 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Grand movie in the old style. Bereft of modernist irony wherein we learn how much better we are than primitive-thinking cowboys. Best of all, great writing! Kevin Costner an excellent acting job, Robert Duvall at top of form. Annette Benning looking (and acting) just right. A gunfight superbly staged and believably fought. Town politics, with our cowboys hating even going into town. Slow-paced, no FX, no frantic camera. Lots of realistic rain to balance the otherwise gorgeous Western cinematography.What's not to like? The movie must choose from a stock set of endings, but which ones? I didn't guess correctly.
See it while still on the Big Screen.
clark
PS This, from one of my farflung correspondents:
I'll tell it to you like I told it to Roy, pardner.Kostner puts us cowpokes
on the screen like we really was.Our word is good and we don't like no
sidewinders or yellerbellies, or chuck wagons what serves cold beans.And
when we fall for a womanfolk, we treats her real good.Mind ya , it ain't
all sweet and purdy.Some men need killin and we aim to do it if'n they got
it comin'.This here movie is worth some of your whiskey money. If it was up
to me , I'd put two and one half stars and a piece of hardtack along side
this here picture, causin it's long and you might get hungry just sittin on
the sidelines not helpin the fellers out.And remember you sissy city
slicker that death ain't the worst thing that can happen to ya.Gettin'
somethin' stuck in your craw is.Sheriffs suck, gabby
Follow Ups:
I agree witcha, except about Benning. She did absolutely zero with that character. I don't know if it's her acting or Costner's directing but the performance was flat as Kansas and the character, potentionally very interesting (an over-the-eligibility single woman living with her brother in a dinky town) was completely undeveloped.Don't tell me it was the limitation of the script! A good actor develops (imagines) his/her character's backstory and uses it to illuminate the performance of the script, no matter how limited.
I could watch Robert Duvall say his ABCs and not get bored!
...low affect with low effect?She was a woman who had never known love, and you expect her to be out there, emotionally?
Her reticence served the character admirably, I think.
And as I said, she *looked* just right. Anyway she didn't look like, say, Julia Roberts.
clark
... If "Open Range" is cliche, I want more of it rather than the "originality" we've been treated to at the theater this summer. If some of the dialog is cliched (Costner does say, "Let's rustle up some grub") at least there are no precocious children doling out wisdom to clueless adults, there's no time travel involved, and the action wasn't filmed against a backdrop of red rocks in Sedona. After 100 years of movies, what isn't cliche?True, the good vs bad delineation was a little more black and white than one expects these days - even to the point where Costner's character tears up over the loss of his dog and later saves another dog from drowning (lest a modern audience of over-sensitive PETA members refuse to sympathize with an evil animal-hating cattle killer). But I did appreciate that Costner chose not to directly inject modern P.C. conceits into the story to give it "value" (Benning's character delivers no anachronistic feminist diatribes and there are no out-of-place asides to modern-day gun laws, unjust treatment of Native Americans or blacks, etc.), which kept this simple, small-scale story focused. If the film has any "value", it might simply be as an exploration of the fine line between justice and vengeance.
s
The first time Costner actually said "rustle up some grub" I sort of cringed. There is an awful lot of Hollywood Western cliche in this, in dialogue and plot and characters that represent Pure Good on one side and Pure Evil on the other. Yeah Costner is supposed to have a dark past, but he sure seems like Pure Good by the time of the movie.The love story is pretty hokey and predictable.
For all that, the scenery is spectacular, Robert Duvall is perfect, all the other acting is right on target and the story, cliched and familiar as it may be, is compelling. But it is a standard Hollywood Western with some good qualities, no more than that.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie, but parts were just too schmaltzy for me. The main characters were too black & white (good vs bad). Costner did seem a little wooden, but I disagree with another poster about Duvall, who I thought was magnificent. I wish Gambon had a bigger role - he wasn't used to his full potential. The cinematography is the real winner here and I can see it getting an oscra nomination. The ending was a little disappointing...very Hollywoodish.
Yes. Death and preferably some dismemberment too would have served us literary types far better. Plus, the guy should *never* get the girl. So... Hollywood!Seriously, I wrote that the choices under the circumstances had to be made from a set of stock endings. Nature of the beast! But did you guess which ones would be chosen?
clark
You are right Clark, I was sort of wondering which way they would end up. In that regard, it was a bit of a surprise. Yes, I would've preferred him, perhaps not dismembered, but at least ending up a loner. Can men like that ever be tamed? But Boss and Charlie going into partnership owning the bar?!? Come on!
What, you want 'em to own the bank? A dress shop? A construction business? Geez Luiz!clark
a Sherriff and his trusty assistant. Together they could chloroform the lawbreakers into ideal inmates. Hmmm! I wonder if that would work here at AA. ;-)
;^)
all pointed DOWN.
Zero drama, that's the main problem. No building of tension. Lots of staring out at gorgeous scenery, lots of talk between Costner and Duvall. A silly romance, half-developed. A monotonous, one-note movie that slow-walks for an hour and a half to a very forgettable climax (I cannot, honestly, remember what occurred as I type this...). And music, music, music every damn moment, to boot.
The real problem is there is no strong antagonist---and no time is spent making him (and his "gang") vicious. As everyone knows, the key to a great western is a cruel, heartless assassin.
Further, neither Costner nor Duvall seem well suited to Westerns.
Comparing "Open Range" to "Unforgiven" is comparing beef steak to horse shit.
Love that European pacing. Stands in admirable contrast to your favored American freneticism and camera antics and FX.Plus life in the Old West must have been even slower-paced. Which was part of the point surely.
If you don't like Duvall you don't like acting.
I'd go ever farther. If you don't like Duvall's role, you don't like smart, wise and weathered older men who behave conservatively.
clark
You didn't address any of my points, except Duvall's acting, which is on a par with an old coot w/mutton chops whose name I can't recall at the moment but has become an embarrassment of over-sincerity.
Boring AIN'T European, btw.
My title line is a direct quote of a so-called "point". Besides, what use is there adresssing remarks such as "zero drama", "monotonous" and "forgettable" (which I guess it isn't, as you're still on about it).clark
is a key component. Hiding around town and making shy moonful glances at a 50 yr. old woman is not too dramatic. Where, clark, is the antagonist? The sense of impending doom?
A western must have an epic climax. This one? Not even a wet dream. The big shootout as filmed here is indistinguishable from network tv.
But if your idea of a great movie is Costner talking for an hour and a half...buy a copy when it comes out. At least you'll sleep well.
Through my heavy lids I see these two people exchange stares and banal conversation--NEXT THING: Duval is telling Costner to go tell her how he feels about her as it may be his only chance! Huh? About what? Had I missed a great romantic move? Maybe there's something I don't know aboout the mating habits of the Old West, circa 1882.
.
Assuming you haven't seen one or the other, I can recommend both, but they are very different "animals" in pacing and character development. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd have to say that the Unforgiven is the better film overall; probably because it's less of a sprawling epic and more of a personal story where you can empathize with the characters and understand their motivations better. Note: You get to feel like you "know" the characters.Both stories do have similarities in that the characters seem to be motivated by an unwritten code of conduct rather than a clearly defined moral purpose, and heroic acts are not undertaken lightly.
In both movies the main characters appear to have lived through a troubling past that they prefer to put behind them. In Costner's Open Range the scenery plays an important role (i.e., the setting is almost an uncredited actor in the film, as it was in Dancing With Wolves) which borders on self-indugent. Conversely, the Unforgiven is almost claustrophobic at times, with close-ups combining with intense action that almost makes you feel a part of it; it is also tightly paced.
In both films weather conditions play a role in events, but in Open Range the weather seems to indirectly shape everything which follows.
Both movies have very believable home-spun period dialogue that is effectively delivered, but I like the Unforgiven's dialogue just a little bit better.
Clark mentioned the well done gun fight, and I would agree with the possible exception of Costner's "fanning" his six-gun in one scene; no true cowboy, much less a gunfighter, would've done that! However, the fight itself was believeably choreographed and fits the scale of the picture; it was loud, bloody and in places eerily realistic.
Well, that about covers it; that's my take on it anyway.
One last thing though: If I were recasting and Kevin Costner were willing to opt out of the lead in his own picture, I would've cast Tom Selleck in the role of Charley; I believe that he could've brought more believeability and intensity to the character.
Cheers,
AuPh
q
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
