Open Range...Discussion

I see there was already an Open Range thread started under the "Upcoming Movies" forum, but I couldn't find any current discussions now that the film has been released. If I'm wrong, sorry for this duplicate thread. Someone please direct me to the correct place for discussion.

In the mean time:

First of all, I'll start off by saying I really liked this film. When it becomes available to buy, I will be purchasing.

Regarding Costner:

Costner seems to be like a roller coaster. I'm not a HUGE fan of Costner, and by no means feel the need to defend him, but I've really liked some of his films, while others I could do without. He seems to get knocked as being flat with not much range. Whatever the critisism, he not only plays his part in Open Range very convincingly, but he does a terrific job directing. Although Dances with Wolves will probably go down as his most critically acclaimed film, Open Range should follow as a close second.

Regarding Duvall:

Duvall makes this film a success more than any other factor in the film. There will, no doubt, be comparisons to his role in "Lonesome Dove," which is one of the best western characters on film (even though it was made for TV). Because of the acclaim he received for that role, I think the institutions that recognize such performances will nominate him for his role in Open Range, as well. If they don't, it would be a huge injustice.

Regarding the story:

It seems that a lot of popular films these days play on the theme of revenge. I believe this to be a very shallow theme, but my guilty pleasures enjoy it very much. Unforgiven, The Patriot, Gladiator, and Braveheart are just a few of the films that played off this theme, and I own everyone of them. The theme of Open Range certainly involves revenge, and like the other films mentioned above, no matter how shallow that theme, it most definitely has a way of building suspense as the audience prepares for justice.

The climax of this film left me satisfied, and there were some very unique, original, and memorable moments and lines that Costner should be recognized for. However, the climax also involved some things that seemed very "Hollywood," but once again, my guilty pleasures enjoyed them.

The story also avoided falling into the trap of using humor or comedy relief to hook an audience's affection. When Costner and Duvall's characters delivered comedic lines, they were natural and seemed to have purpose in developing their characters and relationships (example: the chocolate bar and cigar scenes; fancy tea set handles being too small for their fingers; Costner/Duvall discussing how they're like an old married couple).

Complaints:

As I said earlier, I really enjoyed this film, so my complaints are minor and won't detract from my enjoyment of this film in future viewings. From the beginning of the climax to the end of the film seemed to take too long. Costner's character's love for Benning's character seemed one-sided. He didn't do anything to win her love. He was attracted to her, acted like a gentleman, professed his love, and claimed his past made him unworthy. This part of the story was weak, in my opinion, as I had no strong concerns that they might not get together at the end of the film. I had no feelings one way or the other regarding their relationship. Benning's love for Costner seemed to be of the "He-loves-me-and-I'm-getting-old/Maybe-this-is-my-last-chance" type of love (if there is such a genre of love ).

Thoughts? Comments?

__________________
NEW (as of 1/24/05): Quick Reviews #10

I saw this a few days back and was very happy. It was a VERY good movie. My only complaint was the love story. It felt kind of....well.....I didn't really mind it that much, but it didn't do anything for the film. The direction was great, the acting was great, and the final battle was one of the most wonderfullly vicious ones that I've seen in a western.

On revenge....I too feel that it can be a very shallow theme to base a movie on. Not always though, as evidenced in a few of the films you listed above (but in particular Unforgiven). I feel that when handled correctly, and revenge movie can have just as much depth as any other film.

I like really Open Range BTW.

__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

I agree with Beale. I thought the love story was forced and extremely unecessary. If they had just left hints that those 2 could love each other I would have been much happier. But MY GOD!! that final battle. The sound from those guns has to be the best I have ever heard in a movie. If this doesn't get nominated for any awards because of that I will be seriously upset.

__________________

I'm with you there!

Great Review Mark

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I've never cared for Costner's acting when he is the director, and this is no exception. I thought the movie was decent enough. I wish it was faster paced, but it wasn't bad. The gunfight was very cool.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

Now that it's out on DVD, what do you guys think?

I bought the DVD the day it came out, and I watched it last night on the digital projector (8' wide screen). I liked it even more the second time.

I finally had a chance to watch Open Range and enjoyed it... even though it seemed a bit drawn out at times (the fade to black pauses only added to that)… and the story was a bit familiar since many of the older westerns dealt with the range wars… however, it was interesting to see the conflict from the other side of the fence… so to speak.

Costner’s portrayal of the strong silent character, hiding from his past, was solid… but Duvall just shined… his performance conjured up visions of what the old cowboy legends are made of and at first, I thought his performance was what held the film together… and in one way it did, but after thinking about it, so did the chemistry between Costner and Duvall… the affection and respect their characters displayed toward each other was not only believable, but was what drew you in and made you care about what actually happened to them… and the love that grew between Costner and Benning’s characters added the last little ingredient needed to glue it all together (even though it was a little rushed)…

I think the major problem I had with the whole film was the ethnic labeling of the bad guy and I fail to understand why Hollywood continually feels a need to do this… all cultures have bad people.

__________________

Are you making this statement because the film is easily compared to Unforgiven, which also had an Irish bad guy? (or was he British in Unforgiven?)

No, it has more to do with my irritation over Hollywood’s habit of stereotyping more then anything… I’ll re-watch to make absolutely sure, but the main bad guy was the only one I really noticed who gave more then a vague idea of where they were from…

I saw it in the theater, and then I bought the DVD. Robert Duvall is one of my favorites.

I liked the fact that Annette Bening did not look like she had gotten 10 face lifts. She looked her age, and she was very pretty.

__________________
Jim Lewis
To BE or Not to BE, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Barium Enema
Crouching Tiger, Paint Your Wagon - Forums

Open Range is a good movie, the sound during the end battle was amazing. The DVD is yet to be released in Australia. What are the extras like? Worth watching or a pile of rubbish?

__________________

I let a friend borrow my DVD, so I'm going by memory regarding the special features. Costner gives solo commentary throughout the film. It's a lot like his commentary for Dances with Wolves. He talks a lot about the history of the open range. There's a making of documentary that is broken up into sections that you can watch individually or all together. I found it interesting. There's a documentary about the history of the late 1800s west of the Mississippi River.

I didn't find the special features to be "rubbish," but nothing stood out as being amazingly interesting (other than the movie, itself).