ervty Where to start? Well, it's a good movie. Very good. And not a 100% shot by shot remake of the 1939 John Ford story. Events closely mirror the 1939 film, but are changed up, almost entirely for the better, so even if you've seen the 1939 film, it's like you're watching a different movie because you're never quite sure what will be included and what will change from the original. In general, the changes are almost all more naturalistic. Without giving spoilers, I will say that Mr. Peacock gets a chance to leave the stagecoach at the first stop, preventing the story from having to carry on the dead weight of an unwilling passenger who has no reason to take the dangerous trip, Buck is changed from the cowardly moron he was in the 1939 film to more of an every-man, and Curley Wilcox is a more compassionate, sensible man, instead of the guy dragging everyone along like he seemed in the 1939 film. The 1939 film was good in its own right, and a classic, but that's no reason to skip over the fact that it had plot holes. My hat goes off to the writers of this movie, who changed it so it's the same basic story, but people act more logically and events happen more naturally. Plus, the dialogue was good. Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash stole the spotlight as the only really recognizable actors (well, musician-actors), but the other, less recognizable actors in the movie held up quite well. And, particularly in the middle of the movie, there were several conversations with laugh-out-loud funny parts in them (at least I thought so!).Now, for why I'd rate it a 9 out of 10 instead of 10. First, I thought changing Doc in the original to Doc Holiday, on his way to Tombstone, was kind of contrived and gimmicky. Second, the movie was a bit lower budget by comparison to the 1939 film, and it had less cinematography and less music (it seemed like there was only one tune in the movie, the one made by Willie Nelson), but that was only a minor disappointment. And third, the conversations between Dallas and Ringo were only so-so, and I felt like Curley and Buck had a more meaningful relationship than they did.But those are just minor quibbles. If you haven't seen John Ford's 1939 movie Stagecoach, you won't be lost watching this movie. And if you have seen his 1939 film, this film is an improvement and a new story, which will keep you guessing what will happen next from beginning to end. Either way, this movie is well worth your money if you see it as a triple-feature DVD in the Wal-Mart Bargain Bin like I did.

lkm222 It seems most reviewers are impotent to view and comment on artistic work on its merit. They remain cognizant of previous works with the same title and their innate objectivity [if they had any] goes screaming out the door.This work if being compared, should be compared to earlier works by these singers .... er actors. I've seen Johnny Cash so stiff and stoic he appears like a page in a dull novel. Here he comes to life and is really believable in his role. The writers gave these people lines that they rarely muffed or failed to deliver with absolute perfect clarity and hesitancy if orchestrated that way. I was so impressed with the writing I made a bee line to see who the writers were. I was amazed I must tell you it gave me more appreciation for the artistic work of these singers in their second at least not primary, chosen area of labor. Any objective person who wants to enjoy a western movie can relish and savor this to the penultimate if he or she sits with NO preoccupation with the title, how many times done before and who might have played the parts. Bring innocent objectivity to your seat and then sit down and savor a well done movie [arguably the BEST ever done] by these talented artists who are not working in their primary field but skillfully put their varied abilities to the test on the big screen which is unrelenting enough of mistakes without someone sitting there with the preoccupied thought of seeing what doesn't compare with 1939. Its a winner if YOU can be objective.

jamesrl48 With great country stars like Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Kris Krisofferson, and Waylon Jennings; not to mention June Carter Cash and not having one good song makes about as much sense as Harrison Ford, Kevin Costner, Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise hosting the Grand Old Opera. The only one of the four who can really act is Willie. If it would have been more like "Red Headed Stranger," with a few songs like "Red man don't take my scalp," "Forty miles to water," or "My butt gets sore in this old stagecoach," would have helped. This remake of the great, classic, John Ford original was a total failure. Mostly for the reason given above. I believe a great movie cannot be remade. This is proof.

BrianG Some movies just shouldn't be remade. Gone With the Wind, Casablanca . . . and Stagecoach. For some reason, though, Hollywood can't keep its hands off it. It was remade (badly) in 1966, and this one is even worse. It looks like a bunch of wannabe cowboys with some money decided they could make a western better than John Ford could (Willie Nelson was the executive producer of this), and they couldn't possibly have been more wrong. Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, about this movie is pathetic. Ted Post is normally a first-rate director, especially of westerns (he did most of the "Rawhide" series with Clint Eastwood), but he either had a really bad day, or (what seems to be more likely) everyone in the cast simply ignored what he told them; there doesn't appear to be any discipline at all in this film. Everybody keeps trying to out-ham everyone else, or they're either so laid-back they're practically comatose. The photography isn't particularly good, the editing is horrendous, the scenery around Old Tucson (where this was shot) is completely wasted . . . and on and on. A really sad waste of time and money. Skip it.