FightingWesterner Lou Diamond Phillips returns from the Civil War to find his childhood friend Vincent Spano cheating homesteaders of their money, property, and sometimes their lives as well. Things heat up when Phillips helps his father Stacy Keach out of Spano's crooked scheme, a scheme that demands Keach's homestead.Lone Rider is fairly derivative, though well produced, with good photography and direction. I can't help but like it, though I wish the straight-forward script were both more complex and lively.As far as the players go, Phillips and Keach are always entertaining, whatever they're in, while Spano makes a good villain, even though we never find out exactly what makes his character tick.Tom Schanley, who plays Phillips' Army buddy, stands out among the supporting players. Although I don't know him as an actor, he's pretty good.The title of Lone Rider is a misnomer, as Phillips doesn't do much riding and has plenty of help throughout the movie.

ctomvelu-1 In LONE RIDER, I was hoping for another A GUNFIGHTER'S PLEDGE. That is to say, a made-for-TV yarn with a name actor in the lead and all the trappings of a good old-fashioned, gunslinging tale of the Old West. What I got here was utter boredom, including the big shootout near the end. Lou D. Phillips returns from the war to the family homestead, only to discover an old friend (Vincent Spano) is buying up everybody's property and running them off. The plot as such is the same as A GUNFIGHTER'S PLEDGE, which saw Luke Perry as a former sheriff defending a widow's ranch against a land-grabbing evildoer (played by a black-clad, mustache-twirling C. Thomas Howell). We run into immediate problems in LONE RIDER: as much as I like Phillips, he doesn't ring true as a soldier-turned-civilian in the Old West. He's too clean-shaven and nicely groomed. Also, Spano acts like he's reading his script for the first time, and is unconvincing as an old friend-turned-enemy. Likewise, Stacy Keach playing Phillips' dad reads his lines (trite as they may be) so flatly, you have to believe he knew what a turkey he got himself into here. The two females leads are generic and forgettable. Also, no matter what Spano does, including beating up Phillips' cousin and later killing his dad, Phillips just sort of sits around, doing nothing -- until the very end, at least, when there is a badly staged and photographed gunfight. Luke Perry, who did feel like a real cowboy in his TV movie, would have made the bad guys pay dearly a lot sooner and a lot swifter. I have a feeling this may have been shot in Canada, which is always a mistake. Everything seems to be moving under water, which is typical of Canadian-lensed TV movies.

rstone-27 Normally I'm not one to watch a lot of Lou Diamond Philip movies due to the fact that I'm just not one of his fans and really do NOT particularly like the way he acts. To give credit where credit is due, I will say that this is a good western for modern times. I've watched such bad westerns that were put out with glowing reviews and was just stunned to see the trash thats out there. Here is just one example:6 Reasons Why -- the worst of the worst --Don't waste your time on that one, there are others - This however, is one that was not a waste of time for a western.I gave it a 5 because I did enjoy watching a new western. Its nothing new, no new story line, a Hero, Villains, and a couple of women to make it interesting.

TallPineTree What a disappointment. I like Lou Diamond Phillips, and he and some other actors try, but the script, direction, and editing are terrible.All the characters are one dimensional. The villain is so totally mean and one dimensional that one cannot fathom that he was Phillip's character's best friend when they were younger.I wonder if the script was longer and it was butchered to fit into a 2 hour time slot on TV? Or was the script so bad this was all the director had to work with? Or was the editor at fault in fitting the movie into a 2 hour time slot? A number of scenes come so rapid fire to establish continuity and move the plot along, but they are so short and jarring that I wondered what I was missing.For example, Phillips's character gets a woman he is interested in for a picnic. Cut to his cousin getting waylaid, robbed, and beaten. Cut to Phillips returning from the picnic to learn the news his cousin was robbed and beaten and was now at the doctor's place. Cut to talk with his family at the doctor's place about what happened (with no interaction with the cousin). Cut to two of the villain's henchmen beating up a homesteader and tieing him to a tree. Phillip's character witnesses it from a distance. (wait a minute, why is Phillip's wandering the countryside when he should be concerned about his cousin and retribution?) Henchmen ride off. Phillip's rides in and cuts the homesteader loose. The next we know Phillip's speaks with the sheriff to learn the sheriff won't do anything because he says the homesteader won't press charges and Phillip's wasn't there to witness the beating.All the above happens over the course of a few minutes. There is a lot that could be expanded in each scene to give the scene weight, but isn't. Therefore none of it has any emotional resonance and is almost a montage, or could have been done by talking to explain situations. The actual picnic scene should have been there to establish a relationship between Phillips and the woman. I'm not sure why Phillips is attracted to this woman - could she be the only single woman in town not working at the saloon? Speaking of the woman, from the movie she worked for another business woman, yet in trying to remember her character name, IMDb apparently lists her a "Saloon girl". No... in the movie she has a conversation with the saloon owner about not working for him.The fight scenes are poorly shot and edited. Lots of closeups and quick edits. The gunfights are dumb and lame.The villain's wife spends half her screen time running around in corsets and bloomers with a drink in her hand, but somehow the movie can't even make that have a hint of sexiness.Bad, bad, bad.