The MoFo Top 100 Westerns: Countdown

I watched this film thrice, each time with a different set of people. Most of them liked it well-enough, and my brother was probably the most impressed with it. However, every single person needed me to explain to them, at various points, who some of the supporting characters were and where they were supposed to be at. When my scriptwriter brother needs me to explain to him who is staying with whose relations and why, I think that there are definitely flaws in the storytelling, especially when you have a 160 minute movie where you have plenty of time to make plot points clear.

Now, I understand that some people find "plot" to be a dirty word. In the case of this film, I'll admit that writer/director Dominik was looking for atmosphere and tone, and I believe he produced his desired effect. I just don't understand why someone would make essentially an arthouse western, with what I consider stilted performances and dialogue, make it go on for far too long, and then try to pass it off as a psychologically-deep, naturalistic film. Well, maybe I do; Michael Cimino did it with Heaven's Gate, but I find Heaven's Gate to be the better of the two films.



Before I go on sounding like the curmudgeon I am, I will say that I was impressed with the visuals. Overall, I prefer Deakins' work in No Country For Old Men, but the shot of the train holdup at night, with Jesse James standing in front of it, and the exterior light casting enormous shadows from the train onto the forest is as impressive an individual visual scene as I've seen. The score is good, and parts of the narration are interesting, although the dryness makes me find it less special than it was probably intended to be. There are enough good things here for me to give it a qualified recommendation. I don't feel that I wasted eight hours watching it three times. I admire it more than I did the first time, but I don't like it any more. My rating: .]

As far as the actors and characters go, I'd say that over the course of three viewings, I've warmed to Affleck's performance, but his character still comes across as an underdeveloped cipher who I know little more about at the end of the film than I do when he first opened his mouth. On the other hand, I enjoyed Brad Pitt as a psycho, and I did feel the intelligence behind his character. He seemed all too real to me. I just would have thought that he'd squash Bob Ford like a bug. I even thought Sam Shepard's Frank James should have trusted his judgment and wasted Robert Ford in their introductory scene. Oh yeah, what the heck happened to Frank James? He's certainly a significant character, and then he just disappears. Oh well, I guess Jesse wasn't as smart as he seemed without his big brother. Even though Sam Rockwell also seems a bit affected as Charlie Ford, he is at least recognizable as a real character, but that's because he's actually given lines which someone might actually say in real life.

The film was open to being so ironic about how the characters were in real life compared to how they are depicted in folklore. To me, that would be the reason to make another Jesse James film, but I don't feel the irony here. I just feel a director unintentionally draining the life out of his material with method acting and what seems to be method directing. That is my main critique of this film. For all the artistry, skill, beauty and originality on display, it feels to me like looking at a butterfly collection. It's all very lifeless. Oops, the curmudgeon has resurfaced. Maybe he should shut up and take a hike now. This is all presented in the interest of open discussion. I shall return with my seconds if required.