7/10
Good western for the time, but most will probably be bored.
7 October 2009
This will be hard to review because I personally disliked the film, but I will try to do this without bias. If you love westerns, this is for you. The cinematography is fantastic; it is one of the things I truly respected about the film. I often forgot that a lot of this was done on set. Don't get me wrong. There were quite a few "I can tell they're in front of a wall." shots, but in the mid 40's this was common and hard to go around. The shots of horses from down below and up above give the illusion of it being real similar to how James Cameron shot those classic titanic scenes on the front of the ship and moved the camera to give the illusion that the boat was going over water. The acting was good for the time overall. Usually there's 1 or 2 good actors at most and everyone else feels forced. Almost everyone holds up to the standards of the time. The directing overall was good and it influenced the overall flow of the movie. The story and plot was pretty decent for the time and it had some interesting plot twists. It felt very real, which I think was the main flaw if I can call it that. It was very slow like you'd assume life back then would be like, but unless if you are staring at the beautiful painted backgrounds it will get boring after a while. It's nice to get a different pace, but it isn't a different pace for a western which makes me feel like there was little innovation even though they did a pretty decent job overall. The events in the later portion of the movie also felt forced like they were trying to make this more like a history lesson than a movie. It's only 90 minutes long, but still. I also have to mention that it had great sound and sound editing. This is still a very solid western movie, but don't expect one of the best movies ever or something revolutionary.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed