I tuned to this movie by mistake, thinking it was something else. (I have Verizon FiOS and their movie descriptions are really bare bones.) But it was so bad that I was curious to see how bad it could be. As an earlier commenter noted, the role of the younger brother was played as an over the top caricature. I don't think that the actor intended that, but I guess the Director didn't care.
The gimmick of this "B" western is that the leader of the criminal gang uses a bull whip instead of a gun.
The script is also ridiculous. At one point the "bad guy" (the leader, well acted by Strother Martins, of one of the criminal splinter gangs that evolved from the Civil War's infamous Quantrill Raiders) tells the "good guys" that he will send 4 of his men out to negotiate, and they will be unarmed. The leader of the "good guys," the Governor takes this known depraved killer's word that they will be unarmed. But there is no reason for them to go outside to negotiate because they have no problem communicating from inside the house they occupy, and there is no reason why so many are needed for the negotiation.
The gimmick of this "B" western is that the leader of the criminal gang uses a bull whip instead of a gun.
The script is also ridiculous. At one point the "bad guy" (the leader, well acted by Strother Martins, of one of the criminal splinter gangs that evolved from the Civil War's infamous Quantrill Raiders) tells the "good guys" that he will send 4 of his men out to negotiate, and they will be unarmed. The leader of the "good guys," the Governor takes this known depraved killer's word that they will be unarmed. But there is no reason for them to go outside to negotiate because they have no problem communicating from inside the house they occupy, and there is no reason why so many are needed for the negotiation.