Rockwell: A Legend of the Wild West (1994)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Don't Believe the Hype

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The story comes together very well. Its sub-plots and main narrative are very interesting, and they build to a natural climax. I like the humor in it between Rockwell and his two side-kick friends. Their chemistry is really good, and they are all completely different personalities, which makes their friendship interesting.I also like the humorous scenes of the young teen girls having crushes on Rockwell, plus his seeing how outrageous that is, since all he wants is the beautiful adult girl who likes him - Mary Ann. His chemistry with Mary Ann works really, really well. She's absolutely adorable - beautiful and sweet, a frontier girl that Rockwell would obviously want to settle down with. Her liveliness and playing around with him at the lake and in the woods makes her a really fun love interest as well.But their inner conflict seems to tear them apart, and that makes for interesting drama. They want each other more than anything, but his duty gets in the way. Nevertheless, I love the way it is resolved in the end. I like all the elements in fact coming together for a satisfying, dramatic climax.

My friends and I actually enjoyed this movie. Point by point, this is where we disagree with one earlier review:1.) The movie may be a "weak western" for that reviewer, but for us, it was actually much better than we expected, despite the obviously limited budget. 2.) The acting isn't great by some of the actors (obviously not a high budget for actors), but much of the acting is pretty good - especially the actors who play the young guy Willie, the chief antagonist Higbee, the mob leader Worrell, the ears outlaw, and maybe a few others. 3.) The "villains" are far from being broadly written, as the reviewer claims, and are not at all like those of the early silent movies he alludes to. This film goes into the motivations and to some extent the psyche of the main antagonist, Higbee. 4.) There is much more to the sets than "the same log cabin to film everyone's exteriors," as claimed by the reviewer. We saw sets with many buildings and cabins. A couple times maybe a single cabin is used for different scenes (again, apparently the budget), but the same cabin was obviously NOT used for scenes in two different states - Illinois and Utah, per the reviewer's claim. I think if you watch the film you will notice the many buildings used.5.) Some of the costumes were GREAT, others did look like old clothes brought from home - I agree with the reviewer half way on that point. I'm no hairstylist but he may be right about the hairstyles being too modern. Some definitely looked nineteenth- century to me however. 6.) As for modern doorknobs, the reviewer might be right on that also, I didn't notice them as a distraction, but most if not all the props looked pretty authentic.7.) What he sees as a "modern city in the background of one shot" (when a corrupt judge rides into town) isn't in focus for the background, so one cannot tell if it's modern or old. Not sure it can be accurately criticized as a modern city, as no cars can be seen and the reflecting windows could have come from buildings in a frontier town OR a modern town. 8.) The character of Rockwell, he says, is "hit on by not one, but TWO preteen girls trying to find a husband. Both scenes are really squirm inducing." Man, I totally disagree. My buddies and their wives thought that was the funniest running gag in the whole movie. Rockwell has ZERO interest in them, so nothing is there to squirm about. (Actually there are THREE such girls, not two, and a couple of them appear to be 13 or 14, which were in fact the ages that girls in the 1800s were when starting to look for a future mate.) Rockwell has his sights set on a woman much older than these young gals, and he dismisses them. We thought it was done in good taste, and the humor came through. 9.) Everyone I know thinks Karl Malone looks like he's having fun - and when the movie came out he was on the news - I saw him on "Entertainment Tonight" and a couple other shows - talking about the fun-ness factor. By contrast, the reviewer claims Malone "looks clueless as to how he got stuck in this in the first place." That's a funny reviewer line, actually, but I don't agree with it. Karl pulls off what he is supposed to in good stride and is obviously enjoying it. 10.) Karl's character is necessary to the "buddy film" aspect of the three main characters, showing his humor and willingness to support his friends. He is not just "shooting and running around," as the reviewer claims. In fact his character obviously has some inner turmoil and complexity because he states how he doesn't want to take up gunfighting again - yet does, to support his friends and neighbors.11.) "The play" scene is actually pretty funny, especially where Rockwell sees his girlfriend and forgets his lines. The reviewer however says his "jaw was agape in how bad the scene was." Well I respect his opinion, but in my opinion it wasn't in the same league as truly bad scenes in films I've seen over the years that did leave my jaw agape. To me and my friends it's a scene that is far from "embarrassing" and "trying to be funny" -- it was actually quite funny. The reviewer complained that scene "dragged on," but that was how the main characters on stage were supposed to be feeling when Rockwell forgot his lines; thus they wanted to get off stage; so the moment was SUPPOSED to drag on for them. But it didn't for me. The scene works. 12.) Characters using "ain't" and "reckon" are in line with many westerns, but the reviewer didn't like it. I'm a huge westerns fan.13.) The movie wasn't hard to find on video, as the reviewer claims. I saw it in several video stores when looking for other westerns when I was traveling on business from California to Pennsylvania in the mid-90's. Plus I saw it advertised on Pay-per-view and I think HBO or Showtime. The movie was rated PG-13 in its last rating. He mentions it was rated R. The VHS tape was a couple years earlier, but it obviously didn't deserve it so it was changed to PG-13, which it is today. I've seen other Independent films given different ratings a couple years apart also. Not a great movie, but for the obviously challenging budget, it's entertaining.

I wasn't expecting much from this low budget film but was looking forward to it all the same. It could have gone either the folklore route or historical route and been incredibly interesting if done at least half-way decent. That is where this goes all wrong. It did nothing except show a guy dressed up as him trying to make tough, thoughtful facial expressions.None of the scenes are personal in any way. There is a guy with a name. Girls have crushes on him. He falls in love with a pretty girl with a pretty dress. We are shown that there are historical characters who were in history. There are shady guys who feel the need to shift shady glances constantly each time they mention the Mormons' property. People shoot at him and he shoots them. Carl Malone is there. All of the time spent tying in a narrator feels convoluted and does nothing to provide insight into the title character.I really don't see how it was possible to write such horrible script and direct such a horrible film when there is so much material to write it off and so many effective, straight-forward methods of telling the story. For instance, the first scene shows some kid's parents get shot. He goes to Joseph Smith's house and sees Rockwell there. Now we know he was a friend of Smith, and we are later told they were friends from childhood. Why not just open by showing Rockwell trying to bust Joseph out of prison? Later we see a reenactment of Smith's assassination, who has been introduced but not developed. This tells us nothing about Rockwell. Also it was hard to not get distracted by the comic mob noises. By now you're getting the idea.Now throw in stale dance scene to give Carl Malone some time on stage. Others have mentioned the play scene. By now we feel like we're being deliberately insulted.The only saving grace, of which there is little, are the scenes and quotes that made Rockwell a legend. The ear collector scene was solid enough. The problem is that at least 80% of the film should be like that, but we get less than 10%.Conclusion: If you have a Mormon grandpa, go camping with him and he'll spin a good Porter Rockwell yarn or two. If you don't, find a good book on him. I'm sure some day there will be an amazing film, too, but this ain't it.

I am not one to brag much. But I feel the urge to share the fact that my mother Linda Gilbert(At the time) played Mary Neff's mother. She is in quite a few scenes, like the one where she catches Rockwell and Mary pulling each other in to the pond and playing and shooting them a stern look.The portrayal of Joseph Smith was unbelievable. I don't recall Joseph having Gray hair at the time of his martyrdom/murder! So why did they cast an actor with Gray hair? I heard from my mother(uncredited in IMDb listing of Rockwell) that Shantal Hyatt/Hiatt who played the adult Mary Neff was difficult to work with and didn't like Randy Gleave. She acted so well, that she sure fooled me!