Well... One could see this goofy, uneven, detached demeaner as a plus. Or at least, as an interesting accident, as Dylan obviously isn't an Actor. But then again, he's more than a bad actor. He's a very smart, very sensitive, bad actor in the right place. Somekind of a hapless witness, with whom we can bond, given the right amount of whisky. And the aura of the guy, the way one can't help but always know He Is Dylan, is a hell of a mountain to climb anyway. He's like a constant reminder of his music's authorship.
About that; Peckinpah wasobviously very mindfull of music and sound effects, and just for that nice addition, as you've, to me, understated it, the gig was worth it fotr old Bob...
Go for an 8, won't you?
By the way, I just can figure it out: is Kristoferson a bad, a fair, a good actor? He's perfect for the part, but still...
AND: One of Coburn's best.
A great film, really.
reply
share
tay-15
19 years ago
In a way I agree with both viewpoints. I thought Dylan was completely unconvincing, if not a distraction (the whole knife-throwing thing was preposterous). On the other hand, his music elevates an otherwise uneven Western.
Peckinpah was always one of my favorites, but to me this film doesn’t match his best. I can’t say exactly why, although I don’t put it all on Dylan. Maybe the disjointed narrative is just not that compelling. With this being said, there are enough interesting scenes and offbeat touches to make it worth watching. I find a lot of Coburn’s ornery dialogue hilarious.
Interesting point about Kristofferson. He’s so low key, it’s hard to tell. Frankly, it’s hard for me to separate his persona from some 70's dude, especially seeing him with Dylan and Rita Coolidge. Whereas Coburn seems like a character from the 1800s.
reply
share
19 years ago
[deleted]
RexDartEskimoSpy
18 years ago
Agreed completely, Dylan is only great at playing his unscripted self. He is a bit distracting in this due to his megastar status, but that doesn't necessarily make his appearance terrible. I agree with Destruit on all but one thing, which is what Peckinpah was trying to accomplish with Dylan's character. I like to think more along the lines of the men on the DVD's commentary track that Dylan is meant to be the chronicler of this story, the guy who will carry on Billy the Kid's legend after he's died. Particularly outstanding is the look he and Garrett exchanges in the final scene. The film's soundtrack could very well be more than just a soundtrack, but words from Alias himself and not just Bob Dylan.
There are several other flaws in this movie that bring it down much more than Dylan's performance. The biggest example would be Billy coming back and saving Paco and his daughter. After Paco's died, Billy just rides off and leaves the dead Paco and his nearly raped daughter there. As the commentators put it, it seems like an excuse to have Billy go back, but it doesn't need an excuse because the viewer already knows that he's going to go back. Other unnecessary scenes include the whores that Garrett stays with and the scene where Poe beats up Elisha Cook Jr.'s character, but of course without that scene we wouldn't see Elisha Cook Jr. or Dub Taylor.
Overall though, it's a great film.
"What's wrong with showing a guy getting his head cut off?" -Humphrey Bogart
reply
share
teejay6682
18 years ago
he didn't bother me. he even made me laugh after he killed the guy with the knife and giggled. he is a little distracting i guess but it's fine. it works.
reply
share