SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

MBunge I demand the creation of a federal law enforcement agency to handle the new criminal scourge of the 21st century. It could be called the BFC - Bureau of Fraudulent Cinema - and its mission would be to investigate, arrest and prosecute those responsible for passing off sub-amateurish dreck like Dead Noon as legitimate filmmaking. There's a lot of low budget flicks out there, including some of the most dirt poor ones, that are actually worth watching. It's hard enough to ferret them out from the mountain of cheaply made crap, but then you've got movies like this that don't even qualify as crap. Someone has got to stop this kind of deceitful product from polluting the marketplace.Let me be clear, I'm not blaming the people who made this movie. They do appear to be poltroons who are bereft of talent and without an inkling of self-awareness, but everybody has dreams and you can't punish deluded dullards just because they aspire to be Hollywood stars. No, I'm talking about the people who took the dreadful work of co-writer/director Andrew Wiest and company, burned it onto DVDs and distributed it across the country, hoping that unsuspecting saps would plop down their hard earned money on Dead Noon in the vain hope of being entertained. That's because no sober, unmedicated individual could possibly be entertained by this fiasco and those responsible for unleashing it on the public had to know that. This movie isn't a failure or a mistake. It's a deliberate effort to trick people out of their money.I can confidently allege that because there are two different types of filmmaking on display here. There's the original footage shot by Wiest that is…just…awful. Then there are several scenes obviously shot long after the original production, starring horror legend Kane Hodder and used as framing devices for the rest of the film. The stuff with Hodder has production values, camera work and even writing that is clearly superior to the other footage. It's not good, but it is the product of marginally competent professionals. The original scenes look like they were made by some high school film nerds who used the Christmas money from their grandmas to rent some equipment and hire the staff from a local Applebee's to be their cast and crew.I mean, the lead actor here has such a limited range of expression it appears he celebrated getting this part by having botox injected into his entire face. The internal logic of the plot is so twisted, contradictory and nonsensical that it would make Mr. Spock's head explode. The visual storytelling for 99% of Dead Noon is so remedial that it would make the average episode of Romper Room look like it was directed by David Lynch. Then, for no apparent reason, it digresses for a few minutes into some pretentious, avant garde, film school dropout fantasy sequence that cannot possibly have been made by the same person who directed the rest of it. And yes, I know how much the Romper Room reference dates me.Between director Wiest's weird reloading fetish, computer special effects that are just as bad as the real world FX you would have seen in a 1950s drive-in theater and moments of dialog that sound like they were written by someone with Asperger's Syndrome, the original footage is unwatchable to anyone except the friends and family of the people who made it. But somebody took that video, packaged it with the Scorsese-like in comparison scenes with Hodder and willfully tried to fool people into renting or buying a copy of Dead Noon.I'm not being snarky or sarcastic when I say there should be a law against movies like this. I know it's neither practical nor Constitutional, but inflicting Dead Noon on innocent viewers should merit incarceration or, at least, community service. Maybe we could bring back the stocks and have those who produced and distributed the DVDs spend a few weekends having rotten fruit thrown at them. Failing that, don't ever watch this film or let anyone you know watch it. Even your worst enemy deserves better.

Anthony Pittore III (Shattered_Wake) An outlaw, Frank (Robert Bear), who has the power to unleash the evils of Hell at will, returns with a vengeance to take down the lawmen. The sheriff (Scott Phillips), his brother (Robert Milo Andrus), and the owner of the local gun shop (Lillith Fields), join forces in order to take down this psycho hellion and his legion of the demonic undead. Kane Hodder also makes an appearance as a zombie cowboy.I must admit, with as few quality (and few in general) horror-westerns, I'm always on the lookout for a gem. There are really only a few worthy of a look (most notably Ravenous), but I'll always give a look to any that come along. I believe the one major problem with making a horror-western is the fact that it takes place in the past. To recreate the towns, the costumes, etc., it takes money, which is something low-budget filmmakers obviously don't have. And those that have the money don't want to risk it on a dead genre (westerns). Sadly, I'm almost always disappointed. . . and 'Dead Noon' does not break that streak. I'll start by speaking of the plot: It's not bad. Sure, it's a little ridiculous, but c'mon. . . a maniac outlaw looking to seek vengeance by bringing the powers of Hell to Earth with him? That's a pretty cool combination of evil there. But, other than that. . . it's just all pretty awful. To start, these characters were just ridiculously poorly done. I mean, we have this sheriff and an outlaw that, in their first gunfight, can't hit a target to save their lives (literally), even with the sheriff firing at least ten shots out of his six-shooter. What kind of 'maniac outlaw' can't hit a man standing still four eight feet in front of him and vice-versa? Also, speaking of this outlaw. . . is he supposed to be, at all, imposing? At, probably, 5'6", 140 lbs, I was less scared of him than I was of Cat R. Waul in 'Fievel Goes West'! And Fievel was a better (and more powerful, it would seem) hero than all of them combined in this flick! Moving past the characters (for sake of my sanity), let me give a word on the effects (oh no). I'm sorry, but, if you can't afford to do effects well. . . why even bother using them? The blood, the gore, the fire (ESPECIALLY the fire), etc., were so fake-looking, the viewer is completely removed from the reality of the film. If you can't make the fire real, do the burnings off-screen. We don't NEED to see it. I think if you show someone holding a torch, then turn away, then show a smouldering pile, the viewer will understand. And the blood? I don't really get why, when you have fake-looking blood effects as it is, there's a need to show them far more than necessary and even have it splatter on the camera (à la 'Sweeney Todd'). The fakeness is already ruining the mood, so why rub it in our faces (almost literally)? So, now on to the technical aspects. . . well, the writing's not completely awful, just really not good. The writers (it took three to write this, apparently) made no attempt whatsoever to keep any kind of real "1800s"-style to their dialogue and actions. It's no difficult: Just watch a few John Wayne flicks and take notes on key words & phrases. How about the look of the film? Well, the cinematography was pretty horrendous and the cheap shot-on-video look was a complete mess (use film or at least some kind of graining effect to make it look more 'old-fashioned'). Guess the only thing left is the acting? Well, it's not much to speak of. Some of the actors are okay, some are very bad, just like in most low-budget affairs. The main problem I had with the actors is the actual casting. . . none of them really looked "Old West" to me. But, oh well, it's forgivable with something this cheaply made and it's certainly the worst of the worries about this film. Overall, it's a very bad film. It shows some heart and had a LOT of potential with that plot, but due to obvious budgetary constraints and poor execution, it crashes & burns in some extremely fake-looking fire.Final verdict: 3/10. I think I'm being generous, but they tried, so I'll give 'em that.-AP3-

flybynight-3 I've never seen a movie this bad before. I rented this hoping to see a decent B horror movie. What I got was not a horror movie, nor a B movie. This movie isn't even a C or a D movie. I've seen better movies made by juniors at Senior High.Let's start out with the script. The foundation of any movie. It was bad. Really bad. The first 45 minutes of the movie is as follows: Introduce a character, kill that same character, introduce a character, kill that same character, repeat. If that's not bad enough, the deaths aren't even original. It's just the antagonists shooting people. It's mind numbingly boring. The end was also a sad excuse at making a twist.Let's move on to the acting. The acting is bad throughout. It is quite obvious that no actor in this movie has had no prior acting experience. If you took a group of mentally handicapped children, you would have gotten better acting.Special effects. Were they not aloud to actually use fire? Did they need to do that in post? Worst special effects ever. They even accidentally green screened things out that were supposed to be in the shot.Even if this movie is free for you to watch, don't. Don't waste your time. Even if your best friend is on the production team, don't watch it. As a matter of fact, slap him/her right in the mouth.

biglou1984 This is movie is a blast! It's "High Noon" done as a horror western. Some bandits return to take vengeance on a sheriff, who recently married and stays to protect the town rather than run away with his wife. The difference is, these bandits were killed by the sheriff's ancestor over a hundred years ago. And they've been released not from prison, but from hell and begin destroying the town.I saw this film at the "Tabloid Witch Awards Film Festival" last year. It was there I learned they made this film for $4,000.00. Which still amazes me. This does not look or feel like a four thousand dollar film at all. It's full of action and gun fighting. And some wicked special effects considering the budget. I recently saw the version which LionsGate bought and is releasing. I must say, I liked the original better. The music was much more dirty and gritty. And the story flowed a little better. The cute blonde (Lillith Fields of Urban Legends: Bloody Mary) was in it much more (including a shower scene). There was also a lot more comedic moments. I guess a studio's gotta do, what a studio's gotta do. BUT, the LionsGate/Barnholtz version still has a hell of a bite and they added one great element to it. KANE HODDER (Jason Voorhees of Friday the 13th)! It was so nice to see Kane rocking some dialogue and looking like his extremely intimidating self. I'm very happy to see this film got picked up and distributed. It'd be great to see more indies out there to freshen' up the film world. Once again gotta say, for a $4,000.00 dollar film, this one knocked my socks off!