Entre la vida y la muerte

Appaloosa as a western is okay, as a movie its okay, but as a character study it's great. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen are two of the most underrated actors (not stars) in Hollywood. Viggo should have had two or three Oscars by now. His rendition of Everett Hitch made the whole movie more than worthwhile. He's a man of little words but great thought. He also an observant man, of things and people. He's loyal but with practicality. He knows what the two of them do and why they do it and he know enough about Virgil not to step on his toes. But he also knows when to say what he as to say and leave it at that. I'm never that impressed by Renee Zellweger but in this movie she sort of fit in. 7/10

Many in Hollywood believe the western is dead, but every couple of years or so along comes a new western to breathe life into the old standbys: OPEN RANGE, 3:10 TO YUMA, and of course TV's DEADWOOD. APPALOOSA is such a film that follows a typical storyline as a couple of lawmen battle an outlaw gang in a small town.

It's the kind of story that's been done hundreds, if not thousands, of times. But the strength of APPALOOSA lies not in the plotting but the script, which is alive with warmth and humour. Harris plays a borderline maniac with a quick trigger finger, Mortensen his more reasoned companion who favours his brain over his heart. Both actors exude quiet menace and are quite brilliant in the parts.

Unfortunately there's a problem further down the cast list: namely Renee Zellweger as a love interest. I don't understand where Zellweger's popularity comes from, because I think she's awful, and nowhere more so than here. Still, the casting director makes up for it with a couple of meaty roles for veteran actors Jeremy Irons and Lance Henriksen.

Harris wrote the screenplay, produced and directed the film. His love shows in the finely-crafted screenplay and the expert direction, which invests the occasional action scene with flair and life. My only complaint with the story is the ending, which is a little muted. But that's APPALOOSA all over: it's a film about people living life in the West rather than a shoot-em-up flick. I liked it.

I saw Appaloosa last night. Absolutely fantastic. Whether it is because he is a bit older I don't know, but Ed Harris obviously actually understands westerns.

A straightforward western tale with very little revisionism, with real men doing "what men have to do". The sense of space, the wish to be part of civilization, the bad men resisting that encroachment, the sense of the mythic; it was all there.

A little bit more modern in approach than a classic 50's tale, particularly in how Renée Zellwegger's character developed, but a real story nevertheless; good guys, bad guys. Jeremy Irons is very good as the baddie. Timothy Spall is good comic relief and Ed Harris and Vigo Mortensen a terrific pair, carefully nurturing their relationship while understanding exactly what they have to do.

The pace was very good, allowing the story and character to develop properly. Even so, it could have and should have been shorter - John Ford, or more likely Anthony Mann would have got through this story in about 90 minutes, but very satisfying nevertheless.

Costner did a pretty good job on Open Range (that was really miles too long), 3:10 to Yuma was pathetic (why they bothered to remake it when the makers so totally misunderstood the thrust of the original I will never know).

But this was the real deal, or at least as near to the real deal as we are ever likely to get nowadays. Too bad it will disappear without a trace.

In the old West, two men ride into a small town to establish some law and order. This is a leisurely paced Western and it's quite enjoyable for the most part, but sort of runs out of steam about two-thirds of the way through. It is mostly a character study, with much time spent on low-key exchanges between Harris and Mortensen as the two lawmen, with some of the scenes reminiscent of "My Darling Clementine." Not that it's anywhere close to being as good as that classic. Zellweger seems like a curious choice to play a woman who arrives in town and strikes up a romance with Harris. She just looks out of place in a Western. It's not a bad second effort for Harris behind the camera.

I like Westerns. I am of an age where I remember when they dominated movies and TV as CSI shows do now. With so few being made, I almost always give them a look.

This is an Ed Harris project (starring, directed, adapted by) but the key character and best performance was given to and by Viggo Mortensen. The movie breaks no new Western ground (can there be?), but gives a sharp, well photographed focus of the old West. Buddies were buddies and had each others' back, baddies were baddies and justice was hired by townfolk living in fear. While Harris and Mortensen are not true white hats, they lean on the side of justice, and get paid pretty well for it. Jeremy Irons and crew run roughshod over Appalossa, kill city Marshals and are just no good. Will Justice prevail!?

But enter Renee Zellwinger in what looks like it's going to be the traditional "school marm" role. She sets a different chemistry in motion and Harris and Mortensen's lives are spun around. Here is the film's BIG FLAW!!! A grating, preening, unconvincing, painful, cupie doll, horror of a performance by Zellwinger almost kills the proceedings. Her scrunchy face, maddening giggle and coyness were like fingernails..........!

Whew! But the filming, dialogue, a few twists (gunfighting no longer includes a "quick draw") keep things interesting. A note about the dialogue and character relationships. The adapted book was by Robert B. Parker of "Spencer" (and later "Jesse Stone") fame. I felt a strong twinge of Spencer and Hawk in these character. That's not a bad thing.