Above average/complex Western plot. Good music, good 'vibe', great cast and AMAZING cinematography.
It was panned when released - and the only real think I can think of was Sharon Stone, coming so close after Sliver and The Specialist.... who btw is sooooo hot in this .
Also it was panned for ripping/homaging Leone etc............ which is odd, cause now Tarantino is lauded for doing the exact same.
I always really enjoy watching this film. I think Hackman makes an absolutely superb villain and, though it is very much a homage to Leone (even something of a parody of his style), I find it very entertaining and well done. I also think it's a nice change to see a woman as the main protagonist and not just eye candy for the hero and the male audience. And as a bonus, Russell Crowe is bloody hot as Cort - love the pun of his name!
shareI love this movie. Have seen it many times and it only seems to get better. I think it is one of Hackman's best performances. Plus the cast was well rounded and I agree about the cinematography.
Plus the Blu-Ray transfer is OUTSTANDING. It's only a shame that the disc has no bonus features. Would have liked a commentary, a behind the scenes, etc..
I agree. This movie deserves more than a 6.4 IMO. It had a really good cast, good character development and suspense. I suppose it is a bit predictable though.
shareWhat do you mean by "Why the hate?"
share[deleted]
I agree it's a better film than the ratings would indicate.
I suspect the bad ratings were bias against Stone and the fact that it's an unconventional and stylized Western that threw people off who were expecting something like one of the more traditional revival Westerns like Silverado or Tombstone.
Tarantino does have a unique style but I think Django owes a debt to this film.
This film still looks fresh 20 years later. Sam Raimi blamed himself for the film's failure, but his direction is really exciting IMO and yes, Tarantino does owe a debt to this film.🐭
shareA Few Spoilers Below
It has some nice visuals/cinematography, but the reasons I'm not terribly impressed with the movie:
- all of the plot elements have been done many, many times before (Pat Hingle must have set a record for the number of times he's played that same role!)
- some of the dialog could have been much better - for example when Herod says "you're not fast enough for me," and she says "I am today," she should have simply responded: "We'll see." Why announce what's going to happen?
- how many times can Gene Hackman play that over-the-top evil role and be believable?
- I don't think Stone is all that convincing in the role, maybe because...
- the serious story about Stone's tragedy as a child leading her to the story in the movie is undermined by all of the extremely-hokey imitations of Clint Eastwood's characters in the Sergio Leone westerns, from her terse monotonal speech and faux-cynical mannerisms to those ridiculous little cigars.
I think what it comes down to for me is that all of the parody and imitation of the Sergio Leone westerns takes away from the believability of the serious plot elements and suspense about what happens to the protagonist. I guess it just didn't work as a serious story for me.
My real name is Jeff
Who knows? Sometimes movie critics act like the Walkers from the Walking Dead - they grab something without thinking and proceed to eat it alive!!!
share