I expected more grit.
I'm not sure why, but the trailer left me with the impression that this would be similar in tone to Unforgiven or Open Range. By that standard I was disappointed.
Good performances all-around and a compelling plot, but the ending was anti-climactic at best.
6/10
With a 9" penis, comes great responsibility.share
nope. your one of few that appears to have bad tastes in movies. go figure.
shareFirst, is it really that hard to use capital letters?
Second, I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make. On the other hand, perhaps you're just a f_ck' wit trolling.
With a 9" penis, comes great responsibility.share
I couldn't figure out what this one was aiming for. Was it trying to be a rootin', tootin' shoot 'em up like 'Tombstone' or a deeper meditation on violence in the Old West like 'Unforgiven'? Neither was acheived and it did leave me with a 'that's it?' feeling. I love Mortensen, Harris, and Irons in their roles and it was well-made but it just didn't involve me as much as I hoped it would.
'Cause I'm Black you think I did it?
It was trying to be an adaptation of the book APPALOOSA. It succeeded. If you didn't like the movie you probably wouldn't have liked the source material, either. I liked the book; liked the movie, too.
shareDefinitely not underwhelmed at all. I rate this in my personal top 10 favorite movies.
I watched this solely because I'm a fan of Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris. I never did care for westerns. Appaloosa was a great movie. I was not familiar with the book or westerns in general and loved this movie. I have watched a lot of westerns like Wyatt Earp,Tombstone, Open Range after watching this movie and loved them but still rank Appaloosa higher. Great movie.
Jesus Christ is God
[deleted]
[deleted]
I was a little underwhelmed as well. I'm not sure what it was exactly, but this movie left me wanting more, but not in a bad way, and not really in a 'I'm desperate for a sequel' kinda way ... in another way, that I can't quite put my finger on.
I think I was expecting the movie to be something else, but not Unforgiven or Open Range. I was thinking more along the lines of Butch Cassidy - a feel good 'buddy' movie with heart and soul that really gets you invested in the characters. I felt this movie was almost there, but some things needed expanding on, and a little more focus was needed on the relationship between Virgil and Everett. Strangely enough, I went into this movie expecting it to be half an hour longer than what it actually was and thinking I would probably get bored, but came out thinking it was actually too short, and I would have been happy watching it for a while longer. Interestingly, Appaloosa is longer than Butch Cassidy, which I guess is saying something.
Viggo was the highpoint in this movie for me. I like Ed Harris, but Viggo embodied this true Western archetype and I could see him holding his own against the likes of 'The Man With No Name' or one of Sam Elliott's impossibly cool and iconically moushtached characters. Full props to Jeremy Irons and Lance Henriksen as well, but both are wonderful actors whose characters felt sadly underwritten (especially Henriksen's) in a movie dominated by it's two leads. It's kinda understandable, but at the same time you question why get someone like Jeremy Irons in a wasted role? Zellweger ruined everything for me as well. I don't hate her, but I look at that smug face and only ever see Bridget Jones, and Bridget Jones is someone who doesn't belong in a Western.
The ending could be seen as anti-climatic, I wouldn't generally agree, but I would say it was rushed. My real problem, however, is that I could never quite figure out why the film was called Appaloosa. Name of the town, sure, but most of the action took place elsewhere, and I think as a result the town didn't embody as much personality as the two main characters, when I think it needed to.
Still, it's one of the better Weserns of recent years. I just hope it isn't the swan song to a once great genre.
"You fill your days with creating worlds which have meaning and order because ours doesn't."
It sounds as if most of your problems with the film come from the fact that it was based on, and very closely follows, a book by Robert B. Parker of the same name (the first of a series of four that RBP completed before his death). Ed Harris fell in love with it and wanted to make a small film that was something of an homage to the classic Western, touched up for modernity. Many of the people in cast and crew were his friends or relatives, and the other actors worked for very little money. Jeremy Irons, for example, said that he took the role because he thought it might be his only chance to be in a western and didn't really care about the size of his part. He made more of his character than the book does, not surprising when you consider his abilities.
I liked the film better than the book, because the characters cried out for good actors to make them come alive. And no matter what anyone says about her looks, IMO RZ did a fine job and held her own with three terrific actors. If she were male, I doubt anyone would comment on how she looked. If you pay attention to her acting, it's just fine.
Probably about a 2/10. So many opportunities for the director (and star) to produce this film well but instead he settled - just like his character in the film. Perhaps Harris had trouble distinguishing from playing his character and playing director? The film started out okay but once Renee turned up it lost it's pace and added the distraction of Zellweger's face.
shareActing in an movie you're directing, and vice versa, poses special challenges that more than one great actor has failed to live up to. Case in point: the truly awful "Slipstream" (2007).
shareMore grit? Grit is overrated, and has been overdone in a lot of latter-day westerns. Grit has become tiresome. "Appaloosa" has just the right amount of grit. It's an excellent movie.
share