Blind Justice (1994) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and Tuna
Blind Justice (1994) is a little known western staring Armand Assante as a man who lost his vision in the Civil War when he was tossed into a mass grave and had lime thrown in his face by his own troops. The lack of vision has not stopped him from being a deadly gunfighter who relies on his other senses. He rides into a town under siege by banditos, who are after army silver held by a cavalry squad, most of whom have already been killed. Assante has a baby with him, who he promised to deliver to the mother before he killed the father. Once in town, he meets the local medic, Elizabeth Shue.
He, of course, saves the day after everyone else involved (cavalry, priest, banditos and townspeople) behave stupidly. There is a short but erotic bathing scene where Shue is taking a sponge bath. Her camisole drops ever so slowly revealing a nipple. I think the IMDb score is too low. Mid 6's is about right for this film. It is not great cinema, but it has an engaging story, decent performances, some interesting characters, more than enough action to keep you awake, and a famous bare nipple. 

NUDITY REPORT
a brief nipple peek from Elisabeth Shue
Scoop's notes in yellow

Strange little near-miss movie about a blind gunfighter in the old west.

It was obviously written and created with everyone's tongues deep inside their cheeks. I suppose a blind gunfighter could survive in certain circumstances by using other senses, but this guy shoots three men who are simultaneously circling him on horses, shoots the guns out of people's hands and the cigars out of their mouths. It wasn't supposed to be believable. I mean, c'mon, he managed to escape from the cross after the outlaw gang crucified him. Even Jesus couldn't do that, despite two good eyes and some powerful connections.

Well, I guess a blind gunfighter, in itself, isn't so unusual, but he was a blind gunfighter in his 40's, so I guess he won his share of gunfights.

Or had a late career change. 

Yeah, that must have been it. He was a diamond cutter before that, and he just couldn't "cut it", so he needed to find a new job and, well, gunfighting seemed logical, and lucrative. Plus in this film he got to kick the shit out of a priest. Diamond cutters never get to do that. Maybe they can talk back to a rabbi once in a while, but it just isn't the same. 

Yup, I've made up my mind while writing about it. When my vision goes for good, I'm going to get into gunfighting instead of getting contact lenses.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Not recommended. No widescreen, no features, mediocre movie
Example of the dialogue: The commanding Army officer says "there may only be five of us, but we swore an oath to defend this silver with our lives", whereupon his men shoot him and surrender. 

The unrealistic tone of the film was greatly magnified by Armand Assante's flip delivery as the gunfighter, basically an impersonation of Dean Martin pretending to be liquored up on the Tonight show.

Unfortunately, the film sorta wanders in limbo, not really funny enough to be a comedy, and too silly to be an action picture. Not bad at either, but not really good at either.  I don't agree with Tuna's assessment that the IMDb score should be mid 6's. There are some good films in that range. I'd say mid 5's.

The Critics Vote

  • no reviews on line

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 4.7/10 
  • With their dollars ... made for cable
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, Tuna says C+, Scoopy C-.

Return to the Movie House home page