Am I the only one bothered by this? - The Cowboys (1972) Discussion

[–] galada_isis 18 years ago

You have to remember the time period in which this movie is based. You had to be tough to survive. I don't think this movie is really for small children, but compared to some of the cartoons and other crap they have out there for kids this isn't so bad.

This movie is playing on TCM as I speak!:) They are having a John Wayne marathon!!

reply

[–] preppy-3 18 years ago

OK good point. Thanks for the input:) Some cartoons are more violent but I guess the message this movie gave out disturbed me. I'm really surprised it got by a GP (or PG) rating.

reply

[–] shokwave-1 18 years ago

You're not offended by the treatment of Browne's character?

reply

[–] galada_isis 18 years ago

Yeah I am bothered (since I am African-American) at how Browne's character was treated, but I also have to realize that this was the 19th century that this movie
was about and thats how things were at the time.

reply

[–] sstovall-1 17 years ago

by galada isis

"Yeah I am bothered (since I am African-American) at how Browne's character was treated, but I also have to realize that this was the 19th century that this movie was about and thats how things were at the time."

You make an excellent point, now turn it on to the rest of the movie. The boys were kids yes but they were 15-17 years old and in the 19th century that was considered old enough to do a man's job (at least start learning to) like run cattle, manage the farm, and protect what's yours and your family's

That's what these boys/men did. After Anderson was MURDERED and the stock stolen. The boys had no law to turn to (the nearest town was days away if it even had law enforcement which alot of towns on teh western frontier didn't)
so it was up to them to get the stock back for not only their paycheck but for Anderson's wife to get paid. They did not commit murder they did what was neccessary to do their job of protecting Anderson's cattle and his estate for his widow.

"I'd resent that if I were sober."
Lt. Col Henry Blake

reply

[–] Ironman54 14 years ago

Waynes characters treatment of him ?? Did you see the scene in which Wayne shared a bottle of booze with him ? Do you realize what a major thing this would have been back then ?? It shows that he was far less judgmental and very tolerant of other races. Today this would symbolize zero. Back then, it would have been scandalous - emancipation proclamation or not. In many of, if not most of, Waynes movies (which pre date the civil rights movement) Waynes characters are all about judging a man by his character and giving respect where respect is due/earned.
I mean right up until the '60s...1960s that is, in many parts of the country black Americans couldn't get served at a lucnh counter used by whites. White people in these areas wouldn't drink from a glass that a black person had used - yet, in this movie, Wayne is sharing 'back wash' with the cook ! I know, I know - sorta gross sounding but this is how other ranch hands would have looked at the Wayne character and, at the very least, refused to work with him because of it.This scene was a deliberate attempt to convey something about the Dukes character.Sensitivities were such that at the time this movie was released, that scene did not go unnoticed by many movie goers still 'raw' over the civil rights movement a decade prior.Not saying he deserves an award because he drank from the same bottle as a black man but trust me, that scene was deliberate and the Duke was 'saying something' to his audience.And he risked loosing a chunk of his audience - he didn't care.I grew up in the NYC area and when I saw this scene while sitting in the movie theater,I picked up on it instantly, having known people who would have a problem - yes, even in 1976, with sharing a bottle with a black person (white people from the Dukes generation).

Also,as I posted elsewhere here, to the first generation of Wayne fans, fighting and killing at 17 was no big deal. Don't forget, the 'greatest generation often lied about their age to volunteer for service when WWII broke out. And these young men/boys, many of whom were only 16 or 17 fired much bigger guns then rifles and Colt 45's !! I remember reading the memoirs of a guy who landed at Normandy on D-Day - it was his 18th birthday !!

reply

[–] preppy-3 18 years ago

"You're not offended by the treatment of Browne's character?"

Of course I am! Who wouldn't be? But he played his role with complete dignity and did get his revenge in the end. He came off as a better role model to the kids then John Wayne did!

But the fact that the kids became cold-harded killers at the end--and it was seen as a good thing--bothered me more.

reply

[–] cowboy12156 18 years ago

Since Wil Anderson was like a dad to them boys, well, if some bad guys shot my dad in the back, I would probably go after them myself. It was a lot easier back then to do stuff like that than it is now. I would probably go to prison for the rest of my life for getting revenge on the person or persons that killed my dad. No one should be offended or bothered by anything in this movie from beginning to end.

reply

[–] cynic2all 18 years ago

"Browne's character?...he played his role with complete dignity and did get his revenge in the end. But the fact that the kids became cold-harded killers at the end--and it was seen as a good thing--bothered me more."

I don't see why you would say Nightlinger [Browne] had a role of "dignity" and got his revenge in the end, then say it bothers you that it was the kids who got that revenge with his help. Was it a dignified thing that the rustlers got what was coming to them, or not?

reply

[–] preppy-3 18 years ago

"I don't see why you would say Nightlinger [Browne] had a role of "dignity" and got his revenge in the end, then say it bothers you that it was the kids who got that revenge with his help. Was it a dignified thing that the rustlers got what was coming to them, or not?"

Read my comment again. I said he PLAYED the role with dignity--there's a difference. The rustlers got what they deserved but seeing a bunch of young kids killing people left and right with no remorse bothered me.

reply

[–] cynic2all 18 years ago

"The rustlers got what they deserved but seeing a bunch of young kids killing people left and right with no remorse bothered me."

How is it that "the rustlers got what they deserved," but it bothers you that somebody(es) gave them what they deserved? "Second verse same as the first," as a song once said.

reply

[–] preppy-3 18 years ago

It bothers me that CHILDREN were doing it. Read my response again.

reply

[–] cynic2all 18 years ago

Okay, you and I just differ on this point. To me, if what the rustlers got was "what they deserved," I don't think it matters that it was 'children' that gave it to them. They took on a a job for men; therefore, they should do what men should do. They took on all the risks, responsbilities, and rewards.

Frankly, in such a situation, I don't think the rustlers would have let them live anyway, with the ringleader simply saying, "They're not going anywhere." With the chuck wagon behind them and coming up to them! They'd have wanted the food and water supply, too, as well as a means of getting the boys out of the prairie country, where they could make it to Belle Foursche before the herd and let the buyers and the law know what happened.

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 17 years ago

These "boys" were mostly over 16, and in that time and place they were men. A 16 year old died with Custer at Little Big Horn (lied about his age at enlistment), and during WWI and WWII thousands of underage "boys" joined the military and served creditably by lying about their age. The West was a place where people grew up fast and learned to do the things that needed doing. Girls were also required by necessity to grow up fast and by age 15 or 16 were often married and managing a household. If Long Hair and his men needed killing, who else was going to do it? That is the way the Cowboys would have looked at it, and they would be right to do so. I'd venture to guess that they slept just fine afterward too.

reply

[–] tightspotkilo 17 years ago

It's a "rite of passage" movie. That's the whole point. If you don't know what rite of passage is, google it. They were boys who were forced by circumstances to grow up early, step into men's shoes, and defend themselves and mete out justice to some very bad hombres the way justice was meted out in the wild wild west. End of story.

If it's too much for you, stay with Spongebob.

__________________________________

Get the facts first - you can distort them later!
_________________________________

reply

[–] gnome-5 17 years ago

Actually, Cimarron tells Kate that they have two boys who are 15. The rest are younger. Still, living at that time, they would have seen a lot that we can't even imagine.

As for the kids killing the rustlers, I think the director handles it beautifully. It's obvious that they're not "cold-hearted killers." They do what's necessary to avenge Wil Andersen and get the herd back, but no more. At least that's my take on it.

reply

[–] joekiddlouischama 10 years ago

These "boys" were mostly over 16, and in that time and place they were men.

No, they were not; the film makes clear that the kids were fifteen and under, and they indeed look the part.

As for the question raised in this thread, I can see the concern raised by the original poster, but the film's denouement is not fundamentally different from most Westerns, especially most traditionalist Westerns, a grouping to which The Cowboys quite consciously belongs. In this context of a moral universe, vengeful violence indeed plays a redemptive and romantic role. Conversely, the revisionist Westerns of the era, such as many of those starring Clint Eastwood and The Wild Bunch directed by Sam Peckinpah, treated violence with less romanticism and more brutality, in fitting with their perspective of an amoral universe.

reply

[–] Ironman54 14 years ago

And as far as their ages go - you don't have to go back to the 1800's to find boys/men killing enemies. My father, like many his age, lied about his age in 1944 and enlisted in the Navy at 17. They were using weapons much bigger than rifles and 6 shooters to exact revenge ! Make no mistake, at 17 these young men enlisted to get revenge on the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor. My father manned an 'ack-ack gun' IIRC. Beats the hell out of a .45 !!

reply

[–] beancrisp 9 years ago

FACT: The children should be praised as heroes.

reply

[–] jamesntull 17 years ago

Speaking as someone who viewed this movie alongside my grandfather in the early and mid-70's on television, I have to say that this is one of my favoirte movies from my childhood (along with "Harold and Maude"). My brother, who is four years younger than I am, feels absolutely the same way. I have four sons and they have seen--or will see--this movie, while still young.
The lessons conveyed in this film have nothing to do with vengeance or "cold-hearted murder". They are lessons of real life: honor, trust, character, fidelity, and perseverence. The film also poignently reminds us that youth is all too fleeting, both in the sudden, but very realistic death of one of the young boys, and in the responsibility heaped upon them when their father-figure/mentor/boss is suddenly cut down.
In the memorable fight scene that precludes the murder of John Wayne's Will Anderson, Bruce Dern's character teaches a lesson ALL children of today should learn (but sadly, too many do not). This is a gruelling fight that seems to go on much longer than most (think of the Gregory Peck/Charleton Heston fight in "The Big Country"). The Dern character has a chance to redeem himself, if only slightly. All he has to do is take his beating like a man and go on his way. However, we ALL (adults and children alike) see his next move for exactly what it is: pathetic cowardice. His character reaches for the nearest gun and attempts to "win" the fight the only way he can: through murder. He does not win anything, though. And no person viewing this film has EVER seen his actions as anything honorable or heroic. If more of today's young men (and women) would heed the lessons embodied in this film, we'd have far fewer senseless killings, far fewer grieving families, and far fewer people crowding our prisons. Thus, the most powerful lesson passed on by this film comes, not from John Wayne or Roscoe Lee Browne's characters, but from one of the most memorable villians in all of American cinema. It is a lesson that sharply defines what a man IS NOT. Sadly, we have prisons filled with angry little boys, because lessons like this seem so rarely taught, anymore.
Finally, the premise that the boys resort to the shallower concept of vengeance is incorrect, in my opinion. There is a vast difference, now as throughout all of time, between the concepts of 'vengeance' and 'justice'. We live in a time when the idea of justice more often than not gets tied in with our legal system. They are not one and the same. Under the best circumstances, they reside together, but they are not the same thing. At its best, our legal system attempts to 'serve' justice, but 'justice' is a concept, like 'liberty'. Concepts are much more difficult things to tackle than actions. Maybe that is why vengeance often seems easier to achieve.

reply

[–] tietjen31 16 years ago

you guys seem to be missing one thing.the' cowboys' is a movie,it reflexs what the laws and what existed back then.it was not made to insult or degrade any one.it is just one big great movie,with the 'duke' at his(or any one else')best. great dialoge,great background music,and great acting by all,plus the director does not take the movie goer fo a bunch of lame-brains,this western is up there,with the very best,wild bunch,shane,in closing,any tv show,local news and so called'cartoon' shows,not to mention some parents, has taught our children much worse then the 'cowboys

reply

[–] beancrisp 9 years ago

Why should a person feel remorse for killing vicious thugs?

reply

[–] beancrisp 9 years ago

I challenge you to logically explain to me how giving the vicious thugs what they deserved makes the kids cold-harded killers.

reply

[–] HighPockets59 17 years ago

On the contrary, I think it accurately portrayed how truly harsh life was for people when the western frontier was just in it's infancy. (I know I would've never left England, let alone crossed the continent in a stage coach!)

Notice how primitive Anderson's house and fencing was? (Not exactly that stylish Adirondack look!) Nothing but desert for miles around. I'm sure boys even younger than the ones in the film led a far harsher life. The whole point of having children was to help with the labor. I was surprised to see that they were actually getting a limited education! It was a tough life. You either got tough and survived or weakened and died, that was reality!

Unlike today where we actually need disclaimers on simple products like stating not to use a blow drier while showering or that coffee is hot! We are not culling out the idiots who have a complete lack of common sense, instead we protect them from themselves. One thing these so called "challenged" people (and I don't mean the handicapped or retarded) seem to have a great talent for is the ability to propagate many more offspring. There will never be a shortage in the "Idiot Gene Pool" that's for sure!!!!!

Lauren

reply

[–] gnome-5 17 years ago

To be fair, a lot of westerns were shot in Monument Valley because it's visually beautiful. But no one ranched there -- the environment is too inhospitable. So don't take what you see in a movie too literally!

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

Yeah--I think I'm seeing it too much as an adult. If I had seen it as a kid it probably wouldn't had affected me that much...and I wouldn't have seen the message I got from it. So--I guess I AM seeing too much into what is simply a Western. Just something about the boys just casually killing people got to me. And yes--I know it was faked:)

reply

[–] kelly-527 16 years ago

They did not casually kill. They planned it methodically. They killed an evil group of A$$es that would have killed them as well if they had not underestimated them as children.

If someone killed someone you loved and destroyed your life, wouldn't you want justice???

Yikes.

reply

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

"If someone killed someone you loved and destroyed your life, wouldn't you want justice???"

Of course! But that wouldn't justify me grabbing a gun and shooting someone dead. That's against the law in this day and age. I also have already stated that I'm probably seeing too much into this film as an adult. I don't think this would bother kids. I find it interesting that you find how a bunch of kids methodically killing a bunch of killers OK. Yes the guys were a$$holes but there IS such a thing as law and order--even back then. Call me silly but a better ending would have been for the kids to tie the killers up and bring them to the nearest town and have them tried for murder.

reply

[–] gnome-5 16 years ago

Okay, I'm picturing the wagon train full of rustlers all tied up. They're probably weeks away from civilization, so they have to feed them, and untie them so they can go to the bathroom... No, I just don't think that would work.

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 16 years ago

preppy-3
To what legal authority would the cowboys deliver Mr. Anderson's killers? The town marshal of Belle Fourche would have jurisdiction only within town limits. A federal marshal might be difficult to locate, and jurisdictional issues could come up, as well. A county sheriff would ask, "What county did it happen in?" Do YOU know what county it was?, Likely the kids wouldn't, either. You either can't or won't understand that the boys were ON THEIR OWN. They had no legal authority to go crying to. they could either man up and do what needed to be done, or let the killers of their surrogate father get away with it (as well as leave his wife a pauper). Like most pampered, vaguely liberal 21st century Americans, you cannot imagine a world where there is no one to cry to, no one to whom you can proclaim victimhood, no one to sue, no nanny state to insure a "fair" outcome, no cop to run, crying, to. Be glad you don't have to make hard decisions, deal with hard people, or do hard things. Thank God we still have a core of toughness somewhere in America. preppy, you wouldn't understand.

reply

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

Thank you for your opinion ahope. Unlike u I'm not gonna engage in childish name-calling. I'm REALLY glad u like a movie where a bunch of likable kids are turned into ruthless killers. I should mention the film was a bomb at the box office--I wonder who people would agree with? You or me? Make sure u can think up some more vicious childish name-calling before u email back.

reply

[–] gnome-5 16 years ago

The problem is, they DON'T turn into "ruthless killers," they simply do what's necessary. It's obvious that they are emotionally affected by what they've done. Can you imagine a sequel where "The Cowboys" go out and start robbing banks and killing people? I can't. There's nothing in the characters to suggest that. I think John Wayne said, "You're good boys, you'll be good men." It's true.

And how the film did at the box office is irrelevant to the discussion.

reply

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

"And how the film did at the box office is irrelevant to the discussion"

I disagree. If you're so right about this why didn't people run out to see it? Why did it bomb so badly? Probably because people hated the message and point of the movie.

reply

[–] gnome-5 16 years ago

Actually, I did run out to see it. I think I saw twice in the theater before it closed.

And how could people hate the message and point of the movie if they didn't see it?

reply

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

Movie reviews. Most of them revealed the ending. Pauline Kael wrote a review in the "New Yorker" that just trashed the movie to ribbons--and not just for the ending. From what I heard Wayne himself wasn't too thrilled with it (probably cause his character was killed off).

reply

[–] gnome-5 16 years ago

I had the impression that he was pretty proud of that one...

This is from the Trivia page:

"John Wayne actually pleaded with the director Mark Rydell to allow him to play Wil Anderson."

reply

[–] joekiddlouischama 10 years ago

I disagree. If you're so right about this why didn't people run out to see it? Why did it bomb so badly? Probably because people hated the message and point of the movie.

To the contrary, The Cowboys constituted a pretty big hit, especially for a Western. It returned $7.5M in domestic rentals (IMDb is incorrect in identifying the $7.5M figure as a gross rather than a rentals figure), which means that it grossed roughly $15M domestically, give or take, rendering it the second-most successful Western of 1972 after the wilderness Western Jeremiah Johnson, starring Robert Redford, which struck a broad cultural nerve and proved to be a blockbuster. (Jeremiah Johnson hit theaters at the very end of the year, hence the reason why you will not see Redford's name in the poll below.) For a point of comparison to The Cowboys, Clint Eastwood's hit Western from that summer, Joe Kidd, returned a little over $5.8M in domestic rentals.

In fact, when The Cowboys reached theaters in mid-January 1972, it immediately achieved number-one rank at the weekend box office, displacing Eastwood's Dirty Harry, which had reigned supreme over the previous three weekends (dating back to the final weekend of 1971):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1972_box_office_number-one_films_in_the_United_States

(Caution: not everything on Wikipedia, like not everything on IMDb, is accurate.)

To be sure, Dirty Harry proved much more successful than The Cowboys overall, constituting a genuine blockbuster with a domestic gross of $35.976M ($18M in domestic rentals).

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=dirtyharry.htm

But The Cowboys attained number-one status in its first weekend and repeated that performance in its second weekend (at approximately $3.695M and $3.452M in grosses, respectively). Likewise, Eastwood's Joe Kidd topped the box office in its first two weekends five months later (at about $3.854M and $2.944M in grosses, respectively).

After the year, the nation's theater owners and movie exhibitors voted on 1972's top movie stars for the Quigley's Annual Top Ten Money Making Stars Poll. Eastwood topped the poll for the first time (after having ranked second in 1971 and 1970 and fifth in 1969 and and 1968), while Wayne—at the age of sixty-five—placed fourth, reflecting the box-office success of The Cowboys.

1972

Clint Eastwood
George C. Scott
Gene Hackman
John Wayne
Barbra Streisand
Marlon Brando
Paul Newman
Steve McQueen
Dustin Hoffman
Goldie Hawn

https://tbmovielists.wordpress.com/quigleys-top-ten-box-office-champions-by-year/

reply

[–] bengt-ove 15 years ago

The idea of how the boys were affected by exacting vengeance was actually raised (sort of) even when the film was new. I remember the MAD Magazine cartoon version, which ended with the boys intruducing themselves as Billy the Kid and other future well-known killers. I wasn't bothered by the ending then as a teenager, but I must say that I now agree with the OP.

reply

[–] porfle 15 years ago

THE COWBOYS may not have done big numbers at the box office when first released, but it has since become a recognized classic with a large and devoted following.

I don't recall ever hearing Wayne speak unfavorably of the film. Director Rydell and the surviving cast are certainly proud of it.

hkfilmnews.blogspot.com
myspace.com/porfle
andersonvision.com

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 16 years ago

preppy-3,
Address the issues,please, and stop whining.

reply

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

ahope--I DID address the issues. And I'm not whining. Love judging people don't you?

reply

[–] gnome-5 16 years ago

So you honestly think a sequel to this movie would involve the cowboys going out and committing more crimes? I see them going back to ranching or whatever.

I mean, there is that old trope about "by fighting a monster, you can become one yourself," but I don't think that's really what they were aiming for in this movie.

reply

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

OK--I never talked about a sequel to this movie. I just said the message that I got from THIS movie was that we're supposed to be cheering on kids that were committing murder. Yes--I realize it takes place in the 1800s. Yes--I realize it's just a movie. HOWEVER these boards are for anyone to voice their opinions. You don't have to respect it but u can not attack the other person. Also everybody seems to forget that this bombed at the box office and Wayne himself said in later years that he didn't like it.

BTW gnome--Please point out to me where I mentioned a sequel to this movie. I seriously don't remember EVER saying that.

reply

[–] gnome-5 16 years ago

I brought a sequel up as a way to illustrate the character development in this movie. If, at the end of The Cowboys, you think they're menaces to society and will go on to become "bad" men, that's one thing. If you think they're going to go back to their ranches and become "good" men, that's another. Each suggests where you think the boys are, emotionally, etc, as a result of the experiences they had during this story.

reply

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

Geez--u answered your own question. After saying I mentioned a sequel you turn it around and said YOU did. Get it str8. I don't really care what happens after this movie or to these characters BUT I think they would become good guys--but have absolutely no problem in killing a man dead. Maybe that's this movies idea of a real man but not mine.

reply

[–] gnome-5 16 years ago

I never said that you "mentioned a sequel." It was always my idea to illustrate a point.

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 16 years ago

Please stop feeding the troll. He is not persuadable by reason, his emotions rule him. He dodged the jurisdictional issue I raised in an above response, because he has no answer- only more emotional whining.

reply

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

Christ...if I'm "whining" so much why are u even bothering to reading my rtesponses? Are u so obnoxious and cruel that u attack people again...and again...and AGAIN for some sick sense of enjoyment? Get a life.

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 15 years ago

I continue to respond because I'm hoping that you might man up and address my rejoinder to your sorry issues with this film. Any chance of this happening?

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 15 years ago

I guess not.

reply

[–] LocalTracks 9 years ago

In 1974 a series entitled "The Cowboys" played for one season on American television. It even featured several of the original cast members. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070978/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

reply

[–] SipteaHighTea 14 years ago

What core toughness in America? You have pampered, conservative 20th and 21st century Americans who take the government's money and run - they like their nanny state and don't have to worry about government cops coming to arrest them for waste and fraud.

reply

[–] zigfried-2 15 years ago

Friggin' Obama-voter.

reply

[–] SeisCinemaSeis 15 years ago

The ending ruined completely this movie to me. Frankly, I don't like most of John Wayne flicks, except for 'Stagecoach'. So when I was watching this movie, even when Wayne was again playing the same role for the 100th time, I started to enjoy the whole thing. The story was interesting if kinda implausible. Anyway I was still enjoying it till the last 15-20 min.
The ending is one of the most ludicrous endings that I've ever seen. A bunch of greenhorn kids suddenly becomes, all of them, in Mini-Dirty Harrys. WTF? You gotta see it to NOT believe it (pardon the pun).
A dozen of kids outgunning and outsmarting a band of hardened, tough, mean and experienced outlaws? Gimme a *beep* break!
Worse: not even one kid got wounded, meanwhile all the baddies are captured and killed like flies! Plus the kids does kill the last man with an inconceivable malice and cruelty. They were the very same sweet kids that a couple of days before didn't know how to hold a gun properly. What a stupid ending! This movie is the best proof of how a bad ending can ruin even the best story.

reply

[–] preppy-3 15 years ago

I agree with Les 100%. Also I found out that this movie was a big bomb at the box office.

reply

[–] Huge_Ego_sorry 14 years ago

Am I the only one bothered by this?
by - preppy-3

seems like it

I agree with Les 100%. Also I found out that this movie was a big bomb at the box office.

And now has a ranking of over 7 out of 10 stars on this page

reply

[–] preppy-3 14 years ago

"I agree with Les 100%. Also I found out that this movie was a big bomb at the box office."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And now has a ranking of over 7 out of 10 stars on this page"

Oh--I see. So that automatically makes it a success???? No. The film bombed BADLY. Just because so many people gave it a reasonably good rating does not change the fact that it lost money at the box office. And just because people gave it a reasonably good rating here doesn't make it a great movie or a success. I am entitle to my own opinion...and I'm standing by it. BTW there are plenty of people who agree with me.

reply

[–] Huge_Ego_sorry 14 years ago

I see. So that automatically makes it a success????

Of course not. I never said it was a box office success, it has been a success since on VHS and DVD sales, but it bombed. I accept that.
I did not bring up the rating to prove it was a box office hit, it was another view to your's that more people agreed with you based on the fact that it did poorly at the box office. My point is if your are saying more people agree with you because it was not a hit when released, you must take into count the high ratings it now has. This would show that more people disagreed with you now.

I should mention the film was a bomb at the box office--I wonder who people would agree with? You or me

And yes you have a right to your opinion, and so is everyone else here. That is what this board if all about. But I fail to see how the number of people that paid to see it, 38 years ago, proves your point, but the number of people that think it is a good film today is irrelevant.

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 14 years ago

preppy-3 won't answer any direct question if the answer will force him (or her) to look closely at any of his (or her) precious preconceptions. Don't waste your time trying to debate him (or her).

Oh, and by the way, with a budget of $6,000,000 and a box office take of $7,500,000, not to mention VHS and disk rentals and sales, TV residuals and Netflix, it's hard to see how this film qualifies as a box office bomb. Another bull$h!t allegation from preppy-3, I guess.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's living!!!"
Augustus McCrae

reply

[–] surfercharlie25 14 years ago

I don't think the boys were senseless killers, and I don't think any of them would grow up to be murderers because of this. I didn't get the sense that any of them enjoyed what they were doing, in fact, I think it was just the opposite. Revenge is never a good feeling, at least, I don't think so. I think the boys saw it more as something they felt they needed to do, not something they liked. That's why the violence isn't very glamorized. There's nothing exciting or fun about the way Bruce Dern dies in the film, nor with any of the outlaws. For a clearer picture of what I'm trying to say, look at Wayne's last film, THE SHOOTIST, where (SPOILERS AHEAD) Ron Howard shoots the bartender who kills the Duke. Look at Howard's face after the bartender's dead. He's not excited or stoic. He's horrified and repulsed, and he throws the gun aside. That's the way I think the boys feel at the end of this film. (SPOILERS THROUGH)

I personally find THE COWBOYS to be a very melancholy, serious and thoughtful film , easily one of the Duke's best. It's not a film that glamorizes violence or makes it attractive in any way.

"...and you can't come because you DON'T SPEAK FRENCH!"

reply

[–] lakealice 10 years ago

I agree. The young boys getting drunk on whiskey, while the men just watch with bemused "Isn't that cute" expressions on their face." And then the wholesale revenge slaughter at the end that we're supposed to applaud--these plot elements now seem dated and unacceptable in hindsight, and they did stick in my craw in spite of the outstanding photography, scenery and characterizations in this movie.

reply

[–] star_in_the_zenith_79 10 years ago

The ending is one of the most ludicrous endings that I've ever seen. A bunch of greenhorn kids suddenly becomes, all of them, in Mini-Dirty Harrys. WTF? You gotta see it to NOT believe it (pardon the pun).
A dozen of kids outgunning and outsmarting a band of hardened, tough, mean and experienced outlaws? Gimme a *beep* break!

Its simply not as far fetched as you are making out. Especially in those days. Kids often learned to shoot at a fairly young age, and once they learned a kid with a rifle in his hand can kill you as easily as a man can. And even mean experienced outlaws can die as easily as anyone, especially when the other side has a good plan.

Plus they had the element of surprise, and Mr Nylinger's help planning. Those outlaws weren't expecting anything from those kids.

reply

[–] cmashieldscapting 9 years ago

Personally I loved the mix of expressions on the boys' faces as they send Dern to his doom. From the stern "he had it coming" of the older ones, to some of the middle ones looking uncertain, anxious, or even sorrowful, to the evil grin on the youngest--well played, all!

reply

[–] LocalTracks 9 years ago

The young boys getting drunk on whiskey, while the men just watch with bemused "Isn't that cute" expressions on their face." And then the wholesale revenge slaughter at the end that we're supposed to applaud--these plot elements now seem dated and unacceptable in hindsight,

The gunfight at the end of the film has been discussed previously, so I won't defend its appropriate place in the film here.

The men discover that the boys "got into the whiskey" AFTER the fact. There wasn't much that they could do about it at that point. The fact that most are shown sick and hung over the next day suggests that they learned their lesson. I found that scene neither dated nor unacceptable. Heck, forget the 1870s - in the 1970s a few of my 13 year-old friends and I did the exact same thing!

reply