Last Train from Gun Hill

Last Train from Gun Hill

A marshal tries to bring the son of an old friend, an autocratic cattle baron, to justice for the rape and murder of his wife.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:95 minutes
  • Release:1959
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:rape,   murder,   scar,  

A marshal tries to bring the son of an old friend, an autocratic cattle baron, to justice for the rape and murder of his wife. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Last Train from Gun Hill torrent reviews

Jamie C (mx) wrote: i found the first two better

Amber B (au) wrote: This is a four-part TV series. I have mixed feelings about it. There are several issues covered here, including race and social standing, but mostly the roles people accept and the how people are treated as they age. It's about perceptions and living one's own reality. Something about the pacing and the contrived situations annoyed me. I liked the content regarding aging and how we can change (or not.) It could have been much better. Perhaps more humorous lines and less of some of Frieda's antics would work.

Corey K (br) wrote: Certainly and entertaining and challenging film, but for all the effort I didn't get much in return.

Justin J (kr) wrote: Definitely the most sophisticated film of the bunch. A lot of action and adventure with less sexual jokes. Thank You!

Mike H (nl) wrote: Fantastic!! Anyone who says Joy Division is not one of the most important rack bands in history is crazzzzzy! They were the bridge between punk and some of the great bands of the early 80s.

Glorimar S (ru) wrote: It was all sex and sex is nice but it was line watching porno not a movie... :-) But it wad like telling very intimate details in just one night!

rafaela m (fr) wrote: Aadir un comentario (opcional) que bueno es la vida

Chris C (de) wrote: One of my 2 fav movies of all time!

Diana S (ag) wrote: That is one infamous shower scene!

Hollie T (gb) wrote: A lot of fun and often funny thriller!

Tonya V (es) wrote: A little bit too long and a little bit predictable but still not a bad movie overall. Oded Fehr not in Mummy movies is nice!

Adam R (br) wrote: Movies reliant on dialogue, especially when presented as long monologues, must have an unbeatable script. That seems like a pretty obvious prerequisite, but even the most talented tyros and veterans alike (Richard Linklater's early oeuvre comes to mind) seem to forget this rather elementary component. First-time director John Krasinski finds little worth hearing in his feature-length adaptation of a series of short stories penned by David Foster Wallace.Krasinski's incompetence is by no means the result of a lack of passion for the source material. Indeed, the writer/director/star tackles Wallace's work with the reverence and enthusiasm of an undergrad first discovering the stories. Unfortunately, he also brings the same undergrad level of skill, subtlety and depth. The strongest element of "Brief Interviews with Hideous Men" is the cast, Krasinski recruiting a sterling number of truly fine actors. Standouts include Timothy Hutton as a kindly, paternal college professor; Bobby Cannavale as a one-armed man who, in a very brief Q&A segment, reveals how he uses his handicap to lure women into sleeping with him; and Christopher Meloni as a silver-tongued cad who relates how he exploited a young woman's anguish about being rejected and turned it into a hookup, all the while expertly conveying the glimmer of disgust a user of the fairer sex might conceal beneath armor of machismo. Though it's the acting that excels in these brief, few-and-far-between good scenes, Krasinski's writing and direction aren't obstacles in these cases. But the majority of the movie flows lifelessly from vignette to vignette, with the most unappealing, dull characters taking over from a format that, despite its faults, had at least a modicum of potential. Instead, Krasinski moves the second half of the film away from the candid, one-on-one interviews with alternately interesting and irritating men to the interviewer herself: Sara (Julianna Nicholson), a damaged grad student who undertakes the Q&As as part of a school project. Bits and pieces about the character are revealed before her failing romance with longtime boyfriend Ryan (Krasinski himself, an utterly unctuous role for an utterly unctuous actor) takes center stage, alongside a stupid subplot where Sara has a half-assed battle of wills with egotistical college student Daniel (Dominic Cooper). The first time "Interviews" really begins to go downhill is the repeated interactions between Daniel and Sara wherein she resists giving him a passing grade for a paper that puts forth the thesis that horrible experiences can make one stronger and ultimately prove positive. The problem isn't the message -- a wise one -- but the method in which it's presented. Cooper's screeching crybaby shouts and shouts at the brick wall that is Sara before tearfully breaking down and revealing a rather ham-handed secret to his T.A. (who realistically probably wouldn't care what underlies her obnoxious young pupil's angst and contentiousness; she'd just want him out of her office). Krasinski, predictably, presents the suffering-equals-enlightenment point of view as the most profound message in the world. Really, though, it should only come across as deep for naive twentysomethings (i.e. this film's audience) who are so sheltered they don't know hardship. People who have been through actual trauma instinctively know this lesson and, if they're honest with themselves, probably wish they could have learned it a bit differently if they had their druthers. The final nail in the coffin, though, is a sequence near the end in which the cause for Ryan and Sara's breakup is revealed in an overlong, emotionally inert monologue Krasinski self-righteously delivers like the overgrown, immature stranded drama geek he is. It's a fairly simple account of infidelity that drives the couple apart but, "Interviews" being a self-indulgent talky piece, the "real" reasons for the breakup just have to be explored. Ryan proceeds to tell Sara how he picked up a disgusting hippie chick, screwed her, then had the pleasure of hearing how a sexual assault ordeal made her reach the abyss of despair but become stronger for it. Gently echoing the miserable series of repeated meetings with Daniel from before, Ryan then feels the need (like most cheaters) to turn the circumstances around on the victim. Eventually, this culminates in a dare to both Sara and the audience to pass judgement on him and his actions -- as though we weren't already. Again, the problem isn't with the message itself but the Krasinski's terrible presentation of it. Infidelity has been pay dirt to innumerable films but there's nothing quite as tiresome and sad as watching someone who has transparently wronged someone else try to halfheartedly justify his actions with weak excuses. The real coup de grace is the clumsy rush to advocate a non-judgmental mentality, making both Ryan and the man who plays him simultaneously a massive prick; a walking cliche; and an acolyte of the most disturbingly pervasive, socially corrosive outlook on life this side of political correctness. Being judgmental is not only the way to avoid taking in dross like this but also shy away from the exact kind of personalities (like the characters in this film) whose indiscretions become tolerable when one doesn't exhibit enough rudimentary, absolutely necessary scrutiny to navigate life in a way that isn't completely gullible and relentless submissive. It's a brainwashing mechanism employed by people who consciously do bad things who want to escape with the consequences while forcing an unearned sense of shame on any observer weak-minded to accept that's how one ought to react to blatant wrongdoing. In advancing such a mindset, Krasinski advances himself from pretentious, untalented filmmaker who caught a lucky break to a cultural criminal. Put simply, we have every right to judge Ryan and anyone else onscreen. Not to do so would be counter-intuitive; they've laid their flaws bare before us to see. And, given what we see and the smug, poorly executed lens through which we see it, not judging would be a mark of insanity.