No one had a problem with this? Whether you like the movie or not, that was comical. It turned a decent scene into a farce. At the end, after Costner shoots the "one who shot their friend", he shoots at least six times, he then turns, same gun in hand, and shoots 9 more times in quick succession, using one hand to snap the hammer and the other to hold the trigger. Nine times in a row. It doesn't get worse than that. This isn't an 80s action movie.
shareWhich has happened in, say, 10,000 movies before this one.
share10,000? Name each one please. There's a difference between this movie and a mindless action movie or 50's western.
shareIt doesn't matter what the movie was on when it was made. This mistake has been done throughout film history. Of all the things to worry about...
shareLike I said, name one serious movie. You can't. Clearly you have no clue what scene I'm referring to, since it's not the regular flaw of gunfights occurring without reloading. If you're aware of the scene and think it relates to that common flaw, then there's no point debating it.
shareI agree with you, but that is an accepted western film cliché. "Butch Cassidy...Kid" was noted when it came out as a movie where guns were re-loaded. It probably wasn't the first.
The accepted cliché that I hate is the head bad guy not being killed as soon as possible for the sake of extending the gun fight (in this case for about 20 minutes.) If Wade had instructed Boss to kill Denton Baxter first, the other guys would have stopped and dropped their guns. They have no motivation to continue since the guy who writes their checks is dead.
Tom Cruise addressed this cliched in one of the Jack Reacher movies. The only good part.
BTW, "Appaloosa" would have ended at the 15 minute mark had this cliché not been followed.
[deleted]
It's funny you brought up that running to town scene. I've always hated that. It's as if it was supposed to create drama or suspense. It fails on both parts. It's simply odd. And pulls you right out of the movie. As for the shotgun blast, I just assumed the director doesn't know the difference between a shotgun and a rocket launcher.
shareGood points. Third acts are usually where films fail from a writing standpoint.
share.000 buck shot might throw someone like that, if the wood wasn't very thick that it had to penetrate. We've cut down large trees that we were target shooting against, after less than a dozen shots. Those shots went all the way through at 40 yds, and with a smaller gauge than .000 too. The scene is implausible, but not impossible.
shareI agree that I've seem many Western movies where I didn't see people reloading while seeming to shoot forever. I do like it when a guy has to stop and reload and hopefully not get dropped on. It's a simple rule of using this era of weapon, and it works for both sides. That's why these guys all wear bandolero style gun belts filled with bullets.
shareIt was ridiculous. OTOH, they did show them reloading a few times when the shot count was excessive but not ridiculous.
All in all, I really like this movie. The shootout and involvement of the terrified townspeople who were pushed too far is superb, but it IS a shame they could not avoid this worn-out bad cliché.
That's a majority, if not a large majority, of westerns.
shareThis is a movie tradition. Have you ever seen movies about 1930s gangsters when they're shooting Thompson automatic rifles for minutes on end? The largest magazine available for one of those machine guns, which held 100 rounds of ammunition, would have only lasted for about ten seconds of continuous firing. Just suspend your disbelief.
share