movie.Synopsis of the story: The script follows a character named Jackson, his wife is kidnapped and Jackson wants to go and find her. He runs into trouble along the way, and a homicidal man with a black coat and hat keeps appearing and threatening Jackson. Later in the movie you find out the man Jackson saw was actually a hallucination, and that man is another one of his personalities. You find out his wife is not actually his wife, and that she's married to someone. The story then ends abruptly shortly afterwards.

This is my firs review for IMDb...and I'm only doing it because the movie was so ...atrocious. The scenery was beautiful...that's the only redeeming thing about the movie. I should have really followed the reviews from IMDb...but foolishly wasted 1.5 hours of my time. Wish I hadn't

Lawrence Roeck's second feature has the skeleton of an interesting symbolic western -- at times even a western psychological thriller -- but the screenplay never provides flesh or a beating heart. The attempt feels like a rough draft. Despite its short running time and dislike for extra details, it locks into a loose rhythm in the early going. Walton Goggins' character, played with a wicked spirit, brings a great deal of life to the film in his brief scenes. Goggins' presence begs for comparisons to The Hateful Eight, which wouldn't be in Diablo's favor. Eastwood, upstaged by Goggins and Glover, takes a bold move in his willingness to so directly invoke his father. The two look uncannily alike. His primary acting strengths lie elsewhere, but the flimsiness of his character here can be chalked up to poor writing. Technical credits are strong, and despite a somewhat foreboding score, the film looks excellent for its budget.

Because of the poor reviews I didn't have many expectations for this western, but, having watched it, I wonder if others saw a different movie. I watched a smart thrilling movie that gave a fresh twist to the typical western genre and stereotypical hero - akin to Bone Tomahawk (another fantastic western with a modern edge of violence). Scott Eastwood is a bit boring at the beginning but once his character evolves, he is brilliant and believable. I had no trouble following the story line and I applaud Lawrence Roeck for using dialogue and action to reveal the twist instead of dragging out a boring detailed explanation.This is not your formulaic Clint Eastwood Western but rather a next generation western in both actor and plot. Well done.