MovieChat Forums > Appaloosa (2008) Discussion > What a DREADFUL Screenplay

What a DREADFUL Screenplay

posted 15 years ago by film_ophile
81 replies | jump to latest

Don't bother being nasty with me. If you like the film, go play with the many others who agree with you on this board. It's the potential Apaloosa viewers that i am trying to warn.

I have not voted a '4 out of 10' in many years. The screenplay was absolutely dreadful; the plot flat and predictable, the acting awkward and wooden.This is one of the very rare occasions when I am horrified by Roger Ebert('3 stars'.) I have been admirers of ed, viggo and renee for years; I feel they are all very talented.
ed and viggo's work together in A History of Violence was compelling and amazing .As ed was both the screenwriter and the director, I'm now thinking that my previous assumption that ed harris is very smart- is far from correct. I actually feel quite naive; now I'm seeing that being a brilliant actor doesn't mean being intellectually brilliant.

Anyway, I don't know how to warn you further. I'm tempted to say if you are a sophisticated film goer, do NOT bother with this film. And yet, with all the positives it has rcvd on this board (in addition to roger ebert)there are surely sophisticated viewers who have liked it. I guess all I can say is
"Go figure."

Ad hoc, Ad loc, Quid pro queeee,
So little time and so much to see

[–] covenant12 15 years ago

I know it's not a terrible movie, but when I was watching it, it sure seemed terrible. I was really disappointed. It's been a long time since I saw it, and I've tried to block it out of my mind, so specifics as to why I hated this movie so much escape me. All I really remember was that I liked the movie up until the point that Renee Zellweger's character was introduced. After that it all went to sh*t.

You saw Dingleberries?

[–] LaoWombat1 13 years ago

I must agree with the original poster here. The screenplay seems confused, I mean the actors, and the continuity of the actors just doesn't quite follow, as though they were following some script that lacked continuity or something.

The only other worse Western I can think of, is some old oater where a guy gets introduced as a gunslinger, then gets in a fight Without Guns! Then there is some drivel about chopping out a tree stump, then, instead of building tension to the big shootout, they just stick a dance in there. And that little kid yelling at the end was unnecessary and annoying

</sarcasm off>

The one thing I am still up in the air about (just watched it again) was Zellweger's character. On the one hand she was annoying. On the other hand she was there to make a point, that people sometimes have a blind spot, and if she were not there, the relationship between the two leads would not have been as developed. (When Allie asks Cole if he is going to believe Hitch over her and Cole simply says "Yes")

Despite my misgivings about Allie, a solid little western, reminded me of Warlock in its lead's dynamic without being as far over the top.

Zen sig line below

[–] samantha3 13 years ago

Nice sarcastic bit, LaoWombat1.

[–] iloveandrei 15 years ago

To potential viewers: give it a go. There's a lot on offer. Its worth watching just for Viggo's performance- charismatic as ever. There's some good dialogue in this and some depth of character. Ed Harris is a little goofy and wooden at times but watchable on the whole. Don't go into it expecting action though but if you want character development, excellent cinematography and charismatic beards-go for it.

[–] samantha3 15 years ago

"Ed Harris is a little goofy and wooden at times but watchable on the whole."

Uh, that's his character, not the actor. That's the way EH is playing Virgil. EH is one of our most accomplished character actors, and I have never seen him do a bad or even mediocre job. Try looking at something else he has done recently: GONE BABY GONE, EMPIRE FALLS, THE HOURS, A BEAUTIFUL MIND, COPYING BEETHOVEN, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, etc. Then look at Virgil again, and you can see what he is doing. EH is an actor other actors watch to learn their craft.

[–] iloveandrei 15 years ago

I respect your liking for Ed harris. I like him too and have seen a couple of those films that you kindly capitalized for me. The point I was making was that at times I felt that I was watching Ed harris acting rather than the character, that his timing was unatural, or unbelievable. But not all the time and I still found him watchable and believable enough for the film to work. He reminded me of the way Eastwood sometimes acts in films that he has directed also. As if he has one part of himself constantly distracted by the directing job and so perhaps he should do one or the other in future. j

[–] samantha3 15 years ago

OK, but I didn't feel that way at all, though I noticed what you are talking about. Having read the book, I think he got Virgil just right. His rigidity and awkwardness in human situations are two of Virgil's main traits.

But if you notice, EH gave most of the heavy lifting to Viggo Mortensen, which is in line with the book and which he said he wanted to do. He said he would probably not have done the movie if he hadn't been able to get VM, who had impressed him so much in HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. It's an odd sort of movie in which the purported main character isn't really quite that.

Have you seen what EH did in POLLOCK? He managed the acting and directing extremely well, especially considering that it was his first time as director.

[–] iloveandrei 15 years ago

I've not seen Pollock yet but I'll move it up on my 'films to see' list.
j

[–] SonicAndy 14 years ago

"I've not seen Pollock yet but I'll move it up on my 'films to see' list."

Give it a miss, iloveandrei. It's one of the most boring movies ever made. Just like Appaloosa.

Dear Notcha-hooha, mookie mookie hama. Kau-kau manua.

[–] tmcdaniel1 14 years ago

Generally good to excellent acting. Not the great script of the decade and Renee Z is questionable casting. But, I enjoyed the Hell out of it.

My overall reaction is that this is like many of the movies from the Western's Golden Age. Fine actors that do a good job together. Missing a flawless script, the committed actors inject enough life into the characters to make us care.

Nearly seven stars is about right, in my opinion...it earned them.

[–] objviewer 15 years ago

OMG, I totally agree. I thought this movie was embarassingly bad. I don't understand - have the professional critics lost their minds?

The story didn't really make sense. The Jeremy Irons character - well, he wasn't even really a 'character' in any sense. I can't even say the characters were stereotypes, it's like the characters were trying to be stereotypes, but the acting and dialogue was too weak to support a stereotype.

I guess the appeal was supposed to be these 2 cool killer (on the side of the law so we like them) guys who were buddies. There wan't any chemistry between them. Sometimes while the actors were standing there saying their lines it sounded like a first-run read through of a script.

At one point I thought maybe the Jeremy Irons character had planted the Renee Z. character as kind of a secret agent. But no such luck. The only thing we knew about the Jeremy Irons character that made him sinister and smart was; well, he knew the president. You know a script is weak when a character is mostly developed by what another character says about him. And two new bad guys appear in the middle of the film. Why exactly are they bad guys? Well, cuz somebody (Ed Harris) says something about thier history. Yikes!

Would this script have even been made if it had been written someone not famous?

[–] samantha3 15 years ago

Well, it made a book before it was a film. The book was quite well received, and the film follows it very closely. So the story must not be too terrible, or surely somebody would have noticed before you did, and it wouldn't have made even one "best" list for the year, much less several, or got so many favorable reviews.

What you see a lot of in the film is two actors, and sometimes five actors, who all manage quite well doing what is known as minimalist acting, with a lot of use of eyes and body language as well as vocal tones, to make a realistic portrait of a small segment of a period of U.S. history that a lot is known about.

Oh, and a good story as well.

Sorry you didn't like it, but you missed the good stuff. Like story and characterization and setting and acting.

[–] spielberto 14 years ago

"There wan't any chemistry between them."

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-....oh...yer serious.

"At one point I thought maybe the Jeremy Irons character had planted the Renee Z. character as kind of a secret agent."

?!?!?! What kind of horrible movies are you watching that you think that would even POSSIBLY happen?
That is an example of the EXACT kind of brainless movies for juveniles that THIS movie was not. I swear there is a giant segment of the population that can't handle movies for adults with grown-up themes because they go in expecting hyperbolic over-the-top action begining to finish and they've seen it so much they actually start to think that that's what real life is like and all movies should be that way.

"The only thing we knew about the Jeremy Irons character that made him sinister and smart was; well, he knew the president."

I guess that he shot the marshall and his two deputies who were in the right in the OPENING sequence wasn't enough for you. Maybe he should have blown up some building in town. The Hospital maybe?

"And two new bad guys appear in the middle of the film. Why exactly are they bad guys? Well, cuz somebody (Ed Harris) says something about thier history. Yikes!"

Actually, Harris's character said nothing of the sort about them being 'bad' guys, just dangerous.
Why are they bad guys?
I dunno, facilitating the excape of a prisoner convicted of the murder of three men (law men at that).
Kidnapping a woman and holding her at gunpoint, thus threatening her life?
The fact that they eventually get into a gunfight with the two lawmen that just rescued their butts from being killed by an Apache raiding party?
Yeah, yer right. What a couple a swell guys!

"Would this script have even been made if it had been written someone not famous?"

I could only hope. Seeing as how it's really good regardless of WHO wrote it. The work itself is brilliant.

All right. Enough debate. I'll let you get back to your kind of a 'real' western like Young Guns and Bad Girls. ;)

[–] majorwest 15 years ago

Wow! I sit here amazed at myself. Finally I see a movie that I get, and other seemingly smart people didn't.

Appaloosa is a film that is as unmovie-like as any film you'll ever see, and certainly any film that I've seen in quite some time. And that is the point. It is a slice of time from the old west, unsophisticated and unadorned, and probably as close to what you would imagine the real west would be like back in those days. There was not the refined and cultivated society that we know today, at least in the smaller towns like Appaloosa. Life was probably crude, ugly and unforgiving. People were simple, naivete, and most likely ignorant. But they lived life the best that a loathsome environment would allow, enjoying the few simple things in life, like a morning cup of coffee or a meandering conversation about the new girl in town, that carried them through the boredom and conflict which was probably a recurring theme in their daily lives. It was as uninteresting a time period as you thought the movie was. The thing is you got the message - you just didn't get the movie.

[–] shassett 14 years ago

I was actually pleasantly surprised by this film. It's great to come across a film made for adults once and awhile.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

[–] soozcity 14 years ago

If you don't like the story, say you don't like the story. If you don't like the dialogue, say you don't like the dialogue.

But don't pretend you've read the screenplay if you have not read the screenplay.

[–] pretendervcj 14 years ago

Actually, I have just finished the book and even though I haven't seen the movie, based on these posts I plan to put it on my list to see.

It sounds like the actors made it JUST like the book.
I seriuosly disliked Allie (Renee Z) in the book - she was a female character written full of flaws.

RBP's books typically have a lot to do with the inner codes and secret places inside a man's ethics. Sounds like Ed Harris played it well from the descriptions here.

Hitch is the main character. It is from his perspective in first person where the story is told and there is a follow up story called Resolution that has him as the lead. In today's current movie style, we aren't used to a main character whose job it is to hold up other characters.

I am curious - did they show the scene with the stallions?

Like a flower in the desert
That only blooms at night
I will quietly resist

[–] samantha3 14 years ago

No stallions, sorry. It might have been difficult to film, after all. timing and all that.

I thought it was interesting, too, that EH wanted to direct, and he wanted VM to play Hitch. He said he probably wouldn't have made the movie if VM hadn't agreed to do it, because he needed an actor with his skills. Hitch has to do most of his role with his eyes, and as you say, he has to hold up the other characters. They had worked together on A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE and liked each other's acting styles. HOV also has a lot of that kind of acting. EH is pretty good at it himself, after all, as his long career as a character actor shows.

[–] spielberto 14 years ago

"Hitch has to do most of his role with his eyes,..."

Awesome catch.
While I might not say 'most', I would agree that he DOES alot with his eyes.
Stuff that might be missed by many who ONLY look at the actor speaking.
Viggo conveyed alot with his body language. Now THATS acting...not just 'reciting' one's lines.

[–] samantha3 14 years ago

"Viggo conveyed alot with his body language. Now THATS acting...not just 'reciting' one's lines."

And once LOTR got more people to watch him, and look at his earlier character work, it was apparent that he had been doing some terrific acting for years before he became famous. He's now compared favorably to the best of the current generation of actors, and to people like Brando, the young DeNiro, and Mongomery Clift. The only problem, for me, is that he can spoil you for all the wooden leading men who dominate movies these days.

And he doesn't work often enough. He says he has too many other things to do.

[–] surround_sound 14 years ago

you did not say anything about the actual screenplay or why you thought it was so dreadful. Please say so before concluding that the film is to be avoided otherwise you will come across as a troll.