Hickok

This is close to as poor as the worst western series of the 1960's or the most pointless spaghetti westerns of the 1970's, only in a modern spotless fashion. Glossy cinematography, in an extremely flat light and with ditto acting performances, where the characters aren't basically more credible than in a Brazilian soap opera. This has little or nothing to do with the historical Wild Bill Hickok. Neither does the leading actor, Luke Hemsworth, look anything like him, and it seems that nearly all acting performers were casted due to their some kind of handsome looks and nothing else, except from Kris Kristofferson who got the role because of his fame. Tedious, pretentious and aimless.

What kind of made-for-television movie production is this? It features a few recognizable names appearing in it, for example, Luke Hemsworth, Trace Adkins, Kris Kristofferson, and Bruce Dern. None of them are showing their A+ effort in this movie. After perusing through the director's filmography on IMDb, I do not think any of his movies received a star rating average higher than six out of ten possible. Hickok is a less-than-stellar movie.

The actors and directors do what they can with an ok script, but this movie would have been better if they had an actual budget.

Not historically correct but entertaining.

Hickok is a very mediocre, low production value Western full of melodrama and cliches. Half a star is purely for Bruce Dern who is the only one turning in a decent performance, but it's not all the actors' fault: the script is terrible and despite an interesting subject and relatively short run time, the movie dragged. Only for the Western enthusiast desperate for new material.

I am a big fan of westerns and Hickock just didn't do it for me. Editing was worthless. Definitely would not recommend this mess.

Far better than I thought, much more truthful and exciting as well. Nice look at the early life of a legend.

Made Hicock looks like a stupid gunslinger. Storyline was not good. Should not have used his name. I was very disappointed.

I cant understand how this wasn't scrapped when they saw the rushes.

As my hearing recovers following the rapid fire, gun-shooting intro . . . My disagreement with this Hickock portrayal expands to countless others. Here, Hickock constantly appears: clean, fresh, well-shaven, wearing laundry-fresh clothes, always two moves ahead. In real life –and this was before clean-smelling lives ruled the roost- everyone including the cute, clean, attractive ladies-most did the best they could. No one looked or smelled clean. NO ONE. Believe me. Much less neat according to today's standards. BUT we warm up to clean heroes and attractive, finely dressed whores with nice smiles. Even the villains looked ready to be on stage. Come on! I'd like to watch (but not actually see or smell) a reflection of the heroes and ladies of those days. Show me a trace of truth in Hickock days. You never see a Laundry/Dry Cleaner store next to the saloon in any movie because they didn't exist. Tide and Ivory weren't on the shelf. Any shelf. If you want me to appreciate a Western, show me one with wrinkled, thread-bare jackets and somewhat ‘ripe' people. Not always so quick with a smart response or instant, winning action, overcoming the completely unexpected threat. All I seek is a smidgen –a trace- of accurate portrayal. Just a tiny bit. Show me some smell. (Don't take me literally).