*** Official OPEN RANGE Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jason Harbaugh]

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.

You didn't happen to watch this at Colorado Mills 16 did you? The audience I saw it with did the exact same thing, word for word.

Beautifully shot film, and although slow I enjoyed it thoroughly. Gunfight was incredible. I love single shot gun sounds. Nothing is more jarring or gritty than that. The first shot by Charley in the bar really got the audiences attention. And the subtle humor throughout was very nicely done.

I do wish they cut the end a bit shorter. One or two too many endings and goodbyes.

 

[Chris Atkins]

You didn't happen to watch this at Colorado Mills 16 did you?

I happened to be in Denver on a business trip, and caught OPEN RANGE at the UA theater at the 16th Street Mall...is that the same theater you referred to?

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

Different one, but equally nice. The Colorado Mills 16 is at Denver West just next to the foothills. Opened last year just in time for The Two Towers.

And stupid me, it wasn't playing at the Mills, but rather at Denver West 12 across the street. Close enough. :b

Hope you had a good business trip.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

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.

The same thing happened in my theater. Some people just care more about dogs than other human beings. It's pathetic!

 

[Brad Porter]

I saw it here in Boulder, the population of which probably has the highest love-of-dogs/hatred-of-other-people ratios in the world.

The thing that bothered me with the film is how there was almost zero development of the villains and their motivations, and what did exist was highly manipulative.

------------------

Sure they'll gang up three against one on a big guy in the store, but (cue evil music) they'll also shoot an old dog!

(Orchestra hit - bomp-bomp-baaaaaaa)

And you may believe that Baxter is a bad man, but I bet you didn't expect him to point a gun at a little girl! Mwuhahahahaha!

(Bomp-bomp-BAAAAAAA!)

And then, when Baxter has the good guys outnumbered, he threatens to kill all the men in the town and throw the women and children out into the cold! Pure evil!

-------------------

Was this necessary? Baxter and his men could have been much better written and the film would have been better for it. I'm not trashing the film completely for this approach because this is pretty standard for Westerns. I would have liked to have seen the events at the camp wagon portrayed onscreen so that I could have understood the mindset of the killers (and so the audience could have met the lead gunman at least once before the showdown).

I have much more respect for the approach taken in Unforgiven because the "bad guys" were given real motivations and even felt remorse for their actions. This gave the actions of William Munny and Elroy Tate a much greater emotional weight. The audience was conflicted on how they felt about Munny. There's no similar ambiguity in Open Range. Waite tries to sell us on the evil of his gunfighter past, but there are only a few moments when we aren't rooting for him to kill 'em all. I have no problems with what James Russo and Michael Gambon did with their performances - it's the written characters that are at fault.

As I said before, it's a better than average Western, but I'm just disappointed because all of the elements were there to make an exceptional film and they missed the opportunity.

Brad

 

[Chris Atkins]

Was the film shot mostly in Colorado? Sure looked like it...

And Brad, I don't think every film has to have three dimensional characters...especially villains...to be enjoyable, does it? Sometimes it's good to see characters that have single-minded motivations...particularly in our culture.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The film was shot in Alberta, Canada.

 

[Brad Porter]

it's good to see characters that have single-minded motivations...particularly in our culture.

I don't know what that last clause means, but I'll address your first sentiment. One-dimensional characters are well suited to comedies, superhero movies, and war/adventure movies. They are also a staple of the white hat/black hat Westerns of yesteryear. It just bothers me that Open Range, which didn't make any obvious sacrifices in the name of running time, would not devote some of the ample screen time to fleshing out the villains. I think it was a good storytelling decision to keep Baxter and his men offscreen and isolated by the storm, getting the audience to fully associate with Boss and Charley. I'm just bothered that when the bad guys do show up, they are all cartoony stereotypes. Actually, I was right there with the movie right up until Baxter gave his speech about throwing the women and children into the cold. Right at that moment the film lost it's charm and I started finding flaws. The slow motion at the climax of the gunfight and the false endings probably wouldn't have bothered me nearly as much if they hadn't replaced Baxter with Snidely Whiplash.

Your mileage may vary.

Brad

 

[Quentin]

That's an interesting point, Brad. Sometimes, something this small can take one "out" of a movie, and there's almost no going back. Once you're out, you will naturally start finding things to complain about.

The funny thing about this film is (and I loved the film as a whole) is that the final act - despite one of the greatest gunfights on film, ever - is problematic.

I don't have a problem with the little known "bad" guys...that's part of the film, as you point out, because of the isolation of our heroes. But, Baxter suddenly threatening the townspeople was very hackneyed and ill fitting a character we know little about. Just heaping on some good 'ol fashioned nastiness. The slow motion was actually quite well done and done sparingly (though, by this time, you were "out" of the film, so anything may have been crappy at that point).

AFTER the gunfight, the problems really start happening. Even someone like you, who was taken out of the film by the Baxter problem, may have forgiven the film if it had ended somewhat quickly. But, good 'ol Costner, who had managed up till now to not get too heavy handed or earnest, gets really heavy handed and earnest. The film takes too long to wrap up, and goes for some real corny stuff along the way.

For me, I was able to forgive both the Baxter stuff and the corniness of the end. Frankly, I expected more of it early on from Costner, so I was pleasantly surprised we didn't see it, and I thought the film was excellent. More than good enough to forgive the flaws in the end. But, I can certainly sympathize with someone who got pulled out of their experience at that point and had to endure those flaws. Bummer.

 

[Walter Kittel]

While I agree that the antagonists of Unforgiven are better developed and have clearer motivations I was comfortable with Open Range's depiction of Baxter. Baxter is portrayed as a bully, so his threats against the the townsfolk were perfectly believable to me. When Baxter was not under duress he could present a more affable face to the town, but when threatened his baser instincts would come to the surface. Not surprising at all for me. ( If I recall correctly, 'Little' Bill Daggett threatened some of the inhabitants of Big Whiskey. )

At the risk of duplicating some of the points of the above threads...

I do agree that spending more time on Baxter might have developed the character but since the crux of the film deals with the relationship between Charlie and Boss - what would you take out of the film to allow more screen time for Baxter or his hired hands? I consider this film, at least partly, a throwback to the Westerns of the 40s and 50s and in that sense the two dimensional portrayals of Baxter and his hands are in keeping with the mores of Westerns from that era of filmmaking.

- Walter.

 

[JasonB]

Saw it tonight and I loved it! Welcome back to the world of quality filmmaking Kevin!

Open Range is a western that, IMHO, is bound to be a classic. I'm no expert on westerns but the acting by Duvall was impeccable. If Duvall doesn't personify what I consider to be the quintessential "cowboy" than I don't know what does. Solid to strong performances by Costner and Benning and a great story add up to make Open Range a most definite winner.

 

[Brian Ford]

My second favorite movie of the year, right behind, of all things, The Matrix Reloaded.

Every scene and nearly every line had weight and meaning. While I agree some areas could have been cut, I still feel that the pacing is perfect.

Previous films with impressive gunfights (Heat, Way of the Gun) were smart in the way that they killed the musical soundtrack, and just allowed the gunfire to orchestrate the action. Costner was very wise to follow in this direction, and the first embrace between the two lovers is quite memorable as well.

Highly recommended.

 

[Steve_Tk]

Just wanted to say that I enjoyed this one as well. Unforgiven and Open Range's gunfights make Tombstone's gunfights look like Hollywood Hooey (still enjoy TS though).

I agree that some of the villains didn't have much screen time, but it was kind of powerful for us to see them the first time just like Charlie and Boss did. Their reputation was enough to hate them.

Loved Duval. He brought back Gus and seemed totaly in his element.

 

[Erin C]

Best western since UNFORGIVEN,so far my number 2 for the year behind SEABISCUIT. Robert Duvall(for your OSCAR consideration) is amazing as usual,cinematography was top notch. Congrats to Kev and all involved. ***1/2 it needed about 3 to 4 minutes trimmed from the end(one too many goodbyes with Annette's character IMO). One of the best and best sounding(DTS) shootouts ever filmed!! I LOVED LOVED LOVED this movie!

 

[Andy Sheets]

I agree that some of the villains didn't have much screen time, but it was kind of powerful for us to see them the first time just like Charlie and Boss did. Their reputation was enough to hate them.

I wasn't bothered by the lack of screentime for the villains because I simply didn't feel like it was their story. The movie is almost entirely focused on Boss and Charlie and their relationship. In fact, now that I think of it, was there a single scene in the entire film that didn't feature Boss and Charlie? I can think of short little bits like the townspeople moving out of the town before the end, but no proper scenes. Even stuff like the doctor going out to Baxter's place to patch up his banged up men, which most movies would have shown at least a part of, was simply covered in dialogue with Boss and Charlie.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

I totally disagree with those who say you need to know more about the "bad guys" and their motivations. This is a western, in the best sense of the word, not a character study. They hated the open rangers because they considered them to be "temporary squatters", intruding on their land, and possibly taking some of their business. I would much rather spend the time with Boss, Charley, Button, and Mose than with Baxter and his minions. I believe that they did a great job getting you to like this bunch and caring about whether or not they died. Yes, people always react to innocent animals being killed, but the audience in my theater reacted just about as much with Mose, and maybe even more when Button is put into peril (numerous times) later in the film. Lots of gasps, which I was happy to hear because it meant others cared too.

Needless to say, I loved this movie, especially the way it developed slowly, getting to know the characters not so much by exposition as by their reactions to each other and a bit of cowboy philosiphizing (a little Gus McRae here and there).

My wife and I were discussing the movie afterwords and agree that it contained some of the most breathtaking vistas ever put on film (not counting IMAX or nature documentaries), and I wouldn't have cut a single one! Put back-to-back with "Dances with Wolves", you've got some absolutely amazing shots. Kudos to Mr. Costner on his westerns.

As some others have stated, this is my favorite gunfight ever. Hyper-realistic and bloody without being sensationalistic, with a lot of sustained tension. Heck, there was actually a lot of sustained tension throughout the whole film, probably because I did care about the characters and wanted them to survive. The fact that the outfit only consisted of four cowboys allowed us to know each one and didn't give us any "expendable" characters. It's nice to have any and all deaths have consequences, and not just be a plot device.

 

[JustinCleveland]

Baxter I understood... he's power hungry. The Sheriff I understood, he was under Baxter's thumb.

But the rest of the men that the Open Rangers killed... there was no provocation, or justification, other than they had guns and stood on Baxter's side. Maybe they were innocent townspeople who wanted to protect their land from men who felt justified in coming into their town and shooting. If you swapped the perspective, those men could easily have been the ones pictured as innocent, and Boss et. al could have been the villains. That's why I was horrified that people could walk out of the film satisfied that "only the bad guys died." Who said they were bad? I saw nothing in their actions, save protecting their land, that was bad. So one guy killed the big guy... shouldn't that have been settled when Costner shot him straight out?

 

[ThomasC]

Did anyone else expect someone to break in the doctor's house when there were outside shots of it when it was night and raining during a scene? Hopefully you understood what I just asked.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Are you kidding me??????

 

[ChuckSolo]

Baxter's men were the ones who beat up and then killed Mose. That was the final justification to killing Baxter's men. Not unlike the reason that Shane killed all the bad guys in the movie of the same name.