MovieChat Forums > Appaloosa (2008) Discussion > What a DREADFUL Screenplay

What a DREADFUL Screenplay

posted 15 years ago by film_ophile
81 replies | jump to latest

Don't bother being nasty with me. If you like the film, go play with the many others who agree with you on this board. It's the potential Apaloosa viewers that i am trying to warn.

I have not voted a '4 out of 10' in many years. The screenplay was absolutely dreadful; the plot flat and predictable, the acting awkward and wooden.This is one of the very rare occasions when I am horrified by Roger Ebert('3 stars'.) I have been admirers of ed, viggo and renee for years; I feel they are all very talented.
ed and viggo's work together in A History of Violence was compelling and amazing .As ed was both the screenwriter and the director, I'm now thinking that my previous assumption that ed harris is very smart- is far from correct. I actually feel quite naive; now I'm seeing that being a brilliant actor doesn't mean being intellectually brilliant.

Anyway, I don't know how to warn you further. I'm tempted to say if you are a sophisticated film goer, do NOT bother with this film. And yet, with all the positives it has rcvd on this board (in addition to roger ebert)there are surely sophisticated viewers who have liked it. I guess all I can say is
"Go figure."

Ad hoc, Ad loc, Quid pro queeee,
So little time and so much to see

[–] ticklemejoker 15 years ago

horrendous film. will never understand the appreciation for it. even the acting from such good actors was amaturish at best. unreal how laughable this was for me as i watched it. unreal.

Halfblood #911

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] samantha3 14 years ago

Interesting that some folks come to a site simply to lay the egg of their dislike and then go away. What's the point? If you dislike it, and say why, there might be something to talk about. Or if you are a major celebrity and want everybody to know what you think, that's maybe a reason to come and sneer. But otherwise...?

A puzzlement.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] samantha3 14 years ago

Gosh, you really didn't like it, did you? No point in trying to argue those points, not without specific examples. I didn't see any of those things. Neither did the critics who named it one of their "10 best" of the year, or the people who gave it the awards it received. Most of the folks who visited here to make negative comments were so mesmerized by Renee Zellweger's looks that they couldn't talk about anything else.

But if you didn't like it, then you didn't. No accounting for tastes, after all.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] samantha3 14 years ago

Well, that isn't really a criticism of the film, is it, that RZ looked "horrible"? Not unless you go to films just to see her look pretty. Did you notice that she held her own with three very fine actors?

But if you don't want to say, just register that you hated it, then why refer people to your "vote history" as if it mattered? Nothing for discussion? I don't see the point.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] black_derby_80 14 years ago

i'm currently reading the book, and plan on re-watching the film this evening, after i've finished the book. understand that i have narcolepsy, which makes watching any film which is slow-paced or has a long running time difficult in one sitting, so i often watch a movie several times within the span of a week. yet i can burn through books quicker than a hummer through a gallon of gas. attribute that one to developing my reading habits early in life, before morpheus folded his arms around me.
anyhow, i digress; the book and the film match up pretty closely. here's my perspective on it: hitch is the narrator, from whose point of wiew the story is told (in first person in the book, and as close as one can get in the film, if memory serves), but is NOT the main character. that would be virgil cole. the pacing is dead-on, slow, but not plodding. it reflects fairly well the pace of life in 1882, i think. consider, the average speed of travel was the average walking speed of a horse. not much faster than a man, really, maybe six or seven miles an hour? not being a horseman, i am unsure...
so, while it isn't a flashy, shoot-em-up film, the screenplay is accurate to the source material, unlike such films as 'i, robot', or 'starship troopers'... the only two examples i can think of off the top of my head. and for the record, i liked 'starship troopers', when considered separately from the novel.
the original post, here, btw, does not much address the screenplay.
on the acting, one might think about the characters in the novel. cole and hitch are very introverted, cole much more so than hitch. the acting reflects the script, and the book, quite well.

------------
"is this dangerous?"
"not clinically."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bilwick1 14 years ago

No, actually, the book was very good, like the movie. Fast pace (like most of Parker's fiction), good action, reasonable aunthenticity, and witty dialogue. Of course, the book lacked pictures, so probably a lot of the Dumbest Generation posters who have seemingly come to dominate IMDB message boards in the past few years probably wouldn't like it.

That is, if they could steel themselves to read a book.

[–] tstraton 14 years ago

It was a very good film. Yes lord yes, well worth watching. A damn good new slant on westerns. If you didn't like it then you don't like most westerns. So go watch 3:10 TO YUMA again and leave me alone. Good nite all you Troll Holes, I bid you farewell and thanks for the negative, self-righteous vibes you drag around in your wacked brain pan all the time!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] black_derby_80 14 years ago

i find myself wondering what you consider good pacing, or inspired filmmaking...
and it is clearly NOT uninspired. there is a book, which Ed Harris apparently read. then he was INSPIRED to write a script and shoot a movie.
if you do actually attempt to read a western, go for Cormac McCarthy's 'Blood Meridian'. if it isn't too much of a challenge for you, it might just have enough blood and savagery to satisfy you....

------------
"is this dangerous?"
"not clinically."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bilwick1 14 years ago

"LOL at the kiddies telling me i don't know what a good Western is."

Note: "the kiddies." What a tool.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bilwick1 14 years ago

"uh oh. that makes me feel five years old all over again."

I don't know about the "all over again." Mentally, juding by your posts here and on other message boards, you seem to be five years old all the time.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] black_derby_80 14 years ago

hmm... you've named three good ones there, no doubt. though if you'd substituted 'wyatt earp' for 'tombstone', i might suspect an unhealthy fascination with kevin costner...
i'd be inclined to say that 'the outlaw josey wales' is the greatest western ever made, had i seen them all. it is certainly my favorite. others i love are unforgiven, young guns (both of them), the quick and the dead (the sam raimi one,) mcclintock!, big jake, and the war wagon. it may seem cliched to rattle off a bunch of john wayne films, but it's part of what i grew up on.

------------
"is this dangerous?"
"not clinically."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] okky-1 11 years ago

I couldn't agree more. The script made me cringe as did the woeful acting. Nothing new was bought to this genre. It was like someone took a 1950's western and roughed it up a little. I would imagine this would appeal to youngsters who do not know about movie making and have never seen this cardboard cutout plot regurgitated for the millionth time in just about every genre there is. The only part I enjoyed was the fact the semi wholesome/world weary love interest was pretty much a whore and made no apologies for it.Something original at least.

[–] MartianTom 11 years ago

I agree with the OP. Dreadful screenplay, and bad performances. A real let-down considering the quality people gathered together to make it.

The answer is never the answer. What's really interesting is the mystery.

[–] jaymar52 11 years ago

This film is essentially a remake of the much superior "Warlock" released in 1959. Harris and Mortensen play the roles that had been filled far better by Fonda and Quinn. It's a decent little movie in it's own right and would have been a great original screenplay but it was done so much better 40 years earlier and can't really stand the comparison. Especially as the original had the great Richard Widmark as well. A wonderful actor. On top of that Deforest Kelly prior to his star ship days played an evil so and so with a heart. Still Appaloosa is fine for a wet afternoon or quiet evening.

[–] samantha3 11 years ago

Nice that you think WARLOCK was better.

I don't.

And this film is made almost scene for scene from a book by Robert B. Parker, author of the Spencer series among others. It's unlikely that, given the similarity to other characters RBP created, and his ability to write a sufficiently original story every time he sat down at his computer, that he was doing any plagiarizing.

The similarity of and differences between the two films was discussed here a long time ago. But they were different, as people agreed at the time. And IMO the more modern film is by far the better.

But hey, you're entitled to think it isn't.

[–] jaymar52 11 years ago

Well as you can see samantha I am a new member and so was not around a long time ago when you had your discussions about the similarities and differences between the two movies. Hope us newbies aren't expected to trawl through all the old posts to make sure we aren't duplicating something. That would be tiresome. Thanks for telling me what I'm entitled to think. I'm sure all your friends and acquaintances must live in awe of such a benevolent character.

[–] samantha3 11 years ago

"Thanks for telling me what I'm entitled to think. I'm sure all your friends and acquaintances must live in awe of such a benevolent character."

Why so touchy? It was a simple, friendly comment. It had nothing to do with the fact that you were posting old news; people do that all the time on the boards. I was sinply explaining why you might not get a rush of replies.

Of course, I AM a benevolent character, and the awe and wonder of all my friends. Otherwise I might respond to your snitfulness the way some people on the boards do, with insults and invective. Instead of just saying that some people disgreed with you, back when it was discussed, and that you are entitled to your opinion but may not get a lot of interest.

[–] jaymar52 11 years ago

Ta Sam. You touched me.

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

And this film is made almost scene for scene from a book by Robert B. Parker, author of the Spencer series among others. It's unlikely that, given the similarity to other characters RBP created, and his ability to write a sufficiently original story every time he sat down at his computer, that he was doing any plagiarizing.

Absolutely!! Parker initially worked on the screenplay with Harris. Yes, I love the story and the movie itself, but what I don't get are posters saying it's a remake of Warlock. There are some similarities, but lots of westerns have similarities to other westerns. It almost comes with the genre.

BTW the book from which the movie is adapted is the first of a quadrilogy. Are supposed to believe Parker plagiarized the other 3 stories too?