Monte Walsh (2003)

Monte Walsh

Obligation fulfilled!  As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, I promised my mother I would review the trio of Westerns Tom Selleck made for TNT in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  The result was a bit mixed.  Last Stand at Saber River really wasn't that great, though it certainly had its moments, while Crossfire Trail was much better, though still not a classic.  But what these Westerns revealed to me was that the genre is not dead.  The films were well-reviewed and performed quite well in the ratings, and proved that if you put some work into it, people still love a good ol' fashioned Western, especially if you put someone like Tom Selleck in the saddle.

And now we have the third and final film in the trio: Monte Walsh.  Monte Walsh is a cowboy at the turn of the century, but times are changing.  Civilization is coming to the Wild West.  Railroads are now the primary method of traveling.  More and more of the open range is being fenced in by corporations every year.  It is clear that the age of the cowboy is ending.  Will Monte Walsh be able to change with the times, or just end up as a dinosaur in a world of automobiles and Wild West Circuses?

At first, I was a bit disappointed by this movie because not much happens and it is depressing.  Maybe too bleak.  But as I settled into it, I realized this was unlike any other Western I've seen.  This isn't about everything you would expect a Western to be about.  This isn't even about 'progress' and 'civilization,' which we've seen in dozens of Westerns.  Monte Walsh is about how 'progress' affects those who lived and thrived in the earlier world.  Cowboys don't know how to do anything except cowboy.  But given that times are a'changing, there is no work.  A few of the best like Monte find work on a ranch, but most of these former giants of the range are reduced to wandering the horizon, endlessly looking for any sort of job.  This is a bleak, bleak movie and really shows what people can be reduced to in tough economic times, whether it is in the 1890s or today.  And as the film finished, I had to tip my hat to a production well done and to a point well made about the passing of an age, and all the coolness we lost when those days ended.

Monte Walsh is well directed by Simon Wincer, who also directed Crossfire Trail, as well as the classic TV miniseries Lonesome Dove.  His skilled hand at Westerns is clear, giving the movie a cinematic quality.  The cast is superb, with Tom Selleck ably supported by pros like Isabella Rosselini (Blue Velvet), Keith Carradine (Last Stand at Saber River), George Eads (CSI), William Devane (Payback), John Michael Higgins (Best in Show), as well as a great cast of character actors who put in great work.

The film isn't perfect.  I was a fan of George Eads' Shorty character, for example, but don't really like the way his storyline plays out. I understand why it happens, but I feel it all happens much too quickly to be believable.  You'll know what I mean when you see it.  I don't want to spoil anything.

But other than that, I found myself watching a minor classic.  I think Selleck should get back on the horse before he gets too old and make a few more of these.  He's one of the last actors we have who can convincingly be a real cowboy.

BEST LINE: 
Monte Walsh to a horse he is about to try and break in: "When we get through, all you're gonna want to do is take a nap, sit on the porch, and wait for all the mares to come calling."

MVP:
The MVP award goes to Isabella Rosselini, who plays Martine, a European stuck in the rundown Western town and Monte's true love.  Martine really is not a deep character on paper.  She basically just sits around, waiting for Monte to show up and then graciously understands when he leaves, which is kind of lame.  But something about Rosselini's performance brings true dimensionality to her.  She's not just a cardboard cutout, a stereotypical "suffering wife" of Hollywood who is accepting of her man's oddities because that is what the script demands.  Rosselini's Martine is an understanding woman because she knows she has no choice.  Monte is going to go wandering off to Canada no matter what.  But she is stuck in this dreary world, in which Monte is the only bright spot.  It's no wonder she lights up whenever he shows up.  But the pain of that decision is clear in her eyes.  It is subtle and beautiful work.  Add to this the fact that Rosselini's natural charisma and sensuality makes her more alive and sexy at 61 than most of the plastic babes half her age in movies today, and you have a clear MVP winner.  Go Isabella Rosselini!

TRIVIA:
Based on a book by Jack Schaffer, the guy who wrote the classic book, Shane.  (P.S. I review the movie of Shane right here.)

Last Stand at Saber River

Last Stand on Saber River

When his big screen career began to flounder in the 1990s with movies like Mr. Baseball and the underrated Quigley Down Under, Tom Selleck returned in television, a domain he once dominated as Magnum P.I.  He's made several TV films since then, but I would argue that his most memorable were a series of Westerns, including Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh.  The first of these Westerns was Last Stand at Saber River, based on a book by Elmore Leonard and featuring a solid cast with Selleck, Suzy Amis (Titanic), David Carradine (Kill Bill), Keith Carradine (Nashville), Harry Carey, Jr. (The Searchers), and a very young Haley Joel Osment (The Sixth Sense).

Paul Cable (Selleck) returns home from the Civil War to a world that thought him long dead.  If he was hoping to return home to a blissful family life, he was sadly mistaken.  His wife, Martha (Amis) resents him for leaving and is extremely bitter from having lost her baby to fever - all her pent-up anger is thrown in Cable's direction.  To make matters worse, Cable's family ranch is overrun by the Kidston family, including sensible Vern (Keith Carradine), the belligerent Duane (David Carradine) and refined Lorraine (Tracey Needham).  As if all this wasn't annoying enough, Confederate sympathizer Edward Janroe (David Dukes) is smuggling new and fancy rifles to the Confederacy and keeps hassling Cable to help him.

This all sounds like an interesting premise, but the film never lives up to its potential.  Unlike Crossfire Trail (reviewed here), Saber River never really feels like anything other than a little TV movie, with blah blah writing and blah blah directing and for the most part even blah blah acting.  Nothing is really developed as it should be.  The Kidstons are set up to be interesting antagonists - Vern isn't bad - he's just trying to run a business, and Duane is just a little crazy in the head.  But we hardly get to see Vern and Duane; instead we are treated to a random subplot about Lorraine trying to seduce Cable, a story thread that is dead on arrival and just a waste of time and logic.  And Edward Janroe is such an annoying and unlikable character that I'm surprised he wasn't shot in the first 5 minutes.  Ugh.

And I was surprised by the end - minor spoilers here - even though Cable has been shot in the gut during the climactic fight, he and his wife share their feelings and reconcile.  I'm fine with that.  But then Martha makes some subtle comment about the bedroom and the two walk into the house as the film fades to black, I assume for some makeup sex.  Didn't he get shot?!?!?  Why aren't you going to a doctor??!??!?!

Sigh.  Anyway.  So does the film get anything right?  Of course, it does.  Though most of the acting isn't that great, we do have a small collection of good performances in here, with Selleck leading the pack.  He may not be Wayne or Eastwood, but he makes for a great cowboy.  I also enjoyed Amis and both Carradines, especially David.  I also like how the film handles the Civil War.  Westerns are full of former Confederate heroes who now get a second chance at those 'Yankee bastards.'  I rarely see it other way around and I'm not sure why that is.  At first, I thought that was where Last Stand at Saber River was going, especially since Duane is a former Union officer.  But that is not what happens.  Part of Cable's guilt is not that he lost years away from his family because of the war; it's that he sacrificed so much for nothing because deep down, he knows he was fighting on the wrong side.  And the script and Selleck's performance is very subtle on this point.  It's intriguingly done.

But that's not a reason to see a whole movie.  If you love Tom Selleck or Westerns, then check it out.  For everyone else, I would definitely avoid it.

MVP:
Even though he is hardly in the movie, I have to say David Carradine.  He makes an impression in a very small amount of screen time.  Duane Kidston is an interesting character.  Drummed out of the Union army, he is still obsessed with it - he always wears his uniform and even grows a beard that resembles Ulysses S. Grant's famous facial hair.  Supposedly, he is sadistic, but his bark is really worse than his bite.  They could have done so much more with this character and with Carradine.  It is one of the film's biggest wasted opportunities. But I'll still give him MVP for his potential...

BEST LINE:
Cable: "I know one thing, I don't wanna live with a woman who don't like me.  Think on it."

Crossfire Trail

Crossfire Trail

It might be time to give up in defeat. The Western is dead on movie screens. There was a time when dozens of Westerns came out every year, a time when every major actor had to have his turn at the genre. The Western was in many ways America's quintessential genre - no one else had them. It was our history, our West, our legends. For whatever reason, people stopped caring and Westerns stopped making money. Oh, there have been attempts over the years to get the genre moving again, but I can count the attempts on my two hands. In the last decade, I think only 3:10 to Yuma really did much business, though that is probably only because it starred Russell Crowe and a post-Batman Christian Bale.

Here's the strange thing. I do think there is still an audience for Westerns out there, despite what the studios think. And the network TNT apparently agreed as they pumped some real cash into making a series of highly acclaimed and well-received Westerns with Tom Selleck, Monte Walsh, Last Stand at Sabre River, and Crossfire Trail, which was my mom's favorite of the bunch. And I'll be honest - that is why I am reviewing Crossfire Trail first!

Based on a book by Louis L'amour, Crossfire Trail is the story of Rafe Covington (Tom Selleck) who promises a dying friend, Charles Rodney, that he will watch over his ranch and his wife back in Wyoming. As soon as he arrives at the ranch, it becomes clear that something hinky is going on. The ranch is abandoned, and everyone in town believes that Charles Rodney had died over a year earlier in a Sioux ambush. Seeing as how Charles died in Rafe's arms, on a boat off the coast of San Francisco, this all sounds mighty suspicious. After this intriguing initial setup, we then move over to a well-worn Western plot about the innocent widow (Virginia Madsen, Sideways), the ruthless gunslinger (Brad Johnson, Always) and the evil businessman (Mark Harmon, NCIS) who wants his hands on the valuable ranch.

Crossfire Trail proves that in capable hands - in this case, director Simon Wincer (Lonesome Dove) and star Selleck - even an oft-told story can still be entertaining when well executed. But sometimes it just gets to be a bit too much. Madsen is terrific as the widow Anne, but her budding romance with Rafe is not believable and only exists because that is what the plot demands. And the villains are just too cliche and one-sided, which is an special pity for Mark Harmon, a gifted actor who just can't save how his character is written. There are a few other minor complaints I have, including some cheesy moments involving other townspeople that just don't ring true - mostly characters again behaving not as they should, but in the way the plot demands. I also have to throw a special complaint to the makeup department because they saddled Wilford Brimley (Cocoon) with a huge wig that turns him into a rifle-firing combination of David Crosby and Santa Claus.

But that is getting the bad out of the way. There is a lot of good in the film. While the villains don't quite work, but Rafe's trio of allies, played by Brimley, Christian Kane (Leverage), and David O'Hara (Braveheart), are an entertaining bunch. And director Wincer has a good eye for the West and Crossfire Trail feels real and lived in. And he accomplishes the most important personal thing for me in Westerns - he gives me a good gunfight at the end!

And then there is Selleck. An underrated actor who unfortunately never hit the big time in feature films, Selleck might be one of the few performers who can pull off an old school Western tough guy today. He is very much acting in the mold of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Randolph Scott, and if he is not as iconic as those actors, he is still rides and shoots with the best of them. He looks like he was born in the saddle. The western genre lifestyle suits him.

There is something else I like about Rafe and the way Selleck plays him. They ignore one of those "cardinal rules" of film school. Film school drives home the lesson that major characters need to have a story arc, they need to learn something or else why would anyone want to watch the movie? I generally agree with that statement, but sometimes these character arcs can hurt a movie when they are forced upon a character who doesn't need change. Do you think Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name had to learn anything or have any sort of wishy-washy personal awakening? Of course not, and if Sergio Leone had included that gibberish, then he would have ruined his amazing westerns (such as The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly). Like the Man with No Name, Rafe Covington doesn't need to learn anything. He knows who he is and what he can do. More importantly, the audience knows who he is and what he can do. And we don't want to see him learn anything. We just want him to go to town and kick some butt.

Overall, Crossfire Fire is an entertaining, old fashioned Western. It breaks no new ground, but then again, it doesn't really want to. And with Selleck leading the way, it is pretty entertaining. And given the film's success on TV, it should make the big studios wonder if there is an audience for Westerns after all.

MVP:

Tom Selleck, clearly. He may not ride as tall as the giants (Wayne, Eastwood, etc.), but he might be the closest and most believable Western actor we have today. And he carries this film through its rough patches and makes me want to watch his other TNT westerns.

I want to give a quick special honorable to Barry Corbin who plays the town's corrupt sheriff - he has the probably the funniest moment in the entire movie, during the final shootout. Granted, this is more of a MVP moment, but I think its worth mentioning.

BEST LINE:

Rock Mullanny: A Frenchman, a German, and an Irishman all walk into a bar. Each of them order a bottle of whiskey with a fly in each one. The Frenchman says, "Mon dieu, I cannot drink this!" So he gives it back. The German picks out the fly and drinks the whiskey anyway. The Irishman grabs the fly by the throat and says, "Spit it out! Spit it out!!"

Shane

Shane

Let's cut to the chase. Shane should be horribly dated. It should be one of those movies that loses its impact because it has been copied so many times. I went in with this fear and almost saw it realized.

I sensed trouble brewing immediately. Just like we've seen a million times before, an evil rancher - in this movie his name is Ryker (Emile Meyer) - is trying to push all the farmers off his potential grazing grounds. And just as we've seen a million times before, a bunch of thugs are in the process of bullying a poor sharecropping family (Van Heflin as dad, Jean Arthur as mom, and Brandon DeWilde as the son) when silent and badass Shane (Alan Ladd) appears. The bad guys, terrified of Shane's badassness, run away. The immediate problem for me, even this early in the movie, was that Shane just wasn't bad ass. I was pretty sure that even I could take him in a fight - and considering how much of a wuss I am, that says something. What follows is a bunch of scenes we've seen in dozens of westerns, including bar fights, country dances, a gunfighter who tries to settle down, quick draws, and evil guns-for-hire (a young and menacing Jack Palance). Maybe Shane did a lot of this first, but we've seen it all now a hundred times over.

But as the movie progressed a funny thing started to happen. I got hooked. The acting is truly what won me over. Van Heflin's perfectly pitched and natural performance as the farmer Joe Starrett was the first thing I noticed. Then it was Palance's genuinely creepy bad guy who seemingly can't stop smiling even when he guns you down. And then I figured out Shane's secret. He doesn't need to act badass. He doesn't even want to be badass. He's a genuinely nice and polite person. But push him too far and there will be hell to pay. He's nowhere near as tough as later lone warriors as played by Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson or countless others, but I have a feeling he could kill them all without blinking. It's a subtle performance from the underrated Alan Ladd, and very real.

So it is safe to say that by the time the movie ended, I thought to myself, "Yeah, this IS a classic." We've seen it a dozen times before, but rarely has it been done better. The movie sneaks up on you and wins you over completely. I would definitely recommend it!

SPOILER: DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!

One thing to discuss is whether or not Shane dies at the end of the film. I am of the firm belief that he does die. When the last shot of the movie is Shane's silhouette, stiffly slumped over a horse that is aimlessly walking across camera...I'm pretty sure the man is dead. Besides, Shane can't live. It defeats the purpose of the movie. His world is ending. Civilization and families are moving in, as represented by the Starretts. Shane does love this new world. He wants to be a part of it and much of the movie revolves around his attempts to join this more peaceful future. But in the end, its not his world. His world is the gun, blood, and ultimately death. And to me, that's what the movie is about. So sorry folks - Shane is dead!

OSCARS: Best Cinematography

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Palance and DeWilde), Best Director (George Stevens), Best Picture, Best Screenplay

MVP: Alan Ladd puts in terrific work, but I'm actually going with Van Heflin. His performance is not dated in the least. He should be a noble and pompous ass, as written, but Van Heflin grounds the performance in reality and makes Starrett a man who ultimately just wants what is best for his family. You can't help but to look up to the guy. It's good work from an actor I never really paid attention to before. I'll be paying attention now...

TRIVIA: The memorable scene were Shane practices shooting in front of Brandon DeWilde took 119 takes to get right!

Appaloosa

Appaloosa

What happened to the Western? Westerns used to be one of the most popular and reliable genres in Hollywood and then it just virtually dropped off the face of the planet. It's strange because in many ways, the Western is America's mythology - cities like Tombstone and Dodge City stand in for Athens or Sparta, while American legends like Jesse James and Billy the Kid are like our Hercules and Theseus. But for whatever reason, new Western films are few and far between.

Unfortunately, films like Appaloosa are not going to help the genre make its comeback. All the pieces of the puzzle are in place, but unfortunately the movie is a beautiful looking bore. When a local rancher Bragg (Jeremy Irons) kills the town marshal, the town of Appaloosa hires famous and tough-as-iron lawmen Cole (Ed Harris) and Hitch (Viggo Mortenson) to restore order and bring Bragg to justice. As if matters aren't complicated enough, a poor piano player named Allie (Renee Zellweger) arrives in town, intent on providing herself with domestic stability no matter the cost.

Harris, who also wrote and directed the film, respects all the rules of the genre, but really focuses on making this a character study. The friendship between Cole and Hitch is wonderfully played and not overly written. They communicate whole conversations just with their facial expressions, and don't waste a lot of time on pointless exposition. But just because Appaloosa is a serious character study doesn't mean it needs to be dull. The movie's pace is dreadful - while I appreciate the effort to not rush and allow us to see the different shades of the characters, it would be nice if something would actually happen every once in awhile. Being realistic and focusing on character development doesn't mean you have to make me sleepy.

The story could also use some work. Here's an example and SPOILER ALERT here: Jeremy Irons' Bragg completely changes character and motivation about 2/3 through the movie for no good reason. And it's all explained away with one line - "I'm now a reformed man." What? When? I never saw that happen. One scene he is the evil rancher yelling for Cole's death and the next scene he is a sophisticated town saloon owner, polite and friendly to everyone. This is accepted by everyone in the movie because well, see, he's a reformed man now. Boo. I expect better.

A lot of critics really seemed to like this movie when it came out. And there is a lot to appreciate. The acting is solid throughout, with Mortenson probably being the highlight. There was some complaining about Zellweger, but I actually think the character was so unlikable that those feelings transferred over to her performance, which I think is pretty good. The period costumes and sets are superb and don't look like a bunch of actors playing dress up on a studio backlot. The city of Appaloosa looks lived in, and that is a great achievement. The cinematography by Dean Semler is terrific (though I would expect no less from the master behind the camera for Dances with Wolves, Lonesome Dove and uh, Nutty Professor 2). With so much to like, it really is a shame that the whole thing doesn't gel together more smoothly. Perhaps with a script polish and a more experienced director behind the reins, this movie could have really moved. Imagine what Walter Hill could have done with this story?

Ah, well. So it's a misfire. A slow, plodding misfire with a lot to admire. Hopefully the studios will look at it as a lesson on how to make the next Western better, instead of proof that they should stop making them at all.


MVP: You know, I wondered who would win this acting battle between two intense heavyweights - Ed Harris and Viggo Mortenson. Their scenes together in A History of Violence were some of the best parts of that movie (with Harris probably slightly winning the duel in that movie). But in Appaloosa, there is no debate. This is Viggo's film. Armed with a kickass massive shotgun and some of the best movie facial hair I've seen in a long time, Viggo's Everett Hitch is a loyal and smart man - probably a bit smarter than his boss. Every nuance Viggo brings to the performance is the right choice - and he manages to make the gunslinger both sensitive and tough at the same time. Good stuff.

TRIVIA: Diane Lane was originally cast as Allie, but had to drop out during pre-production. As I mentioned, I liked Zellweger in the role. But I am a huge fan of Diane Lane so this would have been much preferred. Alas...

BEST LINE: (After an anti-climactic shootout) Hitch: That was quick. Cole: Yeah...cause everyone could shoot."