Horrible acting!
I can't believe Berenger actually agreed to do this turkey of a film. I actually sat half way through it and felt like an idiot for doing so. This movie wasn't released...it escaped!
shareNothing is wrong with this movie at all. Just another case of internet hating.
shareWrong! Call it what you want. This move was just plain bad.
shareThe whole movie is sattire about old westerns, the entire movie is a big joke based on that saying its a bad movie is wrong. If you think the movie isn't funny thats one thing, but to say it is bad is unfair. "Date Movie" is a bad movie because its stupid and non creative. Rustler's Rahpsody is done well, the actors do fine, if you don't like the movie don't take it out on the actors.
shareI really like Tom Berenger and his acting abilities, but watching this movie was painful. He looked and sounded like a rookie news anchor reading his lines off a telepromper. I was excited when I bought it and ran this movie for a group of friends on my Sony 50" HDTV one night last August. We are all serious movie buffs, in the late 40s - early 50s age group. After 40 minutes, it was a unanimous decision to stop this movie and pick out something else to watch. I'm glad I only spent $5.50 on this turkey. The script writing for this movie is sophmoric at best. To compare this to Blazing Saddles is ridiculous, like trying to compare National Lampoon's Pledge This to National Lampoon's Animal House.
shareOkay I am going to chalk this up to a difference of Generational opinion. I saw this movie when I was 5 years old. That would be 1989, I was lucky enough to find it on video a few years ago because our entire family loves the film. I guess both of our experiences were different simply because I never really cared about the production, or line delivery. The first time I watched it I was just willing to be told a ridiculous story about a western hero who was perfect in every way. When I watch it as an adult I still laugh because of the absurdity of it all. I mean come on, a man named "Blacky" who kills a man who is obviously not going to shoot him at all simply because he is the stereotypical old west "bad guy". Thats the parts that had me laughing hard as I've ever laughed before.
shareNothing wrong with the acting either.
"The root's startin' ta work"
"Yep, it's definately kickin' in now."
If goof didn't like it, I have to wonder if he ever liked the old-style western serials? For those of us who grew up watching those old serials (either when they were new, or like myself, when they were in re-runs -since I was born in the '60s, these types of shows were THE MAIN STAPLE of every young boy during the late '60s and early '70s -we grew up watching or listening to the Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, The Rifleman, Gunsmoke, etc etc -and we feasted on the spaghetti westerns.)
If you liked those shows, and have fond memories cradling your Daisy BB-gun (that looked like the Riflemans' true and trusty lever-action rifle with which every episode was opened up -or you had the pearl-handled cap pistols with the belt and holster (with silver bullets in it) like the Lone Ranger...) then you would really enjoy this movie. The actors in this movie kept true to the acting styles of those old serials and spaghetti westerns (and the narration was right on target -they (spaghetti western cowboys) always wore those cool overcoats, even though it had to be over a hundred degrees (this was supposed to be the wild west of America, after all) -and how about the ranch? You always heard what must have been a hundred head of cattle in the background, but never saw a single set of horns. The 'good guys' ALWAYS (well, nearly so) wore white, the bad guys ALWAYS wore black hats. The Good Guys has horses that could perform right up there with the 'dancing horses of spain', and perform on que (usually a quick whistle or crack or a lead, etc) and oftentimes the sidekick (when there was one) had a checkered past (i.e. the town drunk) or was meek in some way or other -and often needed rescuing by the hero. You saw the 'ladies of the evening' but you never saw anything untoward actually happen (this was true FAMILY Television, after all. The Good Guys were always confident that 'good' would prevail over 'evil', and the bad guys would always back down in a staring contest -they always gave in, and rarely was anyone ever actually killed. They got injured, or they rode out of town, but their wounds were rarely ever mortal -but when they did die, it was a scene that was drawn out quite a bit and a bit hammy by todays' standards).
The actors kept true to their parts, and the story was very well written as a generalized all-encompasing spoof of those old, cherished, westerns. If you don't get it, then you are either looking at the movie in way too serious a light, or you probably were one of those guys who never cared for these serials (or grew up when they weren't showing 'em anymore) -but the fact that you speak of it as you do, leads me to believe that the latter is more likely the problem. You cannot 'get' the movie because you cannot relate to the stories. Thats a true shame, but its also a sign of the times.
This was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time! I loved it It analyzed the foibles and inconsistencies of dozens, hundreds of the old serial Westerns, gently making fun of them by "explaining" them in hilarious ways. It made fun of the incredibly repetitive and predictable plotlines of the old Westerns, and came up with a creative leap of genius: IF the traditional "Singing Cowboy Hero" really DID live through every one of those episodes, then of course by now he really WOULD know the future: because each one would always be the same recycled plot.
And then it posed a brilliant riddle that was never explored in any of the serials: Given that good guys ALWAYS win, who would win between two good guys? The serials never tried to answer this one; but we instinctively know that the MOST good "good guy" would win. But how to tell which one is the MOST good?
This is a great movie, with great characters -- wonderful two-dimensional characters played with love by very good actors.
I still can't understand why it's unpopular. Is it because most people don't know the old serials? Because people don't find humor in the surreal? Ah, well.
All I can say is AMEN!!! A total knee-slapper of a comedy!
"Oakwood Estates"! Andy Griffith as a......well, you choose your adjective. The "Good Guy" showdown. There are just too many funny lines, instances, and scenes to mention them all.
I have watched this over and over, and each time it is just as funny as the last viewing. I eagerly await each funny line or scene.
As much as I liked BLAZING SADDLES, I HAVE to rate RUSTLERS' RHAPSODY just a bit higher; more sophisticated humor. You have to be thinking to catch all the good stuff.
I too first saw this at a young age.....I was only 38, and this film is not "Unforgiven", or "Stagecoach".
This movie was done with tongue firmly planted in cheek, but it's still better than the remake of "3:10 To Yuma", with better acting, continuity, and direction.
This was an homage to and/or a satire of "oaters", the Westerns of the 30's through the 60's, where from movie to movie you'd recognize the same scenery, the same stagecoach being chased by the same Injuns or outlaws, and where bad guy Robber Barons were trying to chase the homesteaders or sodbusters off the land they felt was theirs(see "Heaven's Gate"), or where a mysterious & almost mystical gunman rides into town (see every Spaghetti Western or "Shane" or "My Name Is Nobody", or even "Yojimbo"). They'd have every Cholo from East LA playing the Indian braves, and the noble Indian chiefs were usually the sons of Rabbis or Italian grocers(see "F-Troop").
One thing I really enjoyed about this movie was its forseeing the mystery epidemics of today.....who'd have thought of a H1N1 type disease that causes holes in people's gun hands.....just the thought makes me need a warm glass of gin, and don't forget the human hair!
In the words of Colonel Ticonderoga(Andy Griffith), "Cookie??"
Your right this movie is better than the remake of 3:10 To Yuma. I thought it was very entertaining but I love Berenger!
share[deleted]
Wow, you really missed the point of this movie altogether. The reason Tom Berenger's acting was "like a rookie news anchor reading his lines off a telepromper" was because he was parodying John Wayne's wooden delivery that he was so famous for. Have you not ever heard of someone mimicking Wayne with his wooden drawl "Pardon me pilgrim"? This movie was a direct prody of all those old John Wayne movies. Patrick Wayne's presence in the film is actually part of the joke.
shareNo, he wasn't parodying John Wayne's acting, or if he was, he completely failed. John Wayne was one of the most naturalistic actors of all time.
shareA good satire is very hard to do. They have to be done in a very broad manner, which the cast pulled off pretty well.
Plus, westerns are a parody anyway, so doing a parody of a parody is really difficult
how on earth are westerns parodies?
what do you mean by this?
(yes, i realize it's four years later)
The whole movie is sattire about old westerns, the entire movie is a big joke based on that saying its a bad movie is wrong. If you think the movie isn't funny thats one thing, but to say it is bad is unfair. "Date Movie" is a bad movie because its stupid and non creative. Rustler's Rahpsody is done well, the actors do fine, if you don't like the movie don't take it out on the actors. share
I couldn't disagree more... well, I didn't analyse the acting, the film was a lighthearted parody. "Rustler's Rhapsody" was a funnier Western spoof than Blazing Saddles and one of my favorite comedies. The only problem with it is that someone inexplicably edited out perhaps the funniest scene in the movie near the end, which seriously pisses me off.
shareFunnier than Blazing Saddles? Yeah, right.
Blackie's death was about the only good scene. It struggled