No Name & Dynamite

Good movie but weird. Great scenes strung together with no plot or reason. If someone could have put a few hours into music and pulling it together, it would have been an 8 star review. Acting was good. Action was believable. Special effects were well done. A great experience but CONFUSING. Have you ever seen a movie where they filmed a few dozen scenes then put them in a hat and shook it up. Then they rolled them out on a table and boom. Like a comedian with a one hour show that just has a hundred jokes but can't string them together just shoots them out randomly to anyone listening. Enjoy but keep expectations low.

Granted, when I sat down to watch the 2022 Western movie "No Name and Dynamite" from writers Clint Lilley, Errol Sack and Steven Shaffer, I wasn't really expecting a whole lot. But since I hadn't heard about the movie prior to watching it, I opted to give the movie a fair chance, and thus I sat down to watch it. The storyline told in "No Name and Dynamite" was a bit all over the place, and it wasn't really all that entertaining. Sure, the movie is watchable for a single viewing, but that was about it. Personally, I found the storyline to bit rather skittish and sort of being all over the place. It felt like director Errol Sack was just making it up as they were filming each scene. The character gallery in "No Name and Dynamite" was interesting enough, I will say that much. However, while the characters definitely had some appeal and were nicely portrayed, the storyline was just working against them. It was nice, however, to actually see a Western movie that had an Asian character as one of the lead characters, and they had opted to cast Rich Ting nicely for the role of Dynamite Davenport. And Chris Northup was also nicely enough cast for the role of No Name - yeah, that was how inventive the writing was in the movie. The movie also had the likes of familiar faces of Patrick Gorman, Bonnie Morgan and Vernon Wells on the cast list, in bigger or smaller parts. For a Western movie then "No Name and Dynamite" wasn't really all that outstanding. Sure, it can be watched, just don't get your hopes or expectations up too high. My rating of "No Name and Dynamite" lands on a four out of ten stars.

The official press release for this film makes a huge fuss about the fact that the producers managed to "rediscover" the technique to emulate the Italian Western genre which was a huge viewer favorite, internationally, in the late 60s and even early 70s. Which of course raises the obvious rejoinder, so what? For those of a younger leaning, in 1964 an almost-unknown director named Sergio Leone got together with an almost-unknown sound specialist named Ennio Morricone and hired an almost-forgotten former American TV star (Clint Eastwood) to produce a knock-off of the classic Western, to be filmed in Italy. No one in the cast spoke English except for Clint. Eastwood took the money and ran. According to film legend, months later in a bar he saw a newsflash featuring the #1 movie in Europe. Which was FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, the one he had just done for a quick paycheck. The hit film rebooted Eastwood's career, eventually making him the #1 male star worldwide, and led him back to the US where he ultimately started directing under his own banner, MALPASO. Leoni did another half dozen films, each bigger and better than the other. Dozens of knockoffs appeared. And then the genre disappeared. Until now. To this reviewer, they did indeed nail the look and feel of the original. What is missing unfortunately are actors of the caliber that Leone worked with, and a story that actually makes the viewer give a flying hoot about what happens next. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

This has to have been one of the most confusing experiences of my recent life. I know it's supposed to be some kind of Western, but not really. It's got no plot. It makes no sense. It's not funny. It's not arty. It killed a number of my brain cells and I don't think Amazon will give me $5 back for what I wasted on it.

This has to have been one of the most confusing experiences of my recent life. I know it's supposed to be some kind of Western, but not really. It's got no plot. It makes no sense. It's not funny. It's not arty. It killed a number of my brain cells and I don't think Amazon will give me $5 back for what I wasted on it.

This is a "western" that takes place in 1865 and while the setting looks like it is out west, it includes the recently escaped John Wilkes Booth (Eli Cirino). The tale focuses on two Bounty Hunters straight out of a spaghetti western. For those who ache to see another "Trinity" film, this is done in a similar style with a little less slapstick, but a whole lot of speech anachronisms from Rasputin to politically correct language. Natalie Burn adds a bit of the macabre to the feature. Fun film. Not to be taken seriously. Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.