IMDb user comments for
The Hi-Lo Country (1998) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

29 comments in total

---

12 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
When The World Was Bigger, 14 April 2001

Author: jhclues from Salem, Oregon

This character study, set in New Mexico in the early ‘40s, begins with an enigmatic narrative that infuses `The Hi-Lo Country,' directed by Stephen Frears, with a tension that ultimately runs high throughout the entire film. The story focuses on the friendship between a couple of cowboys, Pete Calder (Billy Crudup) and Big Boy Matson (Woody Harrelson), who upon returning from the war are trying to make a go of the cattle business, while bucking some stiff competition from the local cattle baron, Jim Ed Love (Sam Elliott). At the same time, Pete becomes aware that he is not alone in his obsession with a married woman, Mona (Patricia Arquette); Big Boy has it bad for her, too, and she just happens to be the wife of Jim Ed's foreman, Les Birk (John Diehl). And, as usually happens with a situation involving obsession, things quickly begin to get sticky for all concerned. Big Boy, it seems, is the one headed for trouble; he's hot-tempered, stubborn, and fearless to a point bordering on stupidity. Pete, on the other hand, has a good head on his shoulders and has a couple of things going for him: One is a woman named Josepha (Penelope Cruz), who cares deeply for him, and the other is his unwavering loyalty to Big Boy. The tension continues to mount, and the situation is complicated further by the fact that Big Boy isn't exactly discreet about his feelings for Mona, nor of his disdain for Jim Ed Love, for whom his younger brother, Little Boy (Cole Hauser) now works. Inevitably, things come to a head; but when it happens, the arena in which it transpires is something of a surprise, though not entirely unexpected.

Frears does a good job of capturing the essence of another time and place that seems so near and yet so far away. The world was changing around them, but in the Hi-Lo country there were still cowboys who punched cattle and drove the herd to market on horseback. Theirs is a fairly self-contained world, far removed from anything that is happening elsewhere; if a butterfly flaps it's wings in New York, it isn't going to affect Pete or Big Boy. Frears takes a look at the difference between the two men, Big Boy, who lives primarily for the moment (or so it would seem), and Pete, who is more apt to consider the consequences of his decisions, except, that is, when it comes to Mona. But even in that respect, it's Pete who ultimately shows some restraint. And Frears maintains the tension by keeping the situation between the men and Mona precariously balanced on the fence. You know that someone is bound to fall, but you don't know who it will be, where or when.

Crudup is convincing as Pete, bringing him to life with a reserved, understated performance. He brings an intelligent and introspective quality to the character that leads you to believe that Pete is always cognizant of what is going on around him, and where it's all heading. With Big boy, on the other hand, you never know if he's ever really aware of his situation, or if he just doesn't care. As Big Boy, Harrelson gives what may be his best performance ever. His portrayal is that of a true, rugged individual who keeps his deepest feelings to himself, but just may be a bit more savvy than he lets on. Initially, it appears that Big Boy and Pete are opposite sides of the same coin, but in the end you realize that they are not so different from one another after all.

As Mona, Arquette gives a somewhat subdued performance. Though attractive, she doesn't exactly exude the kind of sensuality that would seemingly elicit the obsessiveness of the men that is called for by the story, especially in Pete's case. Knowing what you know about the characters involved, it is hard to believe that Pete would look past the lovely and more alluring Josepha for even a second glance at Mona.

The supporting cast includes James Gammon (Hoover), Darren E. Burrows (Billy), Lane Smith (Steve) and Jacob Vargas (Delfino). A good, solid drama, `The Hi-Lo Country' may not be entirely original, but Frears has a nice touch and gives it a sense of realism that will get you emotionally involved with the characters and their story. And, upon reflection, it's a glimpse of a world that not that long ago was so much bigger than it is today. I rate this one 7/10.

---

10 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
A Good modern Western, 11 December 2002

Author: Tilly Gokbudak from Roanoke, Va.

I was surprised and disappointed to see this film only get a 6.0 in the database. I am giving it a 7 because Penelope Cruz, who I respect as an actress- amazing beauty aside- doesn't quite fit into this film. Otherwise, the directing from Stephen Frears, who has tried (it seems) as many genres as Howard Hawks, is solid. Billy Crudup, Patty Arquette and even Woody Harrelson (still want my $ back from NBK even though it's been a decade now!) is quite good in this. It is very hard to make Westerns these days, and I'm sure the box office from this film won't help. But, along with "Dead Man" and "Unforgiven," this film proves it can be done. Worth a look, especially for those of us ( a minority in my generation- GEN X) who still apprecaite the Western as a genre and as an art form.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
This movie could have been great, 11 May 2002

Author: panicwatcher from Arden Hills, Minnesota, USA

This movie has all the ingredients to make a great movie. It is beautifully photographed with wonderful western landscapes. It has one of Woody Harrelson's best performances as a hard drinking, hard working, hard loving good old boy rancher. It has excellent support from Sam Elliot, Billy Crudup and Penelope Cruz. It is set in the late 40's, early 50's when small independent ranchers are being replaced by large commercial farms.

The problem with this movie is that is focuses way too much on the three way relationship between Billy Crudup, Woody Harrelson and Patricia Arquette. Arquette and Harrelson are lovers and Crudup lusts after Arquette. This relationship is not believable because Arquette's character is untrustworthy, amoral, and a liar. The woman who is more interested in Crudup is the Penelope Cruz character. The movie never explains why Crudup would prefer Arquette over the much more beautiful and sexy Cruz.

The Sam Elliot character is wasted. He does a good job of portraying the businessman rancher. He is not evil, but all the small time ranchers hate him because he is contributing to, and a symbol of, the end of small ranches. But it is not Sam Elliot that is destroying the small ranches, it is the progress of commercialization which Sam Elliot represents. It is this contradiction between good person Sam Elliot is and the evil that he represents that makes is character so interesting. This movie should have been more about Sam Elliot.

The movie falls apart into silly soap opera / action movie like scenes at the end. It abandons the interesting character study and gives us emergency rescues in a storm, deaths, murders, cover-ups and "dramatic" revelations. Those scenes belong in some other movie.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
A Great Movie Western, 5 September 1999

Author: Zilla-4

This is a wonderful movie produced by Martin Scorcese's group and is the best contemporary western I've seen since "Unforgiven". In some ways it is like a Cormac McCarthy novel brought to life. It has a mature and literate screenplay by Walon Green, is well acted by Billy Crudup and Woody Harrelson, has strong supporting performances by a large and perfectly cast group of actors (including Patricia Arquette, Katy Jurado, Sam Elliott, and Penelope Cruz), is beautifully photographed by Oliver Stapleton against spectacular backdrops in New Mexico, is very well directed by Stephen Frears, and has a haunting score by the superb Carter Burwell. Only an overly sentimental last scene weakens an otherwise great film, but the movie is still well worth seeing.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Turkey in the desert, 28 July 1999

Author: Alan Jacobs (ajacobs@nyc.rr.com) from Greenwich Village, NY

I usually love Stephen Frears, but he really missed the mark with this turkey. The people were all unlikeable, nothing of any note happens, and lead actress, an Arquette, is nothing more than a siren to make men to bad things. What a stinker! Billy Crudup, a sexy guy, had no sex appeal at all. Woody Harrelson was supposed to be charismatic, but I was glad when he was not in a scene. It did have some nice scenery--but it was not believable to me that they would even try to raise cattle in what appeared to be a dry, parched desert.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Starts good, ends in disappointment, 1 July 1999
Author: Apollo-14 from Athens, Greece

For the record, I rented this movie to see Penelope Cruz speak English. As for the story I didn't expect much and didn't get much.

It starts out good: men fighting, challenging each other, driving the cattle. I felt like smoking a cigarette, although I hardly need an excuse. The movie had promise. An interesting conflict developed between Harrelson, who played the conservative poor cowboy reluctant to give up the old ways of cattlin' and chewin' tabacca, and Sam Elliot, the rich land and cattle owner who believed everyone had a price. As the movie seemed to develop this tradition vs. progress theme, it sort of collapsed. Sam Elliot faded from the plot and it turned into a conflict between brothers and friends. Too bad.

By the way, Penelope Cruz needs to work on her English if she is to have a Hollywood career. Even so, I'd rather see her in Spanish films.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Crudup's face and the sunsets redeem a mediocre western., 3 July 2000

Author: Arne Andersen (aandersen@landmarkcollege.org) from Putney, VT

Enough has been said by other reviewers on this site that this is a less than memorable film. Overlong and "almost" predictable in its plotting, it seemed at first that Frears was filming an original Cormac McCarthy screenplay - it's that close to McCarthy's plotting and narrative devices. Best cowboy friends in the late forties, rival baron ranchers forcing the little guy out, both friends in love with the same girl but one not being able to show it (sort of a cross between THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WANTED, OKLAHOMA! and GIANT). Crudup plays Pete with a quiet sensitivity and we're allowed many many close-ups of his beautiful face (reminiscent of a young Eric Andersen)- that and the sunsets give us breaks of pulchritude in the boring and overlong narrative. Although we "think" we know where the story is going, we are surprised by a few twists at the end, but since they are neither mind-boggling nor interesting, we're less impressed than we might have been. Harrelson was well-cast as Big Boy, but since I've never liked the actor, I was not moved.

An okay but basically mediocre western.

---

4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Should Have Been Much Better, 22 August 2001

Author: gbheron from Washington, DC

If you rent "The Hi-Lo Country", you're not ripping yourself off; you'll have a decent movie to watch. But what struck me after it was over was the unnerving feeling that it should have been so much better. The prize, a top-notch Oscar contender, was within their grasp, and they fumbled it. Not all aspects of the film miss their mark; there are parts that are much better than others. The professional critics have pointed them out, and they're on target. For one, Woody Harrelson gives a great performance, one of his best. But nobody else does, not even the usually excellent Billy Crudup and Bridget Fonda. For another, the cinematography that highlights the beautiful New Mexico landscape is great. But this is not nearly enough; The direction and editing are languid and loose. The tension inherent in the story slips away at key moments. As a result, the movie does not achieve the heights it could have achieved. If only Sam Peckinpah had lived a little longer…

---

Hi-Low Characters/Plot are Near perfect, 2 August 2009

Author: (danmcgrew123@earthlink.net) from United States

HI-LOW's characters, with Big Boy and Pete central, and Mona as the obsessive lure for both, were perfectly developed and portrayed. Big Boy was a prototypical strutting, macho "stud duck" in a remote west-Texas grain farming and cattle region, along the base of the sharp, towering escarpment which splits the LOW and HIGH PLAINS. Big Boy and Pete were among the WWII combat veterans returning home to find draft dodgers acquiring property and wealth by any means -- most often questionable legal tactics. This happened throughout the Western U.S., even the Mid-West and South East. Many of these accumulated great wealth, but without respect within their communities or region. That lack of respect continues for many of their wealthy families to this date among "natives." Mona represented forbidden fruit, not because of anything she controlled, because she was a lost soul out of control, trapped in a miserable marriage to one of the despised prototypes of the era, a WWII draft dodger, who was foreman for the villain's growing ranch. Sam Elliott's villain earned the scorn by becoming a totally unscrupulous wealthy draft dodger. Mona was a poor, ill-educated nearly starving woman during the war years, forced to make a choice between abject poverty and creature comforts in a loveless marriage as trophy wife to a cowardly excuse of a man. "Draft Dodging" was the one unforgivable sin for any man of that era. Sleeping with his wife, and taking her, was "morally right." The Cruz character could not have more perfectly developed and portrayed as a young Latina woman, a "Mexican" in that culture. English was not her primary language. Attractive, and especially "available" Latinas were welcome to dance in the "whites' tonks", while in most communities, "Mexican" males might be permitted to stand along a back wall. At the end, while loving her, Pete still walked away because mixed marriage was unacceptable. In remote 1940s western areas, "dime vending machines' were common.

---

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Good ''modern'' western, 24 June 2007

Author: Ryu_Darkwood from Netherlands

I really enjoyed this ''modern'' western about two young war veterans coming back home from the war zone and trying to make a living by working as old-fashioned cowboys. Pete Calder ( Billy Crudup ) is the shy and reserved one, Big Boy ( Woody Harrelson ) the risk taker with the biggest mouth and smoothest bluffing skills. Their friendship is threatened by the lovely Mona ( Patriccia Arquette ); an adulteress, sending in mixed signals to both of the boys.

You know, I sometimes don't get it why good movies get low or mediocre scores. The way I see it, this movie has its flaws, but it is almost as good as the recent Brokeback Mountain. I really like this epic story about unreachable love and jealousy at someone you consider as a true friend. Add the intense bar fights, gorgeous scenery and a top cast, I'd say this is a very good movie. The only thing I have to comment is that some of the characters just don't get so much attention as they deserve ( like the Mexican guy or Hoover Young ). It felt as if their characters had an important role in the novel, but there just wasn't the time for them in this movie to give them their deserved deep layer. Alas, I can live with that.

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history