Anyone else feel this way?

bad script. part of starr's problem was that he was given bad lines. it felt like his part was added in after the fact. in fact, most of the conversations felt stilted or something. i know that ya gotta have SOME fistfights in a western, but in this thing, it was every couple of minutes. just my thought.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I agree somewhat, but enjoyed it earlier than OP did. I didn't really like the town part too much - particularly the fight in the Chinese restaurant. That was just too "TV Western." But I get the feeling that was something the studio wanted in there. The rest of the town stuff was setting up the story. Once they hit the trail, the movie begins for me. It really kicks in with the Hammonds camp introduction.

There are a couple moments on the trail when Scott says things like "unless I have to" regarding robbing the gold and betraying McCrea that tighten up the tension perfectly, as well as later on the way back when McCrea catches them and Scott says, "You'll pay hell doin' it." (or something similar)

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Anyone else feel that the first two thirds of the film, the first hour, was a bit cliched and 'normal' nothing special and then the last third, the last half hour, once they got out of the town was just five star stuff. The way the plot was so unpredictable, and the way that the shoot outs were done was just magnificent from Peckinpah, showing he can do the non-bloody stuff very well. I also thought in the first hour we didn't get much depth into the characters and the story was not particularly interesting, but then all that completely turned on it's head.

Joe T. demonstrates for me how after 47 years of being a Peckinpah fan, I'll still come across people whose appreciation fails to rise above the need for action and shootouts. Perhaps if he ever bothered to watch this entire film again (not just the last half-hour he enjoyed), he might manage to appreciate more of it the second time.

Not "much depth into the characters" in the first hour, "and the story was not particularly interesting?" Just the first 10 minutes of RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY offer clearer and more concise character development than we get from the entirety of most 21st-Century pictures. Before one word of dialogue, the first character to dominate the screen is an aging man astride a horse, riding down a Western street and surprised by what he takes for recognition and applause from townspeople. He modestly, graciously responds by touching the brim of his hat in return -- quickly embarrassed to realize that the crowd was not saluting his past as a respected lawman, but merely urging him to clear the street for a camel-versus-horses race that's in progress around the corner. Worse yet is when a uniformed cop rudely barks at him something like, "Out of the way, old-timer!" The first-time viewer doesn't know Steve Judd yet, but can still recognize the opening dust of contempt from changing times being kicked up over this traditional Western figure.

Then the brief dialogue between Steve Judd and Gil Westrum as they reconnect establishes (with beautiful economy) not only their shared past as longtime friends and former lawmen, but also their respective standards of honesty. Steve criticizes Gil's cheating against customers in his fairground sharpshooting booth and for conveying false claims about their past career in his advertising. Clearly stung, Gil hits back sharply with his observation that Steve looks like he's been riding a long time but not getting very far. The entire tragedy of these two friends reuniting with such conflicting moral views -- including Gil's intention to rob the gold that Steve will be guarding -- has been laid out right there, this early in the story.

Next, the beauty of the scene in the bank. Peckinpah gives us the detail of Judd carefully, surreptitiously snapping a loose thread from the edge of his shirt sleeve before someone might notice. Then to the bank president stating that they expected him to be a younger man, Steve politely but pragmatically replies, "I used to be. We all used to be." Then the pride of Steve retiring to the water closet to read over the bank's contract "in private" -- when we learn that what he actually wants is to conceal his need for reading glasses.

When I first saw this film at age 22, I absorbed the dramatic value of all these moments from just the first few minutes. People who don't, must be either still younger than I was then, or just the type of person who is too accustomed to the lack of subtlety that passes for characterization in modern movies.

And of course, even without reading books on Peckinpah, people now have the chance to learn from the DVD commentary track that the director rewrote all the dialogue in the HIGH COUNTRY script, even though he didn't receive screen credit. So understand that all the characterization imparted here through dialogue as well as action is also of Peckinpah's contribution.

Most great films deserve a more appreciative audience than they get.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I completely agree with Scopewatcher. Excellent post.

reply share

add reply

formatting help