Yeah, I was a 2/10


[Depending on your viewpoint, there may be spoilers ahead. Then again, it might be hard to spoil this film.]

Had no background on this movie, didn't look anything up, just found it on a new release listing on NetFlix and clicked "watch now."

My posts about movies run the gamut from liking to disliking -- meaning I'm not one of those who only rates low and posts as a complaint. I compliment as often as I complain.

That said, I loved the cinematography of the film. Did I mention that I loved the cinematography? If you consider 20% of the rating of the movie might go to the DP's work with a camera, then full marks for him on this one. As for the rest of the film. Meh. So, that accounts for my 2/10.

There were a few laugh-out-loud moments, but they were more out loud because I was surprised to see it go from Eastwood-Leone to unexpected humor. ("My d!ck doesn't work" was the first of two or three moments.)

Other surprises, though not necessarily in a good way, were realizing that this was a southern hemisphere film. After hearing the first 100 words of dialogue (which point occurred about 45 minutes in, BTW), I realized something was odd. Then adding up the scenery and views. Anyone who grew up on John Ford westerns and the other American western genre directors would realize that the scenery is spectacular and not quite American west. I didn't mind that and assumed that I was seeing Australia. I had no inkling that parts of New Zealand looked like that. But I did know that the American accents had a bit of ANZ(us) lilt to them. (All except the Indian. He either did well or was an American Indian.) But NZ'ers making a western was not a problem, and I didn't downgrade the movie because of it or the accents.

But other than cinematography, I found the production to be a bit lacking. Early on with the posse, there were seven riders and horses. Then there were six. Then they were back to seven. Then one was shot at 27 times, from ten paces, and hit once or twice, and they were back to six again.

I originally thought the actress was going to start coming out -- emoting more -- as the movie progressed. Alas, it didn't progress. Neither did she. She was flat, unemotional, unattractive and uninvolved for maybe 99% of her work. I didn't pay attention to the credits, but I read in another post that she was the fiancée of the director. Mystery solved.

Didn't mind the lead actor too much, although in retrospect, I wouldn't be surprised to have found out that he was the director. Or co-producer. I did find motivations to be lacking a bit. Why was she coming from England to the West? Was he so horny that he just grabs a girl who happens in his path? And then unexpectedly tries to rape her? Wow, I'm really pulling for the guy at that point.

In retrospect, the early scene where they both had a six-shooter pointed at each other could have ended all the pain right there if they'd just pulled the trigger and rolled credits.

Finally, the most glaring idiot-syncracy, he shoots down three guys in the saloon, everyone left is afraid to move. He grabs the girl and leaves -- on one horse? Even not taking one of the recently-departed's horses, he should have a choice of 5 or 10 others. But as the approach to the saloon showed, they were out in the middle of nowhere. And there were no other horses tied up. Yet, when we go inside the saloon, there's 8 or 10 people sitting inside (plus a bluesy Spanish guitar guy, which was the anachronistic highlight of the movie). Did they all walk to bar sans horses? Do they all live upstairs?

Continuing the idiot-syncracy, after the subsequent town doctor episode, the re-appearance of the girl, the shooting of the sheriff and prisoner, quiet guy has enough scruples NOT to steal a horse for the girl to ride on?

And finally, after Quentin Tarentino-ing the whole posse group, he STILL doesn't grab one of their horses so as not to wear his own mount out while trekking across the arid land to her family's ranch?

I can only surmise that the production's horse wrangler was paid by the horse. Hence, if memory serves, the people walking up and down the town street with not a single horse tied up in front of a business.

If you've read this far, then watch the movie. It may be made for you!

reply

Thats a sh!tload of words for a dude that didnt like the film. Maybe someday someone will read the whole thing and make it worth the evening it took you to concoct it

reply

Sorry to disappoint (in many ways?), but it didn't take an evening. It was stream of consciousness from someone who's a ten-finger typist and has earned income from writing. I'm retired from full-time work too, so I had the time to spare (and apparently nothing better to do at the time). (Like now).

reply

Yeah, well, people don't come here for long-winded essays. You'd get more attention with 1/3 or 1/4 the number of words. Brevity is the soul of wit.

reply

As far as not getting an extra horse, I took it to mean he didn't want to give the girl a chance to run off on a second horse at some point later.

reply