Guns, shooters and honor Peter Edwards is most familiar to the American audience on TV series, although his track record is quite rich - he acted as a director, producer and even an actor, shot about 20 TV series and films. But such a rich experience is still not a guarantee that the film will be necessarily good.
Many American Westerns are built on a single triangle pattern. There are good guys, bad guys and tough guys. Bad guys hurt the good guys, who stand up for the cool ones, who bring order to the plywood sham town, personifying the Wild West. That is, after 10 minutes of watching the film, its ending becomes clear. All the bad guys should be punished. In the film Guns of Honor in this respect everything is built on this classic scheme.
The good guys are good, especially the girl who is stuck in this wild world, the bad guys build ugly and greedy faces in the camera. And the cool guys squint like Clint Eastwood, talk quietly and shoot accurately. A good Western is always a drama, always a good acting and long acting pauses at the moment of the shot - the hand over the holster sometimes hangs so much that at this time a three-minute musical composition fits. This western is simpler. Actors are static, weapons are taken out calmly, as in a dash, bad guys shoot badly, and cool always get the first time.
There are no directorial or acting findings here. You do not feel the drama of what is happening, even if a positive character dies.
The film does not belong to the category of box office, does not pretend to expressiveness and hardly touched the hearts of even Western fans. Just another movie. Very mediocre.
3 out of 10