How sad is this?

Good movie but grossly overrated

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The acting in this movie is really good.

When I read the synopsis this movie reminded me of Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino's great homage to 70s B-movies. I wasn't thinking that Highwaymen was a ripoff of Death Proof, especially as Highwaymen was released in 2004 and Death Proof 2007. However, thought it might be similar.Well, it's not. While Death Proof was slick, entertaining and had great dialogue(as you'd expect from Tarantino) and was even plausible, Highwaymen is lame and feels contrived throughout. Also feels very cheap - the CGI is pretty weak. The car cabin-view country driving scenes look like they were shot in the 60s!Only reason to watch this movie is Rhona Mitra...

I love the twisted irony that plays out so fast and unexpectedly near the end of the film. Fargo, the psychopath, who has purchased the motel (with his insurance claim) at which he killed Jim's wife, uses Molly to set up a reenactment of that crime committed some five years ago. But through a fast-paced series of unlikely events, (including Molly overcoming a formerly debilitating fear of driving a car) Fargo ends up getting crushed between the front of Jim's Barracuda and the smashed, driver side of the car in which Fargo suffered his previous debilitating accident. That wrecked car, which was just one piece of the stage that Fargo had so painstakingly assembled (complete with dress and necklace) as the perfect setting for taking final revenge upon his high-speed rival became ultimately the instrument of his death. Great stuff! It reminds me of Poe.

How can you make a film about hulking metal killing machines turn out so pedestrian? Beats me, but those involved in "Highwaymen" have managed such a seemingly impossible feat. Coming 17 years later from the director of "The Hitcher" (no surprise, as this film is just a deadeningly uninspired rework of that effort) it's made plainly obvious from early on that the tank of creative inspiration has run completely dry. Everyone seems merely happy to cover old ground. It's not set in a time of near-apocalypse, but that doesn't stop the Mad Max saga from being raided, so desperate must they have been for ideas. Mel would not be pleased, Jim, unless his plan all along was to cling onto some of his fading youth by proxy, and mentor you...The 'brooding angel' act is getting tiresome from Caviezel now, having seen it trotted dutifully out in at least three of his other recent efforts. I think it might be time for a romantic comedy or something, so we can see if he has any range whatsoever, but all he has to do here is stare fixedly ahead, as usual. The cause of 'versatility' isn't helped by casting Rhona Mitra opposite. Easy on the eye she may be, but she obviously took classes at the 'bare minimum' school; an ethos that unfortunately permeates the whole film. Don't look to the villain for any colour, either; he's a non-intimidating robotic. The idea's definitely rusty, but at this time they've already proved they're not shy about taking old clunkers out for a spin, anyway...... and so things splutter along. It's not even an 80 minute runtime and the gearbox is already falling off inside ten of those. The villain even gets run-through twice; presumably just to use up film, because such a happening isn't otherwise employed to scare OR set up a witty kiss off line. Petrolheads might find themselves having fun ogling the motors, I suppose, but those only in the market for a decent film and nothing more are sure to find themselves coming away feeling ripped off. It seems like a long and lonely trek even when it isn't, so my advice is don't find yourself being stranded if you can avoid it.

I had never heard of this film before seeing it, I could only tell Robert Harmon was a good director to remember - although "Nowhere To Run" wasn't a very good film, "The Hitcher" had left quite an impression on me. Since "The Hitcher" was such a good road-movie, I believed "Highwaymen" would have to be a good car chase film as well. I was still underestimating the man. First of all, I need to say I've always found polished cinematography was a sign of respect for the audience. I could remember "The Hitcher" being superbly photographed, I could remember long-time Robert Harmon collaborator Eric Red (who wrote several screenplays for Harmon and directed close-in style films) had also shot beautiful images for "Cohen And Tate", and in "Highwaymen", once again, the audience is being served as far as mesmerizing visuals go. The cinematographer, crew and director polished all the visual aspects of the film: lights, framings, colors, sceneries, production design, editing... From the very first images of the film, the scope 2:35.1 format will either please you or turn you off, but I've always found it a very good technical choice whenever films deal with fear, tension, hatred or if action is involved: just look at all the Sergio Leone's westerns that use scope. And this film (along with "The Hitcher", "Cohen and Tate", etc) is not very different from a western as well, some sequences of the film reminding of the usual showdowns, landscapes or framings of westerns.But the visuals aren't the only element of the film that will keep you wide awake. The plot's purpose is very simple, if not humble. It's a film with no pretension whatsoever, if not to tell a simple story well and entertain the viewers (as opposed to a zillion films today that have the pretension to tell badly a complicate story and make half the audience fall asleep while they're doing that). Robert Harmon is a man of few words, and the same goes for his collaborator Eric Red. It's only 10 minutes into the film that I realized there hadn't been any dialogs yet. When came along some dialogs, they were written with enough wit and humor to not be unpleasant ("Congratulations! You arrested his door!"), yet bring something to the story. The film borrows elements from "Duel" by Steven Spielberg, from "Crash", by David Cronenberg, but always in a respectful manner and always bringing something new to what the elements it borrows. The casting is very appropriate as well: Jim Caviezel is a good choice for the main character of the film, Colm Feore's bad guy has all the sick and evil in him you can wish for. The film also makes a stand in the fact that it has close to no gunshots at all, almost no stupid useless sentimental sequences (only one kiss!), also it's not sinking amid boring long speeches sequences between characters, it's so incredibly sober and free of all the usually boring or annoying elements of contemporary films, that its length itself proves how dense and fast-paced the film is: it runs for around 1 hour and 17 minutes (and I really wish more films were like this one, short, dense, inventive and exciting - in a word, stripped bare to its most important elements). The absence of a 2nd unit director says it all: if the director wants to get something done, he does it. This attitude of not delegating tasks is maybe also what makes the difference between good and bad directors; it relates to motivation.See this film, and if you like it dare discover the other road-movies made by Harmon and Red. Much, much better than all the fast and all the furious reunited.