DISQUS

Alericc · 1 year ago

I agree with a lot of your likes and dislikes Robert. I did catch one mistake you made though, Viggo carries an 8 gauge Shotgun not a 10 gauge. Surprised the hell out of me too as I couldn't believe the barrels on that monster.

The attention to detail of the movie was truly impressive, even down to the period pocket knives they carried. Not to mention the weapons and the smoke from the black powder rounds they were still using at that time, not the smokeless powder we are used to today.

I did have a problem with the pacing of the movie though. It tended to slow down way too much at times and there was not a lot of action in the classical sense. After all Jeremy Irons character had 20 hands at his ranch that were basically forgotten after they got him on the train. Even when Jeremy Irons returned they never showed up in town again. They could have had a couple more stand offs and possibly a few more shootings.

Basically though if you love westerns you will enjoy this movie for the visuals alone.

Robert Fure · 1 year ago

Thanks for catching my typo on the shotgun gauge. Fixed it in the article. It was an awesome gun that was virtually a character itself.

As for pacing, I can see wanting more action because action is awesome, though I think the slow pace accurately reflected the speed of life and it didn't bother me. Thanks for the comment!

Alericc · 1 year ago

Thank you for the fine review, but don't misunderstand me. I wasn't advocating a western with the Jerry Bruckheimer type shoot outs, but a little more action in my opinion would have helped. Possibly one more 2 minute exchange of some lead, no more.

Nate · 1 year ago

I really didn't like the first half of this movie. Too slow, too many scenes of awkward dialogue between the main characters, too many cliches and poor on-liners. I felt like Harris was aiming too low, going for one of those 'odes to classics' throwbacks but not bothering with making Appaloosa stand apart. Harris and Zwelleger were also very lackadasical. As mundane as the first half was though, the second half (everything from the train sequence on in) was the polar opposite and couldn't have been much more impressive. Mortensen was excellent and I particularly liked the ending because it goes against the grain just enough that I might just call it bold.
P.S. There are no such things as multiple endings. A film may trick you into thinking you're at the end, but each film can only have one. And I agree that the shotgun is like a character. Do we ever see Mortensen without it?

cam · 1 year ago

i totally agree about Renee Zellweger, i was shocked that she was actually cast. She is definitely not what I picture to a "Western beauty" to me, furthermore (as was stated) she was annoying and I could NOT stand her character at all. I just felt that character was poorly cast and under developed as she is a rather 2 dimensional character (ok she has sex with any guy who has power, fantastic! what else havent I seen??..) I was almost hoping/wishing she'd be offed during the movie (for those who have seen the movie, you can probably guess the scene). other than that though, I have nothing other than praise. I love the realtionship between Everrett/Virgil and the fact that you can understand it just from their facial expressions and mannerisms, brilliant! Also the gunfights were a huge, welcomed relief from the typical "Hollywood western." My final complaint though, now that I think of it, is what the hell happened to Irons' gang? He just shows up as owner of the saloon and not a gang member seen nor mentioned. I dont know if was lazy writing or it did not just occur to Harris that he had a plot hole but it was kind of...disappointing for lack of a better adjective. other than that though, 8/10. Solid, old fashioned western. bravo harris/viggo/irons