What makes this movie at least partially interesting is the fact that it's based on the writings of actual Tom Horn, an Old West lawman, outlaw and gunfighter. Keeping that in mind helps as you watch this movie, because it doesn't really follow a typical western or even movie plot. There's something of a story arc present, but there are certain scenes that can only be explained if you remember that they tried to represent a real life, which rarely follows storytelling conventions.
That still leaves us with the problem that this movie doesn't really follow those conventions. This is a problem, because you cannot squeeze decades of life into a few hours if don't know how to tell a story, how to artfully skip over details and allude to other things and consequences. Tom Horn does some of that, but it's still the most boring and confusing western I've ever seen. Character motivations are poorly established or they seem to change between scenes - I theorize this is because the real life events probably took place over significant amount of time, which the movie doesn't establish at all. Likewise the setting is just your typical western setting, which is a huge missed opportunity. When you're using a real life character, use a real life town and give it an identity. And then there's the ending, which I thought a total cop-out, but it is explained somewhat by the "based on real events" thing, so in retrospect it wasn't THAT bad.
Still, Steve McQueen is rather good as Tom Horn, the rest of the actors are passable, the film looks fine given its age and if you like westerns, you should get your fix of cattle ranches, big open plains, gunfights and blue skies from this film.
Not a good film in my opinion, mostly because they didn't seem to know how to adapt the original writings to a working film. Shame, because the actual story is interesting. Western fans might find some enjoyment from this, but the rest of us are left feeling cold.
That still leaves us with the problem that this movie doesn't really follow those conventions. This is a problem, because you cannot squeeze decades of life into a few hours if don't know how to tell a story, how to artfully skip over details and allude to other things and consequences. Tom Horn does some of that, but it's still the most boring and confusing western I've ever seen. Character motivations are poorly established or they seem to change between scenes - I theorize this is because the real life events probably took place over significant amount of time, which the movie doesn't establish at all. Likewise the setting is just your typical western setting, which is a huge missed opportunity. When you're using a real life character, use a real life town and give it an identity. And then there's the ending, which I thought a total cop-out, but it is explained somewhat by the "based on real events" thing, so in retrospect it wasn't THAT bad.
Still, Steve McQueen is rather good as Tom Horn, the rest of the actors are passable, the film looks fine given its age and if you like westerns, you should get your fix of cattle ranches, big open plains, gunfights and blue skies from this film.
Not a good film in my opinion, mostly because they didn't seem to know how to adapt the original writings to a working film. Shame, because the actual story is interesting. Western fans might find some enjoyment from this, but the rest of us are left feeling cold.