Without knowing it before hand, as soon as the movie started I had a definite feeling that this was a remake of the 1950 Kurosawa film "Rashomon". I thought the opening scene was great, almost like a horror movie in some respects with the sinister storm and dark atmosphere. Within moments characters portrayed by William Shatner, Howard da Silva and Edward G. Robinson appear on screen, whetting my appetite for an effectively offbeat story. Robinson's character is described as the 'Con Man' and probably has the best dialog in the picture when he's challenging what passes for status quo thinking in the Old West of the 1870's.
I had to go back and read my own review of the "Rashomon" picture because I knew there was something that bothered me about it when I first saw it. Kurosawa's pacing is sometimes too laborious for me, though it surprised me that this treatment was actually a few minutes longer. And for anyone who thinks Paul Newman's performance as the bandit Carracas is over the top, you'll really have to see Japanese actor Toshiro Mifune. His characterization of the bandit Tajomaru is so manic it makes Newman's role look tame by comparison.
In most other respects, the story is almost exactly the same, with the three principals involved in the murder of a Southern gentleman and the rape of his wife all telling a different story. Told in a flashback style among the characters who opened the picture, one is constantly left questioning which of the narratives is valid, and whether the people involved have a spark of dignity or honor among them. This carries right through to the finale when the old prospector (Da Silva) is hauled up short by the Con Man for being as disreputable as the ones who testified at the trial of Carracas.
I guess if one has the means to do so, you might try watching both films one after the other. When I first watched "Rashomon" I had to rewind some scenes for clarification as the characters seemed more esoteric and difficult to follow. I didn't have the same reaction to "The Outrage", but that could be because I already knew the basic story. I also have a preference for Westerns, so that's part of the equation as well. Both pictures merit the same rating by my count, though for it's more familiar players, I prefer this Martin Ritt directed version.
I had to go back and read my own review of the "Rashomon" picture because I knew there was something that bothered me about it when I first saw it. Kurosawa's pacing is sometimes too laborious for me, though it surprised me that this treatment was actually a few minutes longer. And for anyone who thinks Paul Newman's performance as the bandit Carracas is over the top, you'll really have to see Japanese actor Toshiro Mifune. His characterization of the bandit Tajomaru is so manic it makes Newman's role look tame by comparison.
In most other respects, the story is almost exactly the same, with the three principals involved in the murder of a Southern gentleman and the rape of his wife all telling a different story. Told in a flashback style among the characters who opened the picture, one is constantly left questioning which of the narratives is valid, and whether the people involved have a spark of dignity or honor among them. This carries right through to the finale when the old prospector (Da Silva) is hauled up short by the Con Man for being as disreputable as the ones who testified at the trial of Carracas.
I guess if one has the means to do so, you might try watching both films one after the other. When I first watched "Rashomon" I had to rewind some scenes for clarification as the characters seemed more esoteric and difficult to follow. I didn't have the same reaction to "The Outrage", but that could be because I already knew the basic story. I also have a preference for Westerns, so that's part of the equation as well. Both pictures merit the same rating by my count, though for it's more familiar players, I prefer this Martin Ritt directed version.