Call of Juarez is very much a game of its time- the mid-2000s, when FPSes were defined by the early Medal of Honor games, Half-Life 2, and FEAR 1; when every FPS seemingly had an (over)long singleplayer campaign, unnecessary physics objects littering the world, long, frustrating, combatless "puzzle" or platforming sections, extremely crude stealth sections where you hold CTRL to crouch and enter STEALTH MODE, simple bullet time mechanics, misguided vehicle levels, and some sort of bow type weapon that left its projectiles embedded in enemies or the environment, where you could retrieve them for reuse. Call of Juarez is a mostly run-of-the-mill budget FPS from this period, and hits every one of the points I mentioned above except that it doesn't have any vehicle stages. When it was new, it didn't have anything to set it apart from other budget FPSes except its attractive Wild West setting, and it has dated poorly. The most memorable feature of the game is that you can, while playing as Ray McCall, read Bible verses at enemies to briefly stunt hem, and then shoot them dead. It is a thoroughly middling game otherwise. This game would be followed up by the brilliant Bound in Blood and the slick and memorable Gunslinger (but also the miserable The Cartel), and Techland would move on to Dead Island and then their greatest triumph, Dying Light, leaving the first Call of Juarez game as being of mostly historical interest (along with the now-forgotten Chrome games). Bound in Blood is a direct prequel to this game, so I guess you might enjoy it more if you play this first; but unless you are a devotee of gawky budget FPSes (as I sort of am), or you just can't get enough of Wild West video games and have already played all the others, I cannot really recommend it otherwise.
