http://www.matchflick.com/movie-review/17620-7148 That's a poorly seen review, but it doesn't inject too many narrow minded errors into the mix, which is why I selected it for this post. How it's relevant to "Philosophy of Photography" : 1) cinematography is photography. 2) film making influences still photography and vice-versa (as in this case) 3) 35mm still sprang from motion picture photography One key to the story is Jessie James' media fame, the photographic part of which is emphasized two ways in the film. 1) At the end, two famous portraits are made of Jessie's corpse, one with a throng of dressed-up hangers-on, the other with him alone, on ice. Two different camera techniques, one with a looooong lens-capped exposure on a big plate, the other with flash powder. 2) All through the film there are lens effects that suggest Petzal and other seriously-distorting antique lenses, as well as many, many shots through wavy glass, torn screen doors, dirty glass, clouds of cigar smoke, etc etc. In fact, perhaps the majority of important scenes are shot that way. While I watched, I wondered if some of the images might qualify as "pictorialist." http://www.edromney.com/bromoil.html My girlfriend objected to the over-the top emphasis on these effects, finding them distracting. I was slightly annoyed by that excess, but the effects were interesting of themselves. And yes, it was a very good, unconventional Western. Not as good as "3:10 to Yuma" but close. Intensely psychological, no graceful resolutions. And "Jessie James" featured a much more impressive steam train. I do recommend it. Anybody else see it? Thoughts?