I saw the movie Open Range last night. I've wanted desperately to see this movie for a long time. Maybe that added to my expectations being too high, but overall, I thought it was long and slow and...almost pointless. The cinematography was excellent. I liked all the characters. Although their acting was good, the fact that the pace and length of the film didn't move the story along became overbearing and borderline annoying - especially for Sue (Annette Benning's character). The odds of the two heroes winning the gunfight scene seemed more Hollywood than real. The best parts of the movie were when Robert Duvall and Kevin Costner ambushed the four hooded thugs in their camp at night, The chocolate bar scene, when they chlorophormed the guys in the jail, when I took a break to change Rachel's diaper, and when it was over.

Two other movies that look interesting that are/will be out there are Cold Mountain and Hidalgo. Did anyone see them?

Gina what did your show ticket cost?

I just bought a DVD of Open Range .... It cost $298.50 but they threw in a new 31" TV set.
I'll probably watch it tomarrow since no Foot Ball Game...
I'll let you know how I like it later.
MULE

Sorry, Gina--if you had asked me I could have told you this would not be your kind of movie. No offense intended, but it takes a pure Western fan to enjoy a movie like this. Costner purposely avoided moving it along like a common action flick, something for which I am grateful. Silverado (another Western) was an okay movie, for an action flick, but it was far from believable. I prefer my Westerns believable, as long as they have enough action to keep me interested. I would prefer a documentary, in fact, to such action drivel as Arnold Swarzanneger and Stallone are famous for.

To understand why the gunfight scene actually was believable, you have to understand the mentality of facing down real people with guns. Charlie had done this, and other than the lead gunman, whom he killed immediately to get him out of the way, it is unlikely any of the regular cowboys, or even the lawmen, ever had. Gunfights were not common in the West. Charlie already told Boss and the audience that he had killed people before, and that, in my mind, put him well ahead of the game. Lots of people like to talk big about how they would do in a gunfight. I have been there, and I can tell you that "brave" men run like scared rabbits and pee their pants when the lead starts to fly.

To me, and most fans of the Western, part of the charm of Open Range was the fact that it WAS a little slower moving, not the usual Hollywood fodder intended to keep teenagers from getting bored. The scenery alone should have been enough to keep any dyed in the wool nature love enthralled! A little dark for much of the movie, yes, but dark, gloomy days give a whole new perspective to country that sunshine can't manage.

There's my one cent worth. ASK me next time you're going to see a movie. I think I know you well enough to guess which ones you'll like. DON'T see Conagher or Hombre. These are two of the best Westerns ever made, in my opinion, but they are not something you would enjoy. To be honest with you, outside of Bonanza and perhaps Alias Smith and Jones, I don't think there are 1 percent of the Westerns ever made that you would enjoy. I hope you don't think I mean all this in a bad way. It's just not your cup of tea. There IS one thing that baffles me, and I'm almost afraid to ask this: how come you enjoy MY Westerns? The one thing I've heard from people in complaint is that my books are TOO DETAILED--(in other words, SLOW)! But don't answer this question if you don't want. If you enjoy my books, that's good enough for me.

Kirby

Kirby, that is just so not true! Dances with Wolves, Legends of the Fall and the Horse Whisperer were all long, slow, movies, but I thought they were terrific. Movies like those don't come along every day and that's why they win awards.

How many times did we have to see that same pan shot of Robert Duvall and Kevin Costner crossing the river to town on their horses? I think I counted four! And I don't think it was done as an artistic gesture to give it an epic feel of nature and the old west. In this movie, I think it was done to fill a time quota. And even though Kevin Costner was an army marxman, I'm still not completely convinced he could beat 20 hired guns. And even me, who doesn't know a thing about guns, thought it was a little odd that one of those shots could blow a man off his feet like an explosive bomb. Maybe it could at close range. What do I know? Eh. It made for a happy ending, anyway.

I think it's funny that you think I'm into shoot 'em up Schwarzenegger movies.

Anyway, my honest review of this movie was that Costner was trying to revive his ailing career with a repeat saga like Dances With Wolves, and it didn't deliver. But he still looks HOT in a pair of leather pants, if indeed, that wasn't a body double on that one close up shot. I noticed they didn't show his face there. And I have to admit, even his monotonous voice didn't bother me in this movie.

Mule, I hope you enjoy your new TV. Cool. Superbowl party at your house this year? Go Carolina!

Oh yeah, and while I'm on my soapbox...you always pinhole me into only liking Bonanza. Well, I admit that I think it was one of the greatest westerns ever, and apparently, so do millions of other people, because it's still aired on TV every single day over 40 years later!! In that respect alone, it gives me credibility in that I MUST have good taste in westerns!!! How's THAT for a supportive argument??! Hah! Go Gina, it's your birthday, go Gina, go Gina...(as I moonwalk across the floor) :)

What, no rebuttal??! I hope everyone knows Kirby and I are still friends. We just don't have the same taste in movies and he knows how to push my buttons :)

Anyway, I'd be curious to see what Paul thinks about this movie. He usually has insightful comments that I find myself agreeing with. Other people do, too, of course, but like I said, I often agree with Paul. One of these days, I'm gonna take Kirby's advice, and not watch a movie he likes :)

OPEN RANGE was really good. I thought the odds at the end were a bit of a reach, but as Kirby said once real bullets start coming your way perspectives have a way of changing, and suddenly twenty to two ain't all that much. Twenty actually can be a disadvantage in a running battle, and once the dirt bag was dispatched the numbers were on their heels real fast. The first thing you learn in tactics is that you always attack...never stand or retreat from an ambush of any kind. There is always a way to attack...if you live long enough.

As far as knocking guys off their feet, that is from the muzzle velocity of the weapon. One of things that was worrisome in Viet Nam was the muzzle velocity of the M14 and M16 rifles. It was such that an enemy could continue another 25 yards before his brain got the message that he was unable to continue. A man can do a lot of damage in 25 yards. The M1 from WW II had less muzzle velocity than its successors, but terrific stopping power. You got hit with an M1 you weren't going very far. You sorta parked it where you were...if you were still breathing.

I just came from seeing HIDALGO. A very enjoyable movie. One bad line didn't spoil it...in the shiek's tent the "cowboy lingo" seemed inappropriate for one line that Viggo uttered...if you haven't seen it I won't spoil it, but the movie was enjoyable and the line easily overlooked. Viggo was perfect in the part..very believable. A new western star is born, and I hope we see more of him in boots and spurs.

CONAGHER was a very good movie as was SILVERADO, but trying to compare the two would be like trying to explain the difference between a Honda Shadow like I ride and an F150 Ford Pickup like my buddy drives. They're both motor vehicles, both are good transportation, both are a good ride, and its the same wind blowing across the front of them, but my oh my what a difference.