Appaloosa

PHArchivist

PHArchivist

Master Member
Oh MY GOD...

Finally got around to watching that last night. Never would I have expected Ed Harris to fail so profoundly.

Poorly written, poorly paced, poorly developed story elements...

Lame...

Of course, that is just my opinion, and opinions are like - well, you know...

The only redeeming value to this is that it is a reminder that making a quality film DOES require talent, skill, and artistry. You can't just throw up a couple big names in a cool setting and hope for a good film.

This is an important lesson in what a truly uninspired film made by someone who clearly has no talent behind the camera looks like.

Even the closing song - WRITTEN SUNG BY ED HARRIS HIMSELF - is just stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZe1wmGp24
 
Last edited:
i am sorry , sir. but i thought as a modern western it was very good. i liked it alot better than 3:10 to yuma. though i liked it too.....

but i also thought wyatt earp was better than tombstone.......


now you can shoot me, your a daisy if you do.............
 
mrbungle said:
i am sorry , sir. but i thought as a modern western it was very good. i liked it alot better than 3:10 to yuma. though i liked it too.....

but i also thought wyatt earp was better than tombstone.......


now you can shoot me, your a daisy if you do.............
Click to expand...

Its interesting you mention 3:10 To Yuma, as I just revisted that one earlier this week.

I was not enamored with 3:10 initially, largely based on the story structure (more psychology and mind games; less action - though I realize that is what sets it apart). I also do not like Christian Bale much at all, and though I do like the Australian, I felt it wasn't the best casting (but way better than Tom Cruise, whom the production was courting).

But the overall quality difference between Appaloosa and 3:10 - whether or not you like the story structure - is screamingly apparent.

Tombstone versus Wyatt Earp...?

Tombstone will always be more fun, but its brain candy. I applaud Costner and Kasdan in Wyatt Earp for trying to go beyond a mere western, and to make an historical epic, simply in the "Old West" period.


Back to Appaloosa, and Ed's talents (and where they do and do not lay)... Go back to that YouTube link, and - knowing Big Ed wrote the lyrics - listen closely, particular beginning at 2:00 (two minutes in). If the words do not make you cringe, then I'm not sure what will...
 
Last edited:
I'll use a Dennis Pennis quote to describe Ed Harris's performance-
"I thought his performance was very 'woody'. It was like someone threw a chair in the room"

I also can't stand Rene Zellweger. Either she's botoxed up to the hilt or she only has one facial expression which happens to resemble a puckered arse.

Jeremy Irons was pretty dreadful too. He seemed to really ham it up. Terrible American accent.

All in all I can find nothing about it I liked.
 
Wow... guess I am going to be the voice of disagreement on both counts (3:10 and Apaloosa).

While 3:10 is clearly the better movie, there was a lot I liked about Apaloosa, primarily Vigo. Was Ed Harris wooden? Yes, but that was his character. I thought the whole leg brace was a great visual to reinforce that aspect of his personality.

I said it in a previous thread on this movie, and will say it again, (agreeing with Bobtherocker), if there was a sore thumb in this movie, it wasn't Ed Harris, but Renee Zellweger. What anyone sees in that woman is beyond me. She can't act. She does indeed only have one facial expression. She isn't appealing in looks or personality. She just brings NOTHING to the table.

Was this Ed Harris or Jeremy Irons best performances?

Surely not, but overall I liked this movie and LOVED 3:10 to Yuma.
 
I cannot stand Zelweger...

I must admit - many of my grievances with the film are based on personal tastes and expectations, rather than skill, talent, or artistry.

For example...

I agree Viggo was the more solid performance and character. But I really, really did NOT care for his Buffalo Bill Cody get-up. I'd MUCH rather have seen him look like he did in LOTR (longer hair, etcetera).

I'm sure there is a solid reason for his look (departure from LOTR; matching the source novel, what have you).

But his look - for me - compleltey failed as that of a icy, precision, killer. Looked like he belonged in a traveling Wild West Show.
 
Last edited:
But still...

Its not just personal tastes. In my opinion, the film is just flawed.

Was there a western cliche' NOT used in this film? Virgil's FIRST WORD is "Howdy...!"

Maybe folks really did say HOW-DEEE...!!" in the old west, but come on... For what I took to be a supposed stone cold hard ass - well, whatever...

And - speaking of cliche's - not only do we ride off into the sunset at the end (some may argue that is requisite in a western), but we're TOLD by the character himself that he is riding off into the sunset.

Cliche's...

How about the dopey, drippy girly tune played when our most hated Zelweger arrives? Or the over-the-top "I'm just dandy!" morning after attitude and ****-eating ear-to-ear grin after Virgil gets laid (followed by the same from Zelweger).

More...

Taken almost straight out of Tomobstone (and probably other films before), the raiding party, coming after their jailed leader, turned away by the tough-as-stone Marshal (dressed JUST like Wyatt Earp, by the way), relying heavily on the "You can't get us all" - - "Sure but you die first!" dynamic.
 
Last edited:
Haha... Clearly you and I had different expectations. I loved the look! I thought it was great that he didn't try to be or look like a badass, but when it came down to time to get the job done, he could do it. His character reminded me a bit of Kevin Costner's character from Open Range. If Vigo had long hair, I would have cringed. To me, that was not at all the man he was. I loved that he and Harris both showed a lot of manners and etiquette in the movie, something you didn't see nearly as much of from the cowboys in Tombstone.
 
PHArchivist said:
Maybe folks really did say HOW-DEEE...!!" in the old west, but come on... For what I took to be a supposed stone cold hard ass - well, whatever...
Click to expand...

I think this may be where the issue is. To me, neither Vigo's character nor Harris were stone cold hard asses. Not even close. They were men who had learned to earn a living enforcing justice in a land in which law and order was scarce. They were very good at their job, but any killing or gunplay didn't come from being "stone cold" but just as a natural aspect of what they did. To me, it would be like saying a butcher is a mass murderer. It is just his job and he does it well and he does it without passion or emotion. Same thing here. I do think Vigo's character was a little more wild at heart, but both he and Harris were simply very very good at their job.

PHArchivist said:
How about the dopey, drippy girly tune played when our most hated Zelweger arrives? Or the over-the-top "I'm just dandy!" morning after attitude and ****-eating ear-to-ear grin after Virgil gets laid (followed by the same from Zelweger).
Click to expand...

You will get no argument from me on this one. Everything about her in this movie annoyed me.

PHArchivist said:
Taken almost straight out of Tomobstone, the raiding party, coming after their jailed leader, turned away by the tough-as-stone Marshal (dressed JUST like Wyatt Earp, by the way), relying heavily on the "You can't get us all" - - "Sure but you die first!" dynamic.
Click to expand...

In fairness, Tombstone didn't invent that scenario... that has been rehashed countless times.
 
Art Andrews said:
Haha... Clearly you and I had different expectations. I loved the look! I thought it was great that he didn't try to be or look like a badass, but when it came down to time to get the job done, he could do it. His character reminded me a bit of Kevin Costner's character from Open Range. If Vigo had long hair, I would have cringed. To me, that was not at all the man he was. I loved that he and Harris both showed a lot of manners and etiquette in the movie, something you didn't see nearly as much of from the cowboys in Tombstone.
Click to expand...


Yep - again, I concede on the look of Viggo's character; its not a reflection of skill or talent. Just a taste thing...

It is also fair of me to calibrate my "review" against recent personal experience.

What I mean is - in the past few weeks I have watched 3:10 on Blu-Ray (stunning), and caught Cowboys & Aliens. Both far finer films that "A".

So with those two still ringing in my short-term memory banks, I suppose I am comparing, which may not be fair.

Perfect example: In Virgil, I SO so wanted an iteration of Jake Lonegran (from Cowboys & Aliens). Craig's interpretation of the Western Genre's underspoken yet lethal badass was SUPERB, and carried C&A (I liked Craig better than Ford).

Harris's performance in "A" just pales in comparison. Actually, Viggo's does too. But is it even fair to draw such a comparison? Dunno...

I'll grant that there is a lot of my own personal perception woven in here, true... But I doubt I'm the only one with such sentiments.
 
Art Andrews said:
.
In fairness, Tombstone didn't invent that scenario... that has been rehashed countless times.
Click to expand...

You caught me before I could catch myself! I edited my inital verbiage to ackowledge that very fact before even getting to your post!

Too bad your five hours away - good beer drinking topics!

Interestingly, I saw the similarities between Costner in Open Range, and Hitch.

Speaking of Open Range, which is known for gunshot sound effects that will literally make you wince, did the gunshots in Appaloosa seem a little shallow? It almost seemed to me that they used the production track, simply using the sounds of the blanks off the set. A little weak.
 
I think they are all three different movies and tough to compare, especially C&A as it is undoubtly a Sci-Fi action movie where Apaloosa is most certainly not.

I would agree with you that I enjoyed both 3:10 to Yuma and Cowboys and Aliens more than Apaloosa, but I think there was some depth to Apaloosa that C&A certainly lacked.

For me, Apaloosa is the story of a man coming to a point in his life where he takes inventory of himself and knows there are less years ahead than behind and wants something different. It is the story of the sacrifices he is willing to make to make that transition and the compromises he makes. I think it is also a story that shows a man realizing he won't always be what he has been or be capable of what he once was capable of doing and stopping before he fails (and it was heartbreaking to see his friend also wordlessly realize it and take care of the situation with Irons for him at the end). It is ultimately a story of mortality and everything in the movie centers around that. Vigo leaves at the end because he hasn't reached that point in his life yet, and given his character he is likely to be killed before he reaches it, but Harris has and is willing to make a number of compromises to have SOMETHING (even if it isn't perfect) at the end of his life as opposed to having nothing as he has at the start of the film.

I dunno Robb, for me, there was a lot to this movie, despite Zellweger.



PHArchivist said:
Perfect example: In Virgil, I SO so wanted an iteration of Jake Lonegran (from Cowboys & Aliens). Craig's interpretation of the Western Genre's underspoken yet lethal badass was SUPERB, and carried C&A (I liked Craig better than Ford).
Click to expand...

You are talking about two completely different characters though and two completely different themes.

Let's be honest, while Craig was awesome and indeed carried the movie, at the end of the day, his character was poorly written because he is simply the leader of a pretty raunchy gang of thieves. He wakes up all heroic, but he was captured by the aliens just after completing a stagecoach robbery. I love the whole badass angle, but his true nature was not clear and was not admirable.

Having Virgil act like Craig would have undermined the entire point of Apaloosa which was the end of one man's life as a badass. He still showed signs of that life, but that life, for him, was over.

PHArchivist said:
I'll grant that there is a lot of my own personal perception woven in here, true... But I doubt I'm the only one with such sentiments.
Click to expand...

I am sure many would agree with you, but I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Cowboys and Aliens is just there to entertain you. It isn't a "thinking" or "reflecting" movie at all. It doesn't really have any deeper message or meaning... and there is nothing wrong with that. I really enjoyed it. Apaloosa on the other hand is not there to entertain with fireworks and big spectacles, but to make you reflect upon your own life and existence.... at least it was for me.
 
PHArchivist said:
Speaking of Open Range, which is known for gunshot sound effects that will literally make you wince, did the gunshots in Appaloosa seem a little shallow? It almost seemed to me that they used the production track, simply using the sounds of the blanks off the set. A little weak.
Click to expand...

I haven't watched Apaloosa in a couple of months, so I'll have to go back and give it another listen.
 
Husker75 said:
Completely agree with Art Andrews on this one. Almost to a T.

What did you think of Open Range?
Click to expand...

I enjoyed Open Range.

I have a love/hate relationship with Costner. I really do enjoy just about all his films. They're just fun to watch. But sometimes his acting irritates me, as his delivery I think is sometimes inappropriate considering the writer's intent of the meaning of the line of dialogue.

But that's getting nit-picky.

Open Range was a good film. A tad slow, a tad unconventional for the genre, but solid all around. And the supportiing cast is superb, particularly Duvall, Jeter, and Gambon.

When Costner fires off that shotgun in the saloon, I literally winced. It reminded me of the last time I was at an indoor pistol range and the guy in the lane next to me fired off a Desert Eagle.
 
I enjoyed Appaloosa. It's quirky and unpredictable, and I really thought Viggo was excellent. But it's also a bit talky and Zellweger was a lousy casting choice.
I probably liked it more than most people because I really enjoyed the book(s) by Robert B. Parker.
It will certainly not go down in history as a classic, but it earned a spot in my library.
 
This thread is more than 12 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top