There ought to be a law. Seriously. This is raunchy trash, for those of you who like that kind of garbage. If you decide to watch, be prepared to be repulsed. Question: why do producers keep throwing their money at directors and their poorly written and scripted films that won't make any money in any venue? Avoid this one, folks. There are far better ones out there.

Peter Sobczynski of rogerebert.com said this about Echoes of War:"Despite my best efforts, I could not see Echoes of War as anything more than a giant bore.""Co-writers John Chriss and Kane Senes have provided a screenplay that consists of dialogue that strains for poetry at every turn and misses every time, and characters who always feel like plot devices instead of actual people.""Senes serves double duty as director, and, as uninvolving as the screenplay he gave himself is, he does it no favor with a pace so sluggish that the film feels maybe three times longer than it actually is.""The actors have been given neither compelling characters to play nor plausible dialogue, they more or less look exactly like what they are—a bunch of actors stuck in uncomfortable outfits uttering largely unspeakable dialogue.""James Badge Dale is normally a good actor but his character is so one-dimensional and uninteresting that he is unable to get anything going with it.""William Forsythe is one of those B-movie presences who can usually liven up even the most substandard of material but he is also stymied by a character built of so many clichés that he was probably off-book halfway through the first table read.""Anyone going to this film to see Maika Monroe will be especially disappointed."

When you have made a film as inept as Echoes of War is, perhaps the only way to try and persuade anyone to take a chance on watching it is to post bogus user reviews about it. Case in point: read some of the user reviews with 9 & 10 star ratings and it is glaringly apparent that someone involved in the film has composed them in an effort to hoodwink filmgoers. I mean come on, comparing the director Kane Senes to Clint Eastwood? Really? I think not!Regarding this film, save your cash for a Lone Ranger marathon. The dialog in this was contrived, the scenes as predictable as a TV-movie, and yet the biggest sin was its dull premise with talking heads you don't really care too much about. Who do you blame for a film like this? The actors for not delivering stellar performances, the writers for a flawed script, or the director for not getting the right delivery out of an actor? In this case you can't really blame the cast even though the performances for the most part were non-riveting. The fault lies squarely in the writing which was lame, plus the direction screams inexperience. Putting bodies in period costumes doesn't make a film a Western. And it DEFINITELY DOESN'T make you comparable to Mr. Eastwood!

Insomnia? Haven't been able to get a decent nights sleep in some time? Watch this film! I assure you, you'll be out before you know it. What in the world were the people behind this hot mess thinking? If they were attempting to alienate audiences with an uninteresting plot and bland storytelling, they most certainly succeeded. If they were attempting to keep an audience engaged and invested in interesting characters, they most certainly failed.The first clue should have been that there aren't any star names in this thing, only a handful of lesser-known character actors. That's usually a dead giveaway that a film is either poorly written, poorly produced, and/or both. The crux of the problem here is the writing. It plain and simple isn't good no matter how you cut it. I'm sure these poor filmmakers didn't purposefully sit down to pen the worst western in the history of the genre, but that's exactly what they have unwittingly done. There's nothing wrong with trying to convey your vision to an audience, I just hope that their next effort, if there is one, will keep the audience from dozing.