MovieChat Forums > Open Range (2003) Discussion > Ridiculous...

Ridiculous...

posted 14 years ago by Degree7
27 replies | jump to latest

Apart from Kevin Costner just about hamming up every scene he gave himself (I can't stand actor/director/screenwriting "auteurs", reminds me too much of Kenneth Branagh) we get one of the most bland, uninspiring heroines to grace a silver screen, and an absolutely wasted Robert Duvalle.

Not to mention the laughable gunfights, people being blown away by gunfire every which way and that. I can't decide what's more inane, Costner pumping off 12+ shots into a guy with his 'six shooter', or Duvalle blowing a hole in a barn wall with his shotgun and launching a guy several feet into the air to collide with a wall.

Lovin' those Hollywood physics.

We all got balls and brains. But some's got balls and chains.

[–] jpmkam 14 years ago

Ridiculous you mean like your post. BTW, it's Robert Duvall not Duvalle.

[–] Degree7 14 years ago

So the reason my post is 'ridiculous' is because I put an E on the end of Mr. Robert's name?

Go soak your head.

We all got balls and brains. But some's got balls and chains.

[–] jpmkam 14 years ago

No everything in your reasoning is ridiculous, now go soak your head.

[–] Degree7 14 years ago

Jesus H. Do you pop a nut to this movie every night before bed time or are you just acting like a big, ugly Troll for the Hell of it?

Either way, back up your arguments.

We all got balls and brains. But some's got balls and chains.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Degree7 14 years ago

So because I criticize a movie I am liable to be insulted?

That's just... silly. People are just mad that there is reasoning as to why this is a bad movie.

I said I never had much use for one....never said I didn't know how to use it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Degree7 14 years ago

There are things like that in EVERY movie.

Not quite as glaring, or noticeable, in what is supposed to be a gritty and climactic gunfight, the pinnacle of the film. Yeah right, homage my ass, it's simply to keep the audiences entertained bereft of subtly. Costner fires a total of SEVENTEEN shots from his revolver without reloading. Now... what he *beep* is that? WHAT THE *beep* IS THAT?

As for the acting, it's hard to argue this, but I found the performances wooden and the love story very... hackneyed? Oh no, not the right word... er, contrived and silly. Just like ever Costner movie except for Waterworld and DWW.

Add to that, just what the hell was Robert Duvall* doing in this movie other than uttering lame contrivances to create "character conflict" with Costner's?

"We came for justice not vengeance"

"Step ASIDE!"

(cue dramatic music)

"Damnit, this isn't the way!"

etc. Pretty hokey homage if you ask me (oh, but that was the point, right?)

Scenery I can agree on, it's a beautiful 'looking' film, but little substance to back it up.

I said I never had much use for one....never said I didn't know how to use it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mezwestrope 14 years ago

"I said I never had much use for one....never said I didn't know how to use it." Quigley Down Under...now there's a great western

What is YOUR final destination in this journey through life?

[–] artistathome 14 years ago

Hey, OP, wake up. This is a MOVIE... it ain't real life.

It's called entertainment. Go soak your head like someone else said.

[–] guy48065 14 years ago

Physiology not physics. It's not the physics of a bullet (or 2 loads of buckshot from a double-barreled shotgun) ripping through a human body that instantly kills--it's the shock to the nervous system & pulverizing of the organs. If that doesn't do it then the bleed-out will. It's the shock that flips the victim, not the impact of a 240 grain bullet.

[–] SnoozeAlarm 11 years ago

>>> Hey, OP, wake up. This is a MOVIE... it ain't real life

Just because it is not real life does not mean that if a person finds aspects of a movie unrealistic it is not legitimate to point it out.

People who make movies go through great effort to make it appear realistic -- that is one of the main aspects of movie-making, so if a movie fails in this regard, then it is appropriate to point that out.

I'm not stating my opinion one way or the other on this movie, but rather I'm disagreeing with this poster's approach to watching film in general.

I cried because I had no shoes üntil I met a man with no sole. ~ Ancient Disco Proverb

[–] JoeJanuaryII 14 years ago

Actually, Open Range had one gunfight (not gunfightS) and it deserves some props because it's likely the only western that doesn't use sound effects for the gunshots. Duvall was not in a barn when he fired and a shotgun will shoot through a wall and still throw you. Plus, you're embellishing how far the impact threw the man he shot and Costner reloaded his pistols at least twice during the gunbattle. Seems to me like you just didn't want to like the movie from the second it began since your complaints don't quite have the facts right.
Hollywood's physics were never a part of this film.

[–] Degree7 14 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7t9OHJvXko

Open Range had one gunfight (not gunfightS

There were multiple gun fights. The first one starts in the street, the second one starts with the final showdown in front of the store. Just because it all happens in one long 15 minute climax doesn't just make it one big one.

and Costner reloaded his pistols at least twice during the gunbattle

NO. I posted the link at the top for the gun battle. Between 00:36 and 00:57, Costner fires between 14 and 15 shots from his weapon. That is just plain ridiculous.

Duvall was not in a barn when he fired and a shotgun will shoot through a wall and still throw you. Plus, you're embellishing how far the impact threw the man he shot

At 04:30 in the video, Duvall shoots through a BARN wall with a double barrelled shotgun. The man on the other side is propelled 8-9 feet at least. He would have gone further had he not collided with the wall.

"A bullet or even shotgun blast simply does not have enough momentum to propel a victim violently backwards."

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/mpmain.html

your complaints don't quite have the facts right.

My complaints have the facts fine.

I said I never had much use for one....never said I didn't know how to use it.

[–] iamdoingthat 14 years ago

This reminds me of an interview with John Woo given a long time ago where he was discussing how confused he was with Americans' obsession with reloading. His quote was along the lines of "Why do Americans want to see people reloading? It's boring!"

Anyway, physics aside, I too thought that this was Costner's best movie. I thought the entire movie was an homage, so the reluctant hero with a dark past, the sagacious old rancher, beautiful (in many ways) spinster, explosive gunfight, were all done in good taste.

[–] Degree7 14 years ago

Wasn't John Woo the same cat who made Mission Impossible II and Windtalkers?

WINDTALKERS!

I said I never had much use for one....never said I didn't know how to use it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JoeJanuaryII 14 years ago

I guess I should stand corrected. But I won't because your bias is still showing. Something tells me you don't put this kind of research into you movies you like. And back off on John Woo. He directed a lot more films than those mentioned. Check out Hard Boiled, The Killer, A Better Tomorrow Parts 1 and 2 just for starters. Just because you read it on a website, doesn't make it gospel. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you watch films just to find mistakes, that's just *beep*

[–] Degree7 14 years ago

I can assure you I didn't actively search for any mistakes in this film... at least... not until I watched it a second time.

And I know John Woo's famous for his Eastern cinema at all, but hey, his opinion isn't gospel either, right?

I said I never had much use for one....never said I didn't know how to use it.

[–] JoeJanuaryII 14 years ago

Fair. But I'd still respect his opinion on anything film related more than yours. And I would trust you would think more of his opinion since he's been there and done it more times than you and I ever will. Well, you for sure. And one more thing about Open Range. Did you not notice Costner's packing two revolvers? That gives him twelve shots before he has to reload. It's cool you're into watching films that you don't like more than once. But like I said, your bias is still showing.

[–] Degree7 14 years ago

Doesn't matter he's packing two because he still fires that impossible number of shots from the same gun.

And I must give you credit for this...

But I'd still respect his opinion on anything film related more than yours. And I would trust you would think more of his opinion since he's been there and done it more times than you and I ever will.

The ultimate pan-argument-stopper.

I said I never had much use for one....never said I didn't know how to use it.

[–] Nikon11 14 years ago

I've never once counted the shots in a movie.

Maybe it's time that you stop worrying about little shyt like that.

[–] Degree7 14 years ago

It's the little things that add up.

I said I never had much use for one....never said I didn't know how to use it.

[–] justmeetee 14 years ago

*beep* I have to count the bangs next time I watch this

signature must be fewer then 100 characters in length

[–] ta2me92704 10 years ago

Doesn't matter he's packing two because he still fires that impossible number of shots from the same gun.

What the OP does not know or understand, is that is a deliberate homage to early serial westerns. It is talked about on DVD commentary.

Much ado about nothing...

My ignore list is much too long (~700) for a sig line. Do not assume you are not on it.

[–] liscarkat (18373) 4 years ago

A six-shot revolver cannot be fired sixteen times without reloading, and a man hit by a gunshot does not fly through the air. I know these things are true, yet being an experienced film watcher, I enter a state known as "suspension of disbelief" that allows me to witness these age-old traditions of movie making and enjoy the film anyway. I do the same when I go to the opera or the ballet. People don't really sing all the time, or leap and spin through life, but these are conventions and traditions of the art forms. I accept them and enjoy the story and the manner in which it is told. If I insisted that every last detail of a movie was absolutely accurate, there would probably not be a single movie I could like. What a sad existence that would be!