BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Wordiezett So much average

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

gordonl56 YELLOW ROCK 2011Considering the cast involved here I was expecting an unseen little gem. It turns out to be more like cut glass. Michael Biehn, James Russo, Lenore Andriel, headline this low budget film. The Yellow Rock of the title of course refers to gold.Michael Biehn is a down on his luck cowboy hired by James Russo to look for his brother and son. The problem here is that the pair are most likely lost on Indian lands. The local tribe needs to be asked for permission to cross their land.Biehn approaches a woman doctor he knows about getting said permission. The doctor is played by Lenore Andriel. (What a looker) Miss Andriel introduces Biehn to the Indian chiefs for a talk. Permission is granted as long as the men take along one of the tribe, Michael Spears. The doc, Andriel, also joins the group in case there are any injured among the missing.Needless to say matters go south in a hurry as the Russo and his men, Christopher Backus, Clay Wilcox, Paul Sloan, Brian Gleason and Peter Sherayko just ride right through some burial grounds. Biehn begins to smell a large rat in the old cupboard.And right he is as Russo and company are really after a healthy supply of gold hidden in an old mine. Guns are drawn and the Indian guide, Spears, is soon shot full of holes and left for dead. The man though is only wounded and will soon return for a spot of vengeance.Of course the old western chestnut of the men turning on each other as gold fever takes hold is used. Bodies drop with finally only Biehn and Andriel surviving to ride out of the hills.I really wanted to like this one, but the shopworn story defeats the film. The look of the production is good, but it cannot cover the plot problems. I would give the actors full marks for effort. A bigger budget and a firmer hand on the direction would have helped.

savanahrose-654-30751 To me personally it was better than some other westerns I have seen. It was slow to start but it eventually caught up. I originally watched it because of Michael Biehn was in it. But I thought it was good enough to watch. I don't watch movies due to any historical value I watch for entertainment. I loved that the movie was based on part of the American Indian perspective. Would I watch this again? Yes I would watch it. I was in an old west class in high school and they had us read poems from the Indian point of view. What I had read saddened me and to watch this it brought it all back. Again, why only the one star? I think that some of the acting in the movie was really sub-par by a couple of the actresses but other than that it was not too bad.

fxrandrea I recently rented yellow rock and was surprised. I had gathered that it was a low budget Indie film. It sure did not look low budget. There was a large cast of well known actors, beautiful sets and a clear and well lighted picture. These are things I would associate with "not low budget project", but there they were! Now the story: It is a western in the real traditional sense, but, and here is the important part, it offers a window into the lives of the Native American Peoples of California prior to their destruction. A fascinating, lost history with a touch of pathos for what has been destroyed. Of course, It is not on the scale of Dances with Wolves due to the budget, but it is a well researched and very enjoyable movie. An indie that looks like a big budget production.

nelson roberts I'm a huge western fan but the other 2 reviewers on this film are way off base...must be related biased basis to the production of the film. This film is just awful... you'd be far better off just watching an old episode of Roy Rogers. The acting and the script are both completely lacking of any substance and with half the budget and a camcorder anyone could have made a better western than this...don't waste your time. The story line needs work and in many places scene changes are completely disjointed. The actress playing the good doctor simply isn't believable in her role and her lines are lacking in reality. The bad guys are really the only semi-bright spot but there is absolutely no character development from that end either. The movie sets were extremely amateurish but the camera work and cinematography were at least somewhat up to standard for such a low budget film. Nevertheless, I absolutely can not recommend this film even to the most die-hard western fan.