Appaloosa Reviews

Since I really loved ‘Pollock’, Ed Harris’ directing debut, I was really eager to check out this follow-up. My guess is that Harris always wanted to be in a Western but since this genre is not so popular anymore, the only way for him was to direct one himself. Even though it was not as impressive as ‘Pollock’, it was still fairly enjoyable. Indeed, the directing was, once again, solid and, even though the plot was rather pedestrian, there was a great chemistry between Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen and they both gave some pretty good performances. Unfortunately, they added a woman to the story and, from that point, the whole thing became rather underwhelming. Basically, Zellweger played her typical quirky chick which was not really a bad thing, but what was more annoying, is the way this woman influenced the whole plot and Ed Harris’ behavior. I mean, at least 3 or 4 times during the whole thing, I thought to myself ‘Dump the b*tch, for crying out loud!’ but, for no reasonable reasons, he sticks with her which terribly undermined his character. To conclude, even though it was slightly disappointing, I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you like the genre.

I went to go see this movie awhile ago in theatres with my brother and his friend. (My brother invited me.)

When it was over, it started at 8 or something, my brother's friend wanted to check the time--OMG! It must be like midnight or something! And in fact, the movie was only about an hour and a half or something, but I understood what he meant. It felt like a very long movie: probably because it was about to be over four to six times, but always kept going.

I don't think it was a bad movie. I think all three of the main actors (the man, his friend, and his girl) put in very respectable performances. Even the plot was decent, certainly believable, sure. But it was really a very average movie.

And I suppose it was also, as well, my only big exposure to the 'Western' genre since I read 'Shane' in 7th grade. Where I had been, 'Western' meant--Plato to NATO-- and all that bullshit: I actually think that the horseshit-and-gunsmoke type of Western to be somewhat less retarded. And this one, indeed, succeeded in being quite okay.

But I also feel as if no further exposure to the genre is required: I think I've mastered all the main features of it, thanks.

After all, I suppose I might have been a 'Western' junkie instead of a 'sci-fi' junkie, but I don't think I'd even do that, given the chance. (Gunsmoke Western vs. Civil War Buff vs. American Victorian...the failures are endless....)

Now I just want comedies. As Novak Djokovic said, "I'm always hoping for comedies."

N.B. And this is, like, four months later: I just realized that, as a "Western" this movie is actually *historical*.... And I like reorganizing things when necessary, and dispensing with tags that are nonsensical-- my favorite example is probably how people tag "Stargate" with "Teal'c", a character who appears only on that show.... Yeah-- whatever is absolutely unique to one, is of little help in forming *groups*, you know.... Tags, unlike reviews, are meant to be repeated many times, and to be *identical*.... And, just in general, I like to shake things up when necessary-- yesterday I had to create "Action" as a subdivision of "Drama" after all, (Drama: Action), because I realized that, if I was going to give "The Help" a classification, it would *have* to be light drama, but then, I couldn't quite keep "Indiana Jones" and "Oceans Eleven" in the same space, so I had to make "action" a category to put the one in, and shuttled the other off to "crime", which now is longer *just* gritty crime....

"Shakespeare" is also a stupid tag, isn't it? I mean, "Hamlet" is pretty cool, but the way that people talk about Shakespeare is absurd.... I mean, "Henry V" is historical drama-- like Appaloosa!-- and not necessary any better than average, *really*.... Not necessarily better than Appaloosa! So I guess that Hamlet is "tragedy"; I'll have to make that tag for it, and then think if I've seen others.... I'm not sure that "classic" movies would work, even though I do have to admit that there's "world lit", but movies are younger than Shakespeare and Tolstoy, that's the whole point.... and "Birth of a Nation" would be historical: war, there's not really much there that's similar to "Hamlet"....

The way that academics talk about Shakespeare is absurd-- at first they're almost sensible: drama, comedy, historical, (ignoring, of course, how silly it is to go-- Shakespeare: Drama, with "Hamlet", instead of "Drama: Tragedy", or Shakespeare: Historical, with "Henry V", instead of "Historical: War"....) but then they completely lose their minds, and just free-stylin', free association-- the "problem plays", the "late romances", *as though this meant something*.... But any play can be a problem-- what can be difficult? Anything! And anything can be romantic-- George Clooney can be romantic, even after he's shot his girlfriend in the back of the head five minutes into the movie-- what can be romantic? Anyt-- well, almost. You know I mean though. And "late"-- as opposed to "early"? But it's not "late romance" and "early...." it's "late romance" and "problem plays"-- not "drama" and "comedy", but "drama" and "spaceships", you see? It's just free association-- "Stargate", and "Teal'c".... *And, of course, trying to historicize literature is a great way to be a loser and an asshole*-- and, ironically, those sorts never seem to go in for 'historical fiction', since it's not NYTimes-y enough for them-- ha! (And, it's funny, *nobody* in Was--, uh, Hollywood is a small-town conservative: which makes perfect sense: Hollywood is not a small town. Most people there are *social* liberals, (like Steve Carell), at least, and cosmopolitan, of course-- just like everyone from Poland is Polish, basically, you see? But not everybody from Hollywood is a political doofus and a UNGovenor of Syriana, like George Clooney and Angelina Jolie....) And, I mean, classifying Shakespeare plays by date and Greek plays by date and then classifying them together because you do both of them by date....

*cringes*

ANYWAY.

Anyway, Ed Harris can make decent drama, just like Billy Shakey, and the fact that they didn't have Ed Harris-- or Tom Cruise, or whoever-- back in 1600 or thereabouts, bothers me not at all.

And, you know, one of the big differences between 1882-- the events of this movie-- and 2008-- the filming of this movie-- is, of course, movies. That is to say: less Shakespeare, more Ed Harris. ;)

(8/10)

As Westerns go, Appaloosa isn't a masterpiece, but it's still a good film: it is rarely boring and the dynamics of the relationship between the two male leads (Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen) make for a very enjoyable work of cinema. It's a little bit more restrained than other Westerns in that the action scenes aren't TOO violent or long or loud, which I think is a welcome thing.

The insertion of a love triangle as part of the plot would seem like a contrivance, but it doesn't unfold as one at all here. There is a scene in which Allie (Rene Zellwegger), the female stuck between the two protagonists, tells Virgil (Harris) that Everett (Mortensen) tried to kissed her. Normally, this would immediately lead to Virgil getting pissed off and a fight breaking out between him and Everett, but instead, Virgil nonchalantly informs the vixen that he trusts Everett more than he trusts her, thus shutting up the instigating woman. This is actually a good scene to note in terms of assessing the overall film, which is really more about the complicity between Virgil and Everett than it is about the love triangle between the two men and Allie.

Though there are some showdown-like moments towards the end, there isn't any sort of huge, overblown, guns-a-blazin' action scene during the climax, as some may expect. Appaloosa is a notch below, say, last year's 3:10 To Yuma, because although both films are entertaining, the latter had a more powerful final half hour, and it was also blessed with the presence of the slimy and wickedly villainous Ben Foster. Don't get me wrong, Jeremy Irons is predictably good as Bragg, the film's central evildoer, but he doesn't give you the chills that Foster's character gives you in the earlier film. With that said, though, Ed Harris has given us a decent entry into a genre that has been largely ignored, thus giving us a sign that the Western film isn't quite gone yet, at least as long as it continues to be handled as adeptly as it has been handled here. Appaloosa is well-paced, adequately acted, and it has plenty of funny one-liners and moments of tension to make for solid entertainment.

I admit it, I am a sucker for a good western. Even though most westerns follow a similar story line, a good guy comes to the rescue to try to stop a bad guy. This movie follows that formula except that this time it is two guys (Ed Harris and Viggo Mortenson) that come to a town's rescue for a very bad guy (Jeremy Irons). You throw in a damsel in distress and you have the makings of a good movie. This movie didn't rely on special effects or lots of blood and guts, it had a good cast and strong performances. It wasn't the best western I've seen, but it was very entertaining and worth a couple hours of my time.

Flash