Imagine a "Crow" movie in where Dennis Hopper appears as a Satanic priest who speaks like an 80's kid that is trying to emulate a 50's greaser (that's the best explanation I have). Macy Gray appears as... someone... in the Satanic church with about four lines who does... something. Danny Trejo's character, a Native American Christian minister, attempts to save the day by revealing his chest tattoo of a woman in a sombrero and while performing a Native ritualistic dance. I can't make this stuff up.I honestly can't remember the last time I watched a movie with my jaw literally dropped. Thoughts rushed through my head throughout the entire film, wondering just exactly what the filmmakers were thinking. I have a feeling this a DVD of this movie is sitting on the shelves at home of all those involved, still in the shrink wrap.

If I told you this was a low budget, straight to obscure cable channel, knock off of a crow film you would probably believe me. If you told me it was a genuine "Crow" film I would laugh and call you a liar...and you would be right and I would be wrong and that just is insane.Why did they even bother? They have some famous names here that apparently were paid just enough for them to actually turn up and "phone in" a performance. I've seen nativity plays with better performances.Edward Furlong as the crow? His "angry" face and lines through gritted teeth were unconvincing, absolutely no fear or sense that this guy was about to kick ass was purveyed. I couldn't believe how bland and whiny his crow was. He was the wrong choice, his stature, boyish looks, and poor acting skills made him look like an annoyed teenager pestering people.With the cast this had and the performances I've seen them give elsewhere this was just shameful. Maybe they had a bad script, or no direction, or everyone had the flu? but these people know better than this.The attempts to define the characters of War, Famine, and Pestilence were worse than a B movie horror flick made by film students.If you love the crow as a character don't watch this...it ruins it. If you don't or don't yet, still don't watch this as you never will from this performance.

This isn't as good as I remembered it to be. The movie does have a few problems (eg, the spaghetti western style introductions to the antagonists, flashbacks containing lines of dialogue that really weren't in the original scenes) but I did find it in me to like this movie. Sure maybe not as much as the other Crow movies but I still thought it was pretty good.Now I maybe getting a bunch of people really angry at me for liking this movie (I don't get angry about anybody else's movie taste, I might have in my earlier years of reviewing but not now) . This is my opinion (and to some extent a guilty pleasure, how can you take Dennis Hopper seriously in this movie?).Now onto what I liked in this movie; basically I LOVED how they didn't make Cuervo an innocent. It does make him a little more 3 dimensional than what this movie. I also liked the change of setting and style to the other three movies (if you take out of account the opening).Basically, to me this movie is the ultimate B-movie for me to like. The writing could have been so much better than what it was (it was more on and off for me - meaning some writing in places was good - other times it was mediocre).So is it a movie to get all fancy about with these pseudo-"intellectuals" (I've met some "experts" they would have to be the worst people to talk about movies to)? The answer is "Oh GOD NO!" Is it a rather entertaining movie with many problems but good anyway? Yeah, I suppose so - well, it was for me.

Let's face it, Edward Furlong is not all that convincing as an action hero... that thought passed after Terminator 2.The story... had holes. The biggest is... this was set in a little town outside of a reservation... and our best story line is a gang of Satanists? I know for a fact that most histories of Native American tribes have plenty of reference to different spirits and demons...Okay, so that was not organic... what else? The acting... Most of the actors in this film that have any sort of name that is recognized have proved that they can act. We may not like them, we may not approve of all of their acting jobs, but they have proved at least a bit of skill in the field of acting. So why was the acting so bad? My only guess is the director... Isn't that the director's job... to get the best performance and contributions from all involved? What was the best part of this movie...? Well... if you are a fan of action movies... if you have watched and paid attention to them... you learn that a LOT can be done with camera work. The camera work in this movie, in the fight scenes at least, was brilliant... You know... as much as I appreciate Furlong and Boreanaz as actors, I would not really qualify either as a serious action star... but the camera work in this film made them look valid.Thanks for reading.