What makes it different from others?

This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Really Surprised!

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Despite being one of the rare Canadian films to get a theatrical release in Canada as big as some Hollywood blockbusters, "Gunless" was a big bomb in theatres. A big reason for that was probably an inadequate promotion campaign; despite all my hours of watching TV, I didn't see one commercial for this movie. Some people may claim that the movie being a western doomed its commercial prospects, but if you look at the Hollywood westerns that have been made for the past 30 years, you will see that the GOOD westerns have almost always done at least decent business.As you might have guessed, "Gunless" isn't a good movie. It isn't a movie that provokes hatred or real dislike from viewers, but it's kind of bland and toothless. Paul Gross was a poor choice as the American gunfighter. What the role really needed was someone who oozes a tough charisma, like what John Wayne and Lee Marvin gave in their performances. The production values, despite a hefty budget for a Canadian movie, often make the movie look like a made-for-TV production. And the comedy isn't that funny, coming across as goofy.Not everything about the movie is bad. The background scenery (shot in southern British Columbia) looks very nice. Also, when the movie decides to be serious, it actually isn't that bad. I think that if writer/director William Phillips had treated the premise of this movie in a more realistic and serious fashion, we might have had something here. But as it is, it's a movie you'll forget not long after watching it.

The ethical clash of the old Law of the West and the new Rule of Law, explored by John Ford in the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance has an up-beat sequel in Gunless. In the sequel, the gunslinger is not shot with the rifle of the friend of the harmless lawyer ... he is saved from being shot by the rifle of harmless man he has sworn to kill from the forces of Law and Order. Law and Order is represented by the merciless bounty hunter who can tell if someone is telling the truth just by looking at them crooked. In Gunless, the gunslinger lives long enough to regret his killings and to reform his own character. The climax is the gunslinger's recollection of his killings and how each killing was required to maintain the self-image resulting from his first killing. Then with just a touch of the Rashomon effect, he admits he never even had justification for his first killing. Add a dash of Aristotle to suggest what character is and how it can be changed ... has any other movie been able to pull that off? The result is neither drama nor comedy but something more like a morality play. Not since Groundhog Day have I seen a movie with so many levels of meaning, and not since Galaxy Quest have I seen a movie with more satisfying ending.

First of all I have to give it ten stars out of a possible ten. Uniquely written about a gunfighter having a difficult time picking a fight. Actors well chosen, music nicely arranged, a film where we see people as people. Very entertaining. Intelligently done. I could never tell what was about to happen next, so in vivid contrast to most westerns that I have seen it was in no way clichéd, at least not to me. You might want to watch the credits at the end or you will miss out on some things. And the film has a worthwhile message. I do disagree with some of the other reviewers. I would not say low budgeted as that has a negative connotation. Perhaps the film simply didn't require a high cost of production and had no gratuitous spending. Nothing cheap in what I saw. As for no foul language maybe those reviewers were munching on chips each time that certain word (ahem, ending in ck) was used as well as several other such expressions which to the merit of the film came out very naturally, or maybe they heard a different audio track from what I heard.

recently, I grabbed few low-budget westerns to watch on my DVD during the weekend. (I have reviewed one of them, 6 Guns, that was pretty bad, and I didn't even bother to review the second one, so awful it was) So you can guess that i didn't have high expectation for this one. Especially if you add the fact that movie is Canadian, and I didn't really know Canadians do westerns too.Now boy, was I wrong to look at the film with a wrong eye.From the first shots till the end, the movie proved to be fun. There was this specific Canadian humor I guess, which I understood perfectly (Being non Canadian and even non American at all), because it was delivered very well by very talented actors.Speaking about actors. I can say for sure that for a long time I never saw such a good acting in low budget movies.God... Russel Crowey gets millions of salary for ruining the epic legends (yeah, I mean Robin Hood parody he did), while these guys delivering much more fun gain ten times less.Action scenes were shot well, camera work was good and lightning and the editing caused no questions.Of course you feel all the way through the film that this is low budget, but it adds to the charm.9 out 10...