This will be a short review - it could be even shorter; it could simply say "learn to keep the camera straight". In fact i'm going to copypaste the phrase "learn to keep the camera straight" several times because i feel that this phrase, on its own, explains about 90% of what this film review needs to be.

The other 10% is: it's a cheaply made "western" with horrid non-professional acting, terrible photography (i've seen films shot on iPhones that are 10x better) and a plot which i didn't have time to understand because i was being made to feel nauseous by the constantly tilting and weaving of the camera.

learn to keep the camera straight.

That's lesson 1 of filmmaking. Even Andy Warhol's "Sleep" managed to accomplish this step, and The Murder Of Hi Good, instead, did not.

".. is a true crime revisionist Acid Western set in the frontier of Northern California" says the blurb. No. It's not. It's garbage.

My vote: 4/10 - learn to keep the camera straight.

The description leaves something to be desired. Neither revisionist nor really even a western, and certainly not "acid." It's a low budget (understandably) docudrama, historical reenactment mixed with interviews with local historians.

And it's well done and interesting for what it is and the severe limits the film makers and actors are working with. The film is almost a first. Except for Ishi Last of His Tribe, it is the only other film to my knowledge about California Indian Genocide. The makers should be commended for that first of all.

The film describes the life and death of a bounty hunter and slave owner who kills Natives for profit. It also shows Indian hunting militias, enslavement, and colonists who entertain themselves reenacting murders.

There is one gratuitous sex scene, showing male on male sex with one dressed as a woman, that serves no purpose. There are also a few minor character actors who don't enunciate very well. The subject is deserving of a big budget film.