Emile Hirsch & John Cusack in Trailer for Western 'Never Grow Old'

February 22, 2019
Source: YouTube

Never Grow Old Trailer

"Do you feel proud of yourself?!" Saban Films has unveiled the first official trailer for an indie western titled Never Grow Old, which is a shortened version of the original working title Where We'll Never Grow Old. This gritty western takes place at an American frontier town. The plot is about an Irish undertaker who profits when outlaws take over a peaceful town, but his family comes under threat as the death toll rises. Emile Hirsch plays the undertaker, and the cast includes John Cusack, Déborah François, Antonia Campbell-Hughes, Danny Webb, Anne Coesens, Blake Berris, Paul Reid, as well as Léa Seydoux. Another western about a bunch of outlaws roughing up a town? How original. The cinematography in this looks so bad, so poorly lit in every scene. Don't think this dastardly new western is going to impress anyone.

Here's the official trailer (+ two posters) for Ivan Kavanagh's Never Grow Old, direct from YouTube:

Never Grow Old Poster

Never Grow Old Poster

Debauchery. Greed. Murder. Welcome to Garlow. This once-peaceful frontier town has become a den of vice after vicious outlaw Dutch Albert (John Cusack) and his gang arrived—and began gunning down their opposition. Undertaker Patrick Tate (Emile Hirsch) must now choose between the blood money he makes burying the murderers’ victims and the threats he and his family face in this intense and gritty western. Never Grow Old is both written and directed by Irish filmmaker Ivan Kavanagh, director of the films Tin Can Man, The Solution, Our Wonderful Home, The Fading Light, and The Canal previously. This film has nit premiered at any film festivals or otherwise. Saban Films + Lionsgate will release Kavanagh's Never Grow Old in select US theaters + on VOD starting March 15th, 2019 next month. Who's interested?

Find more posts: Indies, To Watch, Trailer



you're spot on with the look of the film - it's terrible and VERY poorly lit. i like hirsch in his role but cusak doesn't cut it as the baddie - someone like russell crowe or tim roth would have done that part justice.

dan on Feb 22, 2019


The script or the budget probably wouldn't have drawn that kind of talent.

THE_RAW_ on Feb 22, 2019


very true.

dan on Feb 25, 2019


Well, the poster definitely mirrors the trailer: Dark, ugly and poorly constructed. I'll watch The Kid instead. And does Saban Films own Cusack now? I only see him those films now...

THE_RAW_ on Feb 22, 2019


What happened to John Cusack? He certainly has potential for better films ...

shiboleth on Feb 22, 2019


I used to really like him. He sure can't get into any quality projects, it seems. Is he hard to work with, I wonder?

kitano0 on Feb 23, 2019


As Bo often says, films are hard gig. But I think there's something else behind Cusack's, let's say, fall. Because, he's much better than films he's usually making. I really would like to know what it is ...

shiboleth on Feb 24, 2019


Well, I see that Alex and several comments below referencing the poorly lit cinematography, but I had thoughts that it was done purposely. Reminded me of the dark look of the Godfather. I mean, the DP here is no Gordon Willis, but I see the lighting done with care and purpose instead of a lack of talent. It's just not terrible digital like so many today. I don't now. I kind of like the dark look and even thought it was well done. My only question is where was Lea Seydoux? I didn't see her in the trailer nor in the credits listed at the end.

thespiritbo on Feb 22, 2019


I agree with you regarding the cinematography. The movie looks completely uninteresting to me, though. I didn't see Léa Seydoux either and she's not listed on imdb.

Efterklang on Feb 23, 2019


It's interesting to me because it's a Western and for that reason I'll take a look at it. I do wonder why Alex mentioned Lea Seydoux being in this though. Hmmmmmmmmm........

thespiritbo on Feb 23, 2019


I guess this is a piece of wonderful cinematography... dark and gloomy. In fact anamorphics add a sort of background soft defocusing increasing the sense of faint and dismissing. If you dont like it; well it's your problem but stop saying rats

Bas Jan Ader Endimione on Mar 28, 2019


If the commenter I replied to said they thought it was well done, and I said I agreed with them, wouldn't that mean that I DID like it? Not too bright, are ya?

Efterklang on Mar 28, 2019


I waited your response, Bo, regarding camera work and I kinda anticipated you will say something similar since I thought the same. Minus all the knowledge you have about the cinematography. Another cool thing from you. And I wonder the same thing about gorgeous Lea Seydoux ... Cheers ...

shiboleth on Feb 24, 2019



Spencer Shannon on Feb 24, 2019


Cucack's face. Time is muthafuqa.

DAVIDPD on Feb 25, 2019


Dude looks UN WELL.

Needuhbiggerboat on Mar 9, 2019


well the cinematography is gourgeous and stunning... you dont know what you're saying

Bas Jan Ader Endimione on Mar 28, 2019


I don't think YOU know what you're saying, just blindly defending something this is clearly quite bad...

Alex Billington on Mar 28, 2019


Honestly this is a great cinematography; that's absolutely out of any discussion. A quiet good cinematic lighting; if we compare this one with some other great neo/post-western movies, we can find that's very close and very 'moody': take a look at 'The Beguiled' by Sofia Coppola and Le Sourd (DOP) or even at a classic like 'The Unforgiven' by Eastwood. This kind of lighting has to be experienced on a very good monitor and it spreads out all its gloomy atmosphere, as I quote upon. The use of anamorphic lenses stretches indeed the widescreen exterior takes and gives a 'pathos' intimacy in interiors. Maybe the grading is fairly too teal&orange, in my taste, but anyways a fine 'coloring'. As yo can see, I know exactly what I'm saying. Over.

Bas Jan Ader Endimione on Mar 28, 2019


Hahahaha such a snob. No, actually we can say this cinematography sucks. It's poorly lit, looks awful, takes away from the story of the film. It's not "moody" at all, it's a disaster. Just because you know technical details doesn't mean you're right. It sounds like you're defending this because you know someone who worked on it, or are the DP, and just don't like hearing people call out what they really see. Deal with it. The cinematography in this sucks and it's hurting the film.

Alex Billington on Mar 28, 2019


I'll took It over, better not mess with me. You're just saying rats 'cause you can obviously defend your position. I'm not the cinematographer but I know enough cinematography stuff to argue; something that you definitely don't know. But it doesn't need to capture technical details to claim with such good item that's a very amazing cinematography: it is supposed to be a dark world, with no or poor electrical practicals lighting, just few candles or oil lamps... muddy landscapes, mocking and mephistophelian characters and so on... The cinematography supports this director feeling and it's technical precise. Stop. No words else but personal taste. To you your jealous, bunglin' taste. To me mine.

Bas Jan Ader Endimione on Mar 28, 2019


"Rats" haha. What does that even mean? Such a ridiculous defense, especially when you're defending something that almost everyone else looks at and says "man that looks like shit". What a waste.

Alex Billington on Mar 28, 2019


crap man you're crap

Bas Jan Ader Endimione on Mar 28, 2019

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram