Sorry, this movie sucks

best movie i've ever seen.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Having seen both movies I would take this movie as the better one. True, John Wayne is a great actor as I am a fan,but the difference between the two movies is taking out "the Horseshit and Gun-smoke". This movie have more feelings in it. The moral of the story is what it was all about. There were many changes in this movie that made it different than the original..Lou Diamond Phillips did a great job and Deborah Kara Unger did a better job as "Temperance". T I don not agree with the critics given this movie anything below 6 stars, as a matter of fact I would give it a 9 or maybe even a 10. It was a movie that is rarely seen nowadays without all the sex,profanity. The rating is PG-13. If thay had the rating in 1947 it would have been rated "R".

Whoever decided to remake this movie, should be taken out behind the woodshed. Not for remaking it, but for doing such an awful job. Casting Lou Diamond Phillips as Quirt Evans was the first mistake. He does a good bad guy, but is totally unconvincing as the love interest of a Quaker woman. And Deborah Kara Unger isn't much better as Temperance, she just doesn't come across well as a Quaker woman. There is just no believable spark or magnetism between the two.You simply don't remake a John Wayne classic without putting the right actors in the right places. And in my mind, you just don't remake a John Wayne classic, period. The True Grit remake is an exception, it was well-cast and well done in every aspect. This movie just wasn't convincing. And for a color movie, it has too much of that modern mistake of trying to evoke some Hollywood-imagined atmosphere with toned-down colors. I suppose that is intended to focus us more on the characters, but all it did was focus us on the fact that the casting and acting was bad. I wouldn't recommend this sad excuse for a remake to anyone. And I am unbelievably puzzled by anyone who gives it a good review, I guess it doesn't take much to please people these days.

The people who produced the made-for-television remake of the 1947 John Wayne classic "Angel and the Badman" should have heeded Michael Caine's sage advice. According to Caine, never remake a classic. No matter how good your movie is, it will never top a classic. Instead, the noted British thespian insists producers remake second-rate films. A greater possibility exists for the remake to surpass the flawed original. "Max Havoc: Ring of Fire" director Terry Ingram's "Angel and the Badman" remake isn't half as good as the original. Anybody who has not seen writer & director James Edward Grant's 1947 version of "Angel and the Badman" might actually enjoy this modest but politically-correct, romantic oater. Otherwise, carved-in-the-leather John Wayne fans might reserve it one derisive snort. This simple but powerful drama concerns the conversion of a hardened gunslinger by a peaceful Quaker woman.Two significant changes include the visual differences and the changes in character. Whereas the 1947 version was in lensed in glorious black & white, the Hallmark Channel Original remake exploits the advantage of color. Sadly, the photography and the sets look at best budgetary. Furthermore, whereas the heroine in the original was a virgin, the remake heroine is a single-parent mom with a son who father died. Admittedly, Lou Diamond Phillips cannot rival John Wayne, but Deborah Kara Unger gives Gail Russell a run for her money. The Bradley - Town Telegrapher (Olin Howard) constituted a major source of comic relief in the original, but actor Michael Teigen generates none of Howard's hilarity. Carson in the original is a rancher who has set off the Quaker's water supply to their farm, while in the remake he is the town mayor who reduces their rent. Setting wise, the original took place in the Southwest whereas Ingram's remake occurs in snow swept Oregon. They appeared to have shot entire sequences in freezing weather because you can see their oxygen crystallize as they utter lines of dialogue. Other than its color photography, Ingram and freshman scribes Thomas Makowski and Jack Nasser have eliminated the atheist and whittled away at the Quaker. Nevertheless, they retain most of the original dialogue. Indeed, sometimes it seems almost word-for-word. Unfortunately, the same is not true for the actual events. Budgetary constraints compelled Ingram and company to rewrite the action. For example, rather than a runaway wagon chase that ends with our hero and heroine taking a plunge into a river, the remake substitutes a fire that nearly kills the heroine.Each film opens with Quirt Evans killing three men, catching a slug in the chest, and then riding off to wind up in the dust in front of a Quaker homestead. The congenial Quakers attempt to help him, but Evans refuses to accommodate them. He insists that they take him to the nearest telegraph office. Initially, the telegrapher refuses to send a telegram because he has just shut down the office. When he discovers that the wounded man is Quirt Evans, he taps off the message, something about a mining claim. The Quakers take him back to their home and put him to bed. Later, the town physician arrives and fills him up of laudanum, but he watches helpless as Evans thrashes around in deliriously in the bed. The doctor complains that he cannot operate on Evans and remove the bullet unless the patient calms down. Intuitively, the Quaker patriarch fetches Evans' revolver after he has removed the cartridges. In the original, the Quaker wife is instructed to put the shells back in Evans' gun belt, while in the remake she is ordered to throw them away. Not even a mediocre made-for-television remake can mar this memorable scene. The physician operates and Evans recovers. John Wayne looks a sight funnier walking around with a blanket wrapped around his hips than Lou Diamond Phillips. Of course, Temperance (Deborah Kara Unger of "The Game") is an older woman who has been married, given birth to a son, and lives with her parents after he husband died. In the original, the Gail Russell character has not been married.Mind you, the "Angel and the Badman" remake is tolerable, especially if you haven't seen the original. Although Lou Diamond Phillips is a talented actor, he is sorely miscast. Worse, John Wayne casts a long shadow. The singular advantage that Phillips brings to the role is that he looks like villain, where Wayne was always heroic. It doesn't help matters that Phillips is forced to wear a truly hideous looking hat. Phillips has appeared in several westerns, and his "Young Guns" movies were minor classics, but "Angel and the Badman" lacks the spirit or the ferocity of them. Moreover, Luke Perry as outlaw Laredo Stevens is no match for perennial villain Bruce Cabot. Harry Carey virtually stole the original as the wholesome, home-spun exemplar of justice, Territorial Marshal Wistful McClintock. Suffice to say, you need to watch the original "Angel and the Badman" if you enjoy the remake.

Not only is this a bust, a grandchild of the great Duke Wayne plays the sidekick Randy in the film. By no means is this an endorsement by the Wayne family. If it was you'd be seeing an actual verbal or written endorsement by the licensing agent for John Wayne. And if you think this one is bad, wait until you see the remake of True Grit which is supposed to be in the works. It's almost like the Hollywood writers were all replaced with remake happy zombies.All you see these days are sequels or bad remakes of past classics. As the other commenter forgot to say it is already free to watch since it was a straight to TV release, that's how bad it was. Not even worthy of the big screen. I have to say this is the worse the Hallmark Channel has ever done.No one, and I repeat no one, can do a John Wayne movie other than John Wayne. I'll make a suggestion to anyone who thinks they can do a remake of any film done by Duke Wayne. Forget it... you'll lose your shirt. This is not even worth a $.99 download release.