October 05, 2008

APPALOOSA



It's a western done in classic style. That's full of tensely polite put-downs, the law and the outlaws, and quick-drawing men who wear the tale of their hard-killing lives in the wrinkles on their faces and in the coldness of their eyes.

Now, I have to preface this by saying I grew up on the old school westerns, by way of my Gary Cooper-loving mom. Back then, however, I never really appreciated the quiet sophisticated tension, which ultimately built to that finale of a gun-battle. In fact, I usually whined about having to watch a movie like High Noon on a Sunday afternoon. I preferred my Creature Features, like Swamp Thing or my Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movies.

But I grew to love them. I enjoyed the spaghetti westerns of Eastwood and I still watch Tombstone every time it's on TNT. Unforgiven on the other hand, underwhelmed me. I thought it was thoroughly overrated. Nicely filmed, great performances, but boring.

And yet, I LOVE the awesomely-bad Sharon Stone vehicle The Quick and the Dead, mainly for Spotted 'cannot be killed with a bullet!' Horse and Gene Hackman's appropriately over-the-top performance. So, that should give you a little insight into my oft'warped taste and whether or not you think you might agree with my assessment of this film.

That said, I really liked this movie. There were no camera tricks nor slow-motion shots to be seen here. Everything feels as quick or as slow you'd think it ought to. Even the bullet cracks sound abruptly realistic, all lending to that classic-feel. The cinematography is good, but not nearly as pretty as The Assassination of Jesse James..., but that makes it even more appropriately retro.

As you'd expect, Ed Harris and Viggo Mortenson do wonderfully with their roles. Their relationship was my favorite aspect of this movie. Renée Zellweger's role was my least-liked aspect of the film. I did not like the way she was written and played.

Though after the fact, I did come to realize her part was very true to what it was for many women trying to survive in those times.

I was also distracted by her odd appearance. Stop mucking with the one of the biggest instruments of your craft, Renée!

When your eyes and cheeks smile, but nothing else above does....Well, let's just say not only was it distracting, but it made certain aspects of her character less surprising because she didn't initially appear as she was supposed to.

It was good to see Jeremy Irons again in fine form again (thank you, for your efforts to erase the memory of Dungeons and Dragons *shudder*).

Overall, this film is perfect for a Sunday afternoon.

The only other criticism I have for Appaloosa is that it felt like a rental. Not that it's any less good, but it just felt a like a smaller, more intimate affair meant for your living room while dinner's cooking.

Hence, the rating.


PARENTS: There are naked booties from afar, fist fights, shootings, and plenty of quiet-but-crackling dialogue. I'd say the quiet western loving mature tweens might be able to handle it but none below that age-set.


P.S. Back to Renée for a bit, I think it's a testimony to our sexist leanings, that we require women to look artificial for these decidedly unartificial times portrayed, but the men can and usually do look realistically worn.

I can't blame her too much. She's got to play to stay in the game.

9 comments:

Daniel Getahun said...

But who is requiring her to look like that!?

I'm not saying there's not a different standard for women in Hollywood, but her transformation has been ridiculous, and she was hardly "old" enough to get so much work done in the last few years anyway.

Oh, for the days of Dorothy Boyd.

Ms☆Go said...

@Daniel

I've heard the criticism in Hollyweird can be open and extremely rude.

I can imagine someone looking at her head-shot and saying some very messed up stuff about her unique looks, perhaps within earshot.

I'm putting myself in her shoes, having casting directors say terrible things my facial features...MANY TIMES. Women get that much worse than men.

So yes, she went too far, but I can empathize with the route that lead her there.

Daniel Getahun said...

OK, that's a fair explanation. Stupid casting directors.

I just wonder why she went to such extremes. I think she's a fine actress, but now every movie she's in people (including me) end up focusing on her looks above anything else.

elgringo said...

I remember when Diane Lane was attached to this project. Sigh...

Anonymous said...

I saw this film this afternoon and I agree it is a good film. I was also bothered with Renee Zellweger. I do not find her performance believable. Irons, Harris, and Mortensen are a pleasure to watch.

Ms☆Go said...

@el gringo

I am a fan of Diane Lane. :)

Though, Joan Allen used to be my poster child for aging gracefully in Hollywood...Sadly, I think she has gotten some work done, recently.

Ms☆Go said...

@ daniel

I just realized how little sense that post made. :P

But you somehow managed to decipher it. :)

Damn, my learning disability...Rushlexia.

The Fraze said...

I thought it was average at best - I couldn't get over Renee and her mindless character, and for that matter - Ed Harris's role seemed strange to me. Getting offended by a comment made by Renee and going off the handle and knocking a guy out? and then it's never really developed into anything? ugh.

Ms☆Go said...

OKAY, SPOILERS AHOY!!

@Fraze,

Ed Harris' character was developed enough for the motivations of that act to be clear, if you think about it. He was established as coming from a very humble background. He lacked the class and education of one who would attract someone like Renee's character. He even says at one point that he'd only ever been with "whores and squaws". Viggo's character even has to supply his words for him often, as he isn't articulate enough to come up with them.

He's no less wise for this, but it makes his attraction and subsequent love for Renee's character understandable. Love is strange that way. It makes one act the way Ed's character did.

I actually liked that. The interaction hinted at the depth of Viggo and Ed's relationship without outright explaining EVERYTHING. That's a pet-peeve of mine, actually. I inferred that some growth had taken place in Ed's character in the time he'd known Viggo. I think he had a much harder to control temper back in the day. That's how Viggo knew to react.

If you noticed Ed reading a book a few times, that was showing his attempts to grow his vocabulary. He even uses a few explicit words later in the picture to demonstrate his growth.

And Renee's character was unlikeable, but not mindless.

The times she lived in didn't exactly have a slew of options for what a woman could do to live a happy, comfortable, life....You can just forget a single woman or a widow. She attached herself to powerful men because they could protect her. That's about as far from mindless as a woman could get back then.

Post a Comment

As always, I appreciate all comments whether you agree or disagree.

Just don't be nasty, vague, or disrespectful.

Trolling will get you deleted.

Thanks. :)