ShangLuda Admirable film.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

sinyra This movie becomes better upon learning that it is a student film. However, it lacks a well developed plot. The film gives good set up originally but fails to follow through on important details like why his lost love was burned, where the random characters he meets go, what the dog represents and what a "westender" even is. I rated this film a 4 because where it lacks in plot it has very good camera angles and scenery choice. With a better script it could have been vastly improved.To those who think that this film requires thinking unlike the spoon fed Hollywood formula, there is something to be said about plot development.

panpiper If we are to judge this movie by Hollywood blockbuster standards, then it deserves it's average 5/10 stars rating that it has here on IMDb. This is not a great movie, but I have paid to see many out of Hollywood that are worse.That said I am mightily impressed with the quality of result that was achieved with virtually no budget. This was largely shot with volunteer work, on a shoe string budget most of us could come up with by begging from parents and friends. This movie stands as an example to all of us that we really could make movies ourselves if we really put our minds to it.

sasseriansection The scenery is beautiful, and many times you'll be thinking to yourself, "Where is this place??" In particular, there is a scene with a waterfall that just cries to be walked to and explored.So far as an actual film, it would have been better served as a series of postcards, as you get breathtaking vistas with only little snippets of storyline on the back to figure out what is going on. And while the acting is pretty atrocious, it is both good and bad to note that the dialog is thin and minutes pass without any words being spoken. A little voice also appears in your head after about 20 minutes whispering in your ear, "Come on, something has to happen to move the story forward". But it never comes, and you're just watching, plodding along waiting desperately for the next ill conceived plot device taking set in overwhelming scenery shots.If you're looking for anything remotely interesting, stay away.

rudden I love fantasy and SF in film, from cheesy Japanese rubber suiters to big budget Spielberg. Bad films have their own peculiar charm. It pains me to report that "Westender" is a bona fide bomb that fails on just about every level. It's an attempt to combine several genres, which as we've all seen can work pretty well. The problem is, it does all of them badly.The "Heroic Quest" forms the basis of the plot. Without giving too much away, the story line is as formulaic and generic as you can get...MINUS the final moment of resolution/redemption that usually caps this kind of film. It didn't really end...it just sort of...stopped. Roll credits. But there are a few other film styles that waft through this stinker like farts on a breeze. They include: The "Metaphysical Journey of Exploration", exemplified (and much parodied) by directors like Bergman and Antonioni. This accounts for the interminable sequences of the sun-baked hero staggering across vast wastes. This is Symbolic, you see, of his Inner Emptiness: and the grass on the far side of the desert is Symbolic of his Newly Awakened and Heightened Spiritual Consciousness. Phew. Pretty darned mystical. With all due respect to the reviewers who found profundity in this excruciating exercise in undergrad angst...there isn't an interesting idea to be found in the whole nine hours of the film. (Yes, I know what the duration on the label says. But it FEELS like nine hours. At least.) "Revisionist Medievalism" (in the style of "Ladyhawke" or "Princess Bride") wherein people in Middle Ages costumes and settings exhibit contemporary characters and language. It can be funny. Here, it's just inconsistent and annoying. "Hommage", in which characters and situations borrowed from other films pop up, presumably to show us the director is aware of them. So we have little moments that resemble low-budget Kurusawa, Boorman, Fellini, and others. If the film worked, these might have been amusing. It doesn't, and they're not, except as a mild distraction on your descent into torpor.And one final comment for folks who have commented on the "stunning beauty" and "epic grandeur" of the scenery: you know, if you take a camera somewhere beautiful and shoot a wide shot, you're going to have a nice looking shot. There's not much trick to it.