Reviews written by registered user
|11 reviews in total|
I only downrated this movie from 10 out of 10 for the predictable
script. I was amused by the comment that Richard Farnsworth seemed out
of breath. I am not even Farnsworth's age at filming yet, live in the
sticks and I am similarly out of breath when doing heavy work. I have
had to quit roping at age 60 due to back pain from previous ski racing
injuries and occasional horse falls. In any case this is a very
accurate description of cattle ranching anywhere. I have visited places
in our Big Smoky Valley where real cattle ranches lived, raised kids
and worked in mud, snow, very little for conveniences and without the
power grid. We will go to a real cattle roundup near McDermitt, NV next
fall of 4000 cattle. This is done by a pioneer family with four
brothers, and offspring and is a prized invitation.
Watching home movies from real ranchers might convince some city people who don't notice things like such rudimentary sparse conditions. One example of a goof in the movie was Fonda putting on a watch which would have been an extreme extravagance in 1945. Had this movie had writing as realistic as the filming, it would have been much better. Robards was just to vicious to be real. This was 1945, not 1875, and he couldn't have gotten away with all the murders. The automobiles used, Fonda's 1928 or 29 Model A pickup, and Robard's 41 convertible, the Sheriff's 37 Dodge, and the Banker's 42 Plymouth were all very typical. In 1945, people didn't have the kind of money that they do now, and drove a lot older cars and there were no new cars between 1943 and 1946, and very few 1942 models due to the war.
The simple conversations are typical of cowboys and rural people who work hard and don't play boom boxes and don't say much. They are not driven like city people and work much more quietly. The courting buildup between Caan and Fonda had to do with each adapting to the other gradually and trust forming. It wasn't that Caan was laid back as much as he distrusted Fonda's impetuous reactions at first. The writers really got dialog and realistic conditions right.
I am from a rural background, went to college, drafted into the Army, then finished college and lived and worked in bigger and bigger places and did travel to a lot of places including Europe and Asia. I finally got tired of it, knowing I could create my own job in a small place. This is why a lot of people live in simple places and why so many retire in simple places. They don't care that there are no cable systems, malls, stores, or hospitals. That last long ride to a hospital hopefully will finish you off in the time it takes to get there. Simple places with low housing prices, and a simpler more outdoor life allow retirement poor couples to survive with a decent lifestyle which is far divorced from city/suburban pressured lifestyles. When people wonder why anyone would choose such a life, particularly after "seeing the world" some of it is the above. Handshake business, people who care about each other but still fight and argue, and leaving your doors unlocked is real rural culture, particularly in the west, but you always distrust government and you keep your guns ready.
I highly recommend this movie, I would have given it 8.5 out of 10, but the software is whole numbers, so it is rounded upward.
Read the title. That says it all. It is so nice not to have
contemporary "urban" themes in a film.
All of the actors were well chosen. The female, lead, Aitana, a name I am not familiar with was excellent, as was Anthony Quinn and Keanau Reeves.
I would have preferred if the director had not used as much "soft focus" as he did, but the location filming was beautiful.
I also think that the film could have been longer, as regards the end, perhaps to show the wedding.
I am familiar with the wine business, as one of my friends has a small plot in the Napa Valley where he raises Pinot Noir and Burgandy grapes and sells to a small winery.
With that in mind, I would have liked to have seen a sequel where Keanu and Pedro blend their ideas to restore and modernize the winery and watch some kids grow up. I sure would like to see all of these actors again.
Good historical movie without being sickeningly PC. Script
intelligently done and is believable.
Nice conflicts between cultures, well defined, and interesting to see education defined as "white man's culture".
Good actors in this movie, and good acting. Characters well developed and interesting.
Strong Indian character who learns that there is a lot that is good in the white man's culture.
Strong black characters who tout the values of the white culture and education to the Indian.
Ron Glass in a good part; one in which he plays a black educator with high moral values.
Very good bonding between characters; you felt a lot of friendship displayed.
Directing and casting first-rate: all in all an excellent movie.
Nothing wrong with a movie without swearing, and without much violence.
Eric Roberts is a bit miscast as a literate sheriff, who doesn't ride
that well (without stirrups) and the Bible quoting is fairly minimal
We need more movies like this instead of the urban crap being thrown out these days. Outdoor scenes are pretty and well filmed. Randy Travis is not bad, and Vaughn Taylor is great. It is hard for me to believe that some complained that some would be offended by the Bible quotations; how PC! Well, we western movie fans not only are not offended, we find it a refreshing change from the secular liberal mantra that Hollywood espouses.
Not even a good "chick" movie.
This was written by someone who thinks that the world would be wonderful if
we were all multi-racial, educated, UN loving socialists, and the Americans
Problems: 1. Many characters are not believable, such as Billy Mack. 2. Too british/urban for my taste. The men are a bit foppish. (in this country too, many urban males are no longer masculine) 3. Where was the struggle for survival? Were all of these
people trust fund babies?
So, due to the fact that this does not play in Peoria, or Round Mt., it is for urban viewers only, preferably of the socialistic persuasion. I watched the entire movie, only because I was astounded that anything so smaltzy and bad could get production money.
No Stars, If there was much nudity(other than the gratuitous standins) I didn't notice. It was hard not to snore through it.
The plotting and directing set up the final act. A gunfighter who doesn't care about his life can concentrate on killing. It is rather easy to kill those who are scared, those who want to live. The character of the Schofield Kid was both overacted and not too realistic. I don't believe that his act of killing would have changed him forever. Also, if goofs are relevant, the Schofield S&W revolver does not have a swing out cylinder. (Bill Munny swung the cylinder out to reload it). There are a lot of Westerns that are as good, but they have nowhere near the cinematic quality, and they do not feature other fine actors in vignettes (Richard Harris) and (Gene Hackman). My favorites included El Dorado, Rio Bravo, Stagecoach, True Grit, The Shootist, The original Gunfight at the OK Corral (Lancaster-Douglas), High Noon, The Outlaw Josie Wales, Cat Ballou, A Fistful of Dollars, Pale Rider, Treasure of the Sierra Madre,Ride the High Country, Any Hopalong Cassidy Movie, Any Roy Rogers Movie. I do not lock for excessive moralizing, just honest characters with moral standards appropriate to their position, very much like real rural life.
First of all, the movie was true as an autobiography during the window that it covered. Tammy Wynnette was so likeable and warm, she had nothing in her life to cover up. Secondly, the actress who played the part did all the singing and was very good as an actress and as a singer. This is something that does not happen often. The actor who played George Jones, likewise did a very good job. Who ever did the casting hit bullseyes in all parts. Movies that have been high budget rarely do any better. This is one of those undiscovered gems that were works of art.
Nice to see a movie with a moral, a good cast, good performances, especially Hal Holbrook & Keir Dullea. I felt the story was good, and the performances believable, and quite real, other than the characters always being made up. A good family movie.
George Straight is a pure country hunk, a guy who really can ride and rope and who lives on a ranch. His acting is a little weak, but he does well and the ladies love him. Isabel Glasser is wonderful and convincing in the part, and it makes me wonder why she did not do more movies. The movie is well written and has a good cast and is very believable, especiall in these days of crude pop culture. So when a popular country star tires of his own concerts glitz, and he drops out for a trip to his home, then meets some real people, it is understandable. Great story, great love story. Hollywood- are you listening?
The Casting for the movie was very good, and the theme, two gunfighters, one a TV actor (but a former roustabout) and the other a famous old west lawman, solve a murder. They had never met, but became very good friends. Mariel Hemmingway also has a big part. I believe that the ratings for this movie vary between city people, who are easily bored, and rural people who want character development and feeling between characters. I believe the vote for the movie would be a "ten" if rural people only voted, and a 5 from city dwellers. This is the type of movie that would bring me to a theatre (where I haven't treaded for over 15 years). Plot good, complex murder, great character development, good action, very satisfying. Garner and Willis both excellent and very likeable and believeable. It is a "ten" in my book.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |