User reviews

Unbelievable that with all the knowledge filmmakers have , it is still possible to make such a bad movie. Bad direction. Bad acting. Bad costumes. You see it already in the first two minutes. What were they thinking?

Okay, let me admit that I didn't get all the way through this movie - about halfway was all I could take.

Less than ten minutes in and I really wasn't sure if I was supposed to take this movie seriously. The direction is appalling which made the, I suspect adequate, acting come over badly as well.

From the outset both characters and 'extras' make moves and actions that make absolutely no sense in the real world and with script written, I think, by the Director's seven-year-old as a class project the whole thing moved to the point where I simply couldn't "suspend disbelief". The jumpy handheld camera didn't add anything it simply made me feel nauseous. (Always remember that handheld cameras are mainly used because they are far, far cheaper than the use of full trolley and rail cameras. This was so obviously the reason here.)

There are so many good movies out there, western and other genres, don't waste your time - watch a good movie.

So why not one star instead of two? The costumes were quite good...

... if you want to believe all the high rating reviews ... that's your choice , i've seen the movie and have no connection to the film makers ... to me it's low budget rubbish, poor acting, poor script , action is belittled by the cheap CGI and cheap props ... i want my money back!

Awful. Horrible acting and strong reliance on campy gore, because that's all they've got. My stepfather has inflicted a LOT of awful westerns on us, but this could possibly be the worst ever. I'd comment on the plot, but I'm not sure there was one. I was possibly distracted by the continual sprays of blood on the camera lens. Kind of edgy the first time you see it, but after about the 800th time it has definitely lost its shock value.

This film was not all that good but it was not as bad as some of them. The dialogue could've been better. Paired with the accents that were a bit over the top but for what they had to work with it was still pretty good. The fighting was ok. Some blood made no sense but I like how they did the lights in the cave and some of the acting was ok. Overall not great but not the worst either.

I can only assume those good reviews are from relatives of the writer and director, because this was a very amateurish production. The dialogue was awful, the story might have been okay if it had been competently told (but it wasn't), and the actors all seemed like they were appearing in their first film.

The gore was gratuitous and rather than adding to the film, it just took you out of your suspension of disbelief. The comedy elements (I think they were intentional) were out of place and poorly executed. The female characters appeared to be there purely to give a nod to feminism, and to stretch the run-time a little by giving them some angry sounding lines which they did at least deliver with almost believable enthusiasm. There isn't a single likeable character.

Very poor effort. Makes me think I should try writing films. I couldn't do much worse than this.

Avoid.

If you start this movie, be advised: it's rubbish... Bad acting, bad directing, lousy dialect and crap lines.. It might be a fun watch... But i can't watch it all the way through... Story seems fair enough: bandits robbing a bank , a posse going after them, could be the start of an exciting story, but it's hard to stay serious or focused if you will, when the acting is so bad... They is action, no problem there, duels and shootouts, but not enough or good enough to make me watch the movie ... Shootings just can't make up for thick British accents and lines like: "i just got in from Essex"... Rating: 2/10.

My Dad bought this for me for Christmas, and I just now got around to watching it. I actually really liked "A Fistful Of Lead"! I thought this little flick had a lot to offer, honestly! It's flawed, but has a pretty solid script, for the most part.

It's essentially about a bunch of bankrobbers being chased-down by a Sherriff of the town they robbed, as well as a bunch of people from the town. They spend a lot of time out in the woods, hunting for the thieves.

There aren't many good guys in the film, honestly. One of the only ones is a really annoying British guy, that I thought was the Jar Jar Binks of the film. The guy's always rambling on, trying to make jokes that don't land. Everyone else is playing a Clint Eastwood-type character. I actually think most of them do pretty fine with what the script gives them-especially the more in-the-front female character we have (out of two female characters hiding-out in the cave everyone ends-up at, about halfway through the film). It was all pretty well-performed, if I do say so myself. It seems like all of the cast were having fun with this project.

I do think that, sometimes, the costumes-and maybe even the characters themselves-look a little too clean. Even a bloodstain from having someone killed nearby a character could look like spilt koolaid. It's hard to get that down-and-pat for a western of a lower budget, but I don't think the costumes were bad, or anything. Just a little too wrinkle-free for the grittiness this film wanted to depict.

Something I do think was absolutely HORRID was the special effects. Every single time someone is shot and killed, CGI blood splatters all over the screen. It really makes the film feel more like a costume party, for some reason. It ruins a ton of the tension that's so well-crafted, at times. CGI gore is fine, in some movies, but it all comes down to how it's utilized. It is NOT utilized well in "A Fistful Of Lead".

There's also something else I kept noticing, almost throughout the entire flick: the sheriff is ALWAYS re-dubbed. I don't think I saw that much with anyone, but there are times he's yelling but his mouth is merely mumbling. It can take you out of the film pretty easily, when he's on screen. That being said, I don't think he's a bad actor. It just seems like the director changed the attitudes the sheriff character had, in post-production, yet they never match what he has on the screen.

I might also add that I thought the ending was a little odd. Everything about the sheriff character just made me wonder, by the end, why, with his gruff, rude, scheme-y mantra, anyone would appoint him to be the sheriff of a small town in western-based times. Seems a little wrong, or irresponsible, if I were any of the people living in the film's area.

One final note is about the score: it was actually very nice. Very suitable to the flick. Almost forgot to mention it, when I originally wrote the review.

Overall, if you like more modern, bloody westerns, this might be up your alley. It was a fun time, even if it wasn't perfect. I had a decent time with what I had here, and I'm glad I got to see it.

Thanks, Dad! I love you! And God bless you!

I loved this movie. It is brilliantly shot (pun intended), the performances are fab and the action is as it should be in a good western - quick, kinetic and brutal! This is not your run of the mill western either, it has a fresh twist on the genre and a sting in its tail!!

I had the feeling to watch a Ben Wheatley's film, after this one. But a poor man's Ben Wheatley. Some stuff very difficult to describe, with not really heroes, not lead character as in any other film. But I like that, despite the bland actors and improbable directing. It is violent, but violent in such a way that you are not really shocked, just surprised. Actually, I thought of a Uwe Boll's movie. Uwe Boll who would have made a western, which he has never done, as far as I know. It looks pretty amateur but acceptable, fun to watch, even while pealing your potatoes for supper.

I love me a low budget western but this was a surprise in the best way!

Fun characters and a great situation for them to thrive! The shootouts definitely play in a variety of ways. There is one section that's a little like John Wick bit with a six-shooter. Another is fast paced and explosive.

I had a blast watching this and didn't expect to highly recommend and hope this team make another western.

Sure this isn't a Sergio Leone western. But I'm not dopey enough to expect that. It's low budget but that doesn't mean it can't be engaging. It opens with more bang than other low budget films that have twice the budget. That hooked me and the rest was great fun. Loved the Laurel and Hardy style bankers

Corruption, conspiracy and crime! Lots of twists and turns. Not a film that is fast to explain itself to the audience. But that doesn't mean it drags. The pace rattles along and the cast are clearly having as much fun as the film makers. Looking forward to seeing more from this team

A great ,well choreographed action film which hits all the beats when it comes to story!

A Fistful of Lead is a great addition to the western genre. This is a low budget film that uses its locations, characters and a compelling story to its fullest, never once leaving you anything other than entertained.

The story is packed with twists and turns, hitting familiar beats but with a freshness that keeps you engaged. From the start you know something is rotten in Bath Water and you are kept guessing until the very last satisfying scene.

Each character is brilliantly written and acted, and I thoroughly enjoyed Richard Sandling's Johnny Romford (who someone else referred to as "an annoying British guy"). Maybe it's because I'm British but I thought his character was hilarious, quotable ("alive is such a ballache"), and provided some comic relief to balance out the darker moments of the film.

The cinematography also deserves a mention. This is a beautiful film! All the shots in the wilderness look stunningly cold and bleak, and the orange-hued firelit scenes in the mine provide an exquisite contrast to this.

If you're a fan of westerns, or even if you're not, I highly recommend checking this out.