MovieChat Forums > Comanche Moon (2008) Discussion > 'Comanche Moon' was really, really bad

'Comanche Moon' was really, really bad

posted 16 years ago by barretta20
48 replies | jump to latest

First off, I'll say that I'm a McMurtry fan, and a fan of all the Lonsome Dove films. I even liked the generic "Return To Lonesome Dove." While of course none of the sequels or prequels ever even whiffed the original, I found them to be fast moving and entertaining in their own right. "Dead Man's Walk" and "Streets of Lorado," while guilty of dramatic excesses, had the McMurtry style and keep the spirit of the characters alive. Now we come to "Comanche Moon..."

Ok, I really wanted to love this movie, or even like it. It did have promise while the opening credits were rolling. But as the mini-series went along, nothing even remotely interesting happened. There were a few moments that you expected, such as the confrontation between Maggie and Call, but the whole film was weighted down with poor acting, characters, and lack of coherent story lines.

The most disturbing segement of the film - The whole Inish/Ahumado story-line. I didn't read the book, but understand this was a big part of the book so I blame McMurtry for this one. All the situations connected with these characters were boring, sickening, pointless, unpleasant and did nothing to move the story along. McMurtry just should of stuck with the core characters. Ever since Blue Duck was introduced, he's been trying to create an even sicker villian. Anyway, the whole segement was a waste of time and totally lacked any entertainment value.

Another disturbing thing is that Buffalo Hump actually become a sympathetic character. About half way through the movie, I liked him! I don't think this was intended, was it?

The worst element of the movie is that it lacked action and character. In Dead Man's Walk, there were familiar lines from Call such as "I hate rude behavior in a man...." In CM, Call had virtually no speaking lines and not much too do.

The action scenes were brief, few a far between, poorly directed, and anti-climatic. It seemed like the Texas Rangers in this film really didn't do anything. When they showed up on the scene, the bad guys were usually already done in. The movie derived it's longest and most frequent action scenes from the bad guys doing mean things to innocents. The rangers just talked some jibberish, rode around aimlessly, and didn't even appear all that competent until the last 10 minutes of the film.

"Comanche Moon" just did not deliver. It promised that the "Texas Rangers would become legends.." For what? They kept talking about how they were going to rid the area of the evil Indians, but never went through with it. In addition, supporting characters such as Deets, Jake Spoon, and Pea Eye were given virtually nothing to do, while they were all very memorable characters in the original.

Some postives were Zahn's acting and the actress who played Maggie. Some negatives were Kilmer, Urban, and Studi's acting, and McMurtry's writing. If he's been reduced to this totally disturbing non-entertainment, I'd say he should just leave these characters alone.

[–] jporter-6 16 years ago

"Ok, I really wanted to love this movie, or even like it."

I felt exactly the same way. I was very disappointed on virtually
all levels. Even one of my old favorite actors, Wes Studi, just
didn't carry off his character well, in my opinion.

Very disappointed.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mikel3 16 years ago

but you do make some good points. The problem I have with CM is that it's little more than a Western Soap Opera. Will so-and-so end up with such-and-such. Will he realize his folly and claim his son. Characters looking longingly at each other than moving on...geesh.

It is sad to see Val Kilmer making an a_s out of himself. Has he forgotten how to act? Is this the same guy that co-starred in one of my favorite westerns of all time 'Tombstone'? He went from a wonderful characterization like Doc Holiday to this lackluster performance. Yeah, I get it, his character is supposed to be nuts and all that, still Kilmer plays him badly even if he is probably having fun chewing up the scenery.

And that actress that plays Pearl acts just like she does as Rose on 'Two and a Half Men'. I expect her to start stalking somebody at any time.

Still I invested two evening in this, might as well see it through and hope it gets better. BTW-I don't get the high stars rating here at the IMDB. In fact it was rated highly before it even aired yet !

MikEl

[–] xmarine1969 16 years ago

I disagree with your assessment. Just as the book did, the mini-series was designed to fill in the back story of the characters from the original Lonesome Dove.

Although the mini-series did not 100% follow the book, the deviations are minor nits to pick. (the only deviations from the book that i remember are Scull's eyes, Clara staying in Austin after the Indian raid, and Gus slugging Inez.)

People complain about stuff like this:

"Scull's character was cartoonish" Inish Scull's character is cartoonish in the book too. I thought Kilmer did well with his part.

"Buffalo Hump wasn't scary enough": There is a 16-17 yr gap beteen DMW and CM. Isn't it possible that a fierce warrior such as Buffalo Hump could age and mellow out during that long a time frame?

"Blue Duck wasn't scary enough either" At the beginning of CM, Blue Duck is only about 16 yrs old. At that stage of life he's more bluff than substance. I imagine that Indian tribes probably had their share of "teenage punks" too.

Overall, I thought this mini-series did exactly what the book was meant to do and that is to fill in the back story and show the development and maturation of the main characters.

[–] alonzo19 16 years ago

in that case, the Star Wars prequels did exactly what they were meant to do by filling in the back story. That doesn't change the fact that they all sucked and basically poisoned a great saga.

[–] sarken 14 years ago

Damn Right!! I'm surprised someone on this board gets it. "teenage punks"-lol!

[–] tbennett20 13 years ago

I liked Comanche Moon. Of course there were things I did not care for that much but overall I thought all the characters did a great job and it gave me a face to connect with people like Maggie and other characters they never showed in Lonesome Dove. Like the other poster said people on IMDB love to complain. Like I said, I like the DVD and I am glad to add it to the rest of my Lonesome Dove movies.

[–] lindsey204 16 years ago

barretta20, I noticed you wrote that you haven't read the book, do so and you'll be satisfied with the real story....enjoy!

[–] karbrucar63 16 years ago

Agreed. Just, sadly, a poorly executed film all around. Can't figure all the positive reviews as we were very disappointed with it.
Think I'll go watch Lonesome Dove again.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MamaBear0106 16 years ago

I wasn't feeling it either. It seemed that the picture was all over the place. Very disappointing.

[–] barretta20 16 years ago

I read LD, SOL, and DMW, but I never got around to reading "Comache Moon." I still might, but after the filmed version I'm not real excited about it.

I thought about it last night and really put my finger on why I hated this mini-series. Nearly half the film was dedicated to Inish being captured and abused by Ahumado. I understand that new characters need to be added to each story. But I anticipated that Kilmer's character would be freed, then become a part of the plot. That never happened. In fact, he barely interacted with the core characters. Instead, he was rescued, shaved his head, showed up later looking like Albert Einstein, then was fazed out. Compare him to the Bigfoot Wallace in DMW. He was an integral part of the story, became influential to Gus and Call, and was killed off at the end.

In CM, we have half the movie dedicated to characters who have nothing to do with LD, and their stories never meshed with the core characters. The story took a major nose dive for me when Ahumada was killed by a parrot. That was an extremely anticlimatic death for such an evil character. I blame McMurtry for that one.

I was also extremely disappointed with the action sequences. The previews said "it's all come to this," leading you to believe that a fierce battle would come, or something along those lines. But the big action scene never came. The action scenes from the film were brief, generic, ended suddenly, and you could hardly tell what was happening. I blame the film-makers for that one.

I didn't find the film even remotely engaging until the last segement. That was when they finally got into the background stories with Call/Maggie/Newt and Gus/Nellie, and Jake/Newt, ect. I think that's what most viewers wanted, not watching a sick Mexican bandit abuse Val Kilmer for 4 hours.

This is a classic example of a forced sequel/prequel. When you have an original concept, such as LD, it can either work or not work. But it's an orginal concept so it flows on its own. But if it's a success, the creators want to milk it and really have no good new ideas about how to continue the story. In my opinion, the nearly unwatchable, pointless subplot of Inish/Ahumado proves that McMurtry phoned it in. He could not come up with any new ideas to tie up the story so he wasted pages with that gratuitious segment. Perhaps he just wrote one sequel/prequel too many.

If I ever get around to reading the book, maybe I'll change my mind.

[–] jamesnichols 16 years ago

dont worry ive read the book and yes i think there has been a real lack of book to movie interpretation.when you read the book because it outlines each scene in more detail well yes the book has character and like the others in the series has its own place.the film on the other hand has not portraid the book as one would expect. the film covered most ares yes. But unlike the other stories fails to bring the epic western saga feel. In all i think maybe budget time and enthusiasum may have cost this production.

[–] gunslingerdpt 12 years ago

its like mcmurtry wrote lonesome dove then spent the next 3 books contradicting all the backstories and what not...i was so exhausted from reading the prequel books i felt like i was travelling with the group lol..i almost stopped reading after bigfoot wallace and them got executed by the mexican soldiers

[–] xmarine1969 16 years ago

To all you folks who are complaining that the mini-series wasn't up to snuff...............

READ THE EFFIN BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then you will understand the mini-series much better. There were only minor deviations from the book.

Most of the actors pretty much nailed their roles!

[–] cherwhit 16 years ago

AMEN! All of the whiners are really pissing me off.

Semper Fi xmarine 1969!

[–] picturestory 16 years ago

Well, it is correct that the mini-series follows the books as much as possible.

The book (or the books rather), as I understand it, were intended by McMurtry to paint a large canvas of what life was at that time. I think he achieves that.

In LD, he achieved something more: he told and interesting character story while coherently interweaving the subplots with the mains one.

He arguably failed to do so in CMAnd while that may be disadvantageous in a book, it's disastrous in a mini-series. A story on the screen follows different dramatic rules than one on the pages o a book. Thus it is, that CM would have been a better mini-series if it had differed from the book.

As it was, the CM mini-series was just the checking off of plot points one after the other from a list. But sadly it wasn't a proper story.

[–] barretta20 16 years ago

So if someone didn't like this missed-opportunity then they're whining? I set out specific reasons why I thought this film was bad. I didn't just say "quit whining" or "effff you..."

CM was so bad that it made me really recognize the merits of the first sequel, "Streets Of Loredo."

If you guys liked it, that don't bother my a$$ none. But what specifically did you like about it? If you're just going to throw a tantrum because someone doesn't agree with you, don't bother posting.

[–] cherwhit 16 years ago

I could say the same to you. If you are just going to bash the show, then you can quit posting. You seem to be very hard to please.

Was it as good as LD? No, but close. Was it a great western? Yes it was. Cinematography, scenery, actors, wardrobe, makeup and hairstyles were all very good. The staff took lot of time and detail to make sure they got everything right.

Westerns are my favorite and there are so few good westerns these days. When one this good comes along, I cherish it.

As far as SOL, I enjoyed it too. It was a very dark story, but good. Joey Garza was one bad dude. Randy Quaid was great as Harding. Garner brought a new side to the Call character that I enjoyed very much. I was glad to see Pea Eye have a major role and Sam Shepard did a great job.

[–] barretta20 16 years ago

I thought SOl was very good. I hadn't seen it for quite some time. I think it got even better over time. It was fast-paced, the performances were good, and the story had meaning in classic McMurtry style.

But I don't consider my critism of CM bashing. In my opinion, bashing is more like "that sucked, blah, blah..."

I said I didn't like it and gave reasons. CM put me in mind of Texasville, another McMurtry sequel to an orginal classic that missed the mark.

[–] cherwhit 16 years ago

My apologies for any assumed attack on you. Not intended in the least.

I have seen parts of Picture Show and Texaville, but not enough to make an opinion. Have not read the books, are they good?

[–] barretta20 16 years ago

I loved the book "The Last Picture Show," as well as the film. It might actually be my favorite book. Supposedly, McMurtry wrote the book about his home town, or general area, and based the characters on people he knew. The story is that they recognized themselves and weren't happy about it. I've been working on such a book myself.

Texasville, the book and the film, came off like a convoluted soap opera. The story had virtually no point that I caught. Gone was the meaning of the orginal book and great performances from the film.

If you're a McMurtry fan, I don't think you can go wrong with TLPS. But I would recommend not wasting your time reading "Texasville."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cherwhit 16 years ago

I am re-watching LD now. It makes me appreciate CM even more. Very similar if you give CM a chance. Watching LD and then watching CM again really points out how good CM is. At least to me anyway.

[–] TexasHeat526 16 years ago

I think the point has been made a few times, but to look at it another way - If "Comanche Moon" was the first book/movie I doubt there would be this interest.

It's the comparison to "Lonesome Dove" that dooms it - this thread could just as easily be "Lonesome Dove was really,really good and everything thing else.....falls short."

McMurtry did not, at least in my opinion, write another book half as good as Lonesome Dove in the entire series. I really can't imagine anyone arguing the point.

So the best book (LD) was then made into the best screen version (LD), with actors (Duval, Jones etc..)who defined the characters. I find it curious that many are disappointed (and surprised?) that the screen version of one of McMurtry's weaker novels (CM)is so inferior to Lonesome Dove.

Comanche Moon is a well done, mostly true rendition of an inferior, rather aimless novel.

[–] blues4buddha 16 years ago

I avoided reading any of the LD sequels / prequels for years. When I finally did open Streets of Laredo, I was floored by how McMurtry dismissed Newt. He was so intregal to LD and he is killed off in the sequel with one single sentence. That's when I knew McMurtry was milking it for cash.

[–] alphafemale44 16 years ago

Yup. I liked the mini-series because I've read all the books...many times. I really enjoy the books and then slipping in to a nice warm blanket and watching hours of the LD series.

I enjoyed CM more than DMW, I didn't care for the actors who played Call and Gus or their portrayal. I think Zahn and Urban were really good as the boys! I can't wait to add this one to my collection of Lonesome Dove. What a great break from the cell-phone society.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blues4buddha 16 years ago

I read all the "effin" books -- sequels, prequels, nyquils. None of the mini-series live up to the original because none of the novels live up to the original. I hate to think McMurtry was writing just to squeeze every bit of coin out of his creation. After reading all of the books, it's difficult to conclude otherwise.

He must have kicked himself for killing off Gus in LD. Had he allowed Gus to live, he could have written many sequels instead of just one. With Gus dead he had to write prequels and prequels are difficult because every detail must agree with the original.

I wish McMurtry would have completely abandoned the Lonesome Dove characters after the original and placed new, unrelated characters in that world. I think that would have freed him from the prequel straitjacket.

[–] grizzledgeezer 16 years ago

McMurtry's sympathies are clearly on the side of the Indians, and as LD told us all we really need to know about the whites, the prequels focus on the Mexicans and the Indians, as their stories are as-yet untold. But in adapting CM, the emphasis is tipped towards the whites, which unbalances the story. *

No, it was not intended that we suddenly start liking Buffalo Hump. However much we might sympathize with the whites' destruction of the Indians' way of life, Buffalo Hump _is_ a brutal killer. The novel paints the Indians as less noble and more "human" in their fears and pettiness. And if you think Ahumado was a bad character in the movie, you should see him in the book.

Other changes included removing Buffalo Hump's hump, and leaving Inish Scull's eyelids intact. McMurtry has a strong sadistic streak (both physical and psychological) -- he loves torturing his characters. He really "has it in" for Woodrow, who's portrayed in LD and CM as insufferably stupid, totally unable to understand "social metaphor". In CM he treats Maggie very cruelly, and you want to punch him out.

The novel is merely okay. The movie is largely lousy, Steve Zahn's remarkable cloning of Robert Duvall's classic performance being pretty much the only good thing. Note how he's subtly "more Gus" in the third episode.

* It's possible they wrote a four-part film, which was whittled down to three to save money. The final version is so choppy it's plausible.

[–] crazyashell 16 years ago

No. You're wrong. Thank you for playing. Come again.

[–] cherwhit 16 years ago

Yes. You're right crazyashell. Thank you!