Bob Drugan
Agent
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1997
- Messages
- 27
I took my Dad to see this yesterday and we both thought it was excellent. Loved Charley's response when he asked the hired gun if he killed his friend - some of the audience clapped for that.
very good western in my opinion with one of the best gunfights I've seen on film.I agree. This is another film (Unforgiven being the other) where gunfighters are accurately shown; You either "have it" or you don't. Bravado will only take you so far.
the characters are set out in the beginning of the film, explained, and they never go anywhereA bunch of 'em end up in a pine box For the rest, I would say that there is certainly some character advancement, in addition to the obvious superficial changes.
The movie's real purty too.
//Ken
Boss and Charley return to the camp and find Button shot and beaten. No reaction from the audience. They then find Mose lying dead with a bullet in his head. No reaction from the audience. Then there's a shot of Old Tig lying on the ground. Audible gasps and cries from the audience. People! The dog was acting! I'm not trying to sound insensitive about their (manipulated) emotions, but I've seen audiences react this way before and it always strikes me as odd.It seemed to me that Charley was more concerned about his dog being shot than he was about Mose. Not sure if this was supposed to be something about Charley caring for the dog as the dog was innocent like a child wheras all adults are guilty like we find he views himself as guilty of many crimes.
and did anyone else notice Annette Bening wearing a wrist watch? It was very near the end when Charley returns and Sue is doing the gardening and she gets up and throws her arms around him. She is wearing leather gloves, but I thought I caught a glimpse of a wrist watch on her left (I think) wrist. I only saw it very briefly in one shot so I can't be sure if it was a watch or maybe something just reflecting and making a brief flash.
I have to say, I was shocked when I walked into the theater this morning (11:30 AM Sunday show) and found the large house completely packed. It looks like there's still a large audience out there for this type of film when it's done as well as this one is.The place was pretty crowded when I saw it Sunday afternoon, and the audience gave it a strong ovation when the credits came up. It's the first movie I've seen an audience do that for since The Two Towers. I can see it getting good word of mouth because it avoids so much of what audiences have been getting sick of this summer.
I loved the details in the movie, like the wavy glass and how loud the gunshots were
Especially the political allegory, which really feels like a stretchSince (a) the novel on which the film is based was published in 1990, (b) given normal development time, the script undoubtedly predates 9/11, and (c) the script was written before Costner was involved, which is the crux of a lawsuit against the screenwriter by his former partner, I'd say the political "allegory" isn't so much a "stretch" as a contortion.
M.
Is it just me, or was Costner going a bit overboard with the vistas? It seems like he needed one for every scene change, and it felt like it was a bit overkill.Having grown up in flat northern Indiana, I could watch those vistas all day, especially when they are as well framed and exposed as Costner's in OPEN RANGE.
It does have one of the best gunfights I have ever seen in a film.Oh yes...that will get lots of spins in my DVD player!
It just seemed so realistic, like I mentioned above. It wasn't cartoonish or too actionish. Just gritty and real.
One other thing about this movie was the suspense, particularly in the nighttime rainy scenes. I was on the edge of my seat, expecting one of our heroes to get jumped or shot.