Appaloosa Review

This was released in September, and I wanted to see it very badly, but just never got the chance. And one day I checked to see what was playing at our local poh-dunk small town theater, and I was surprised to find that it was showing. This is strange, considering it has been out for so long and is only now making its way to Ridgecrest. But whatever, I don't question Serendipity. So I went to go check this thing out.

First off, I love a good western. And I especially love modern westerns, mainly because it's a genre of movie that you just don't see get made very often anymore. So how does this one hold up? Is it really any good? And my answer is a tricky one, primarily because I love these actors so much but I feel differently about the film as a whole. In Appaloosa you have Ed Harris (also serving as director), Viggo Mortensen, Jeremy Irons, and a small role by Timothy Spall (great character actor IMHO). But was the story any good? I'm not sure.

The story is as follows: Two gunfighters (Harris & Mortensen) are hired to police a small town (Appaloosa) when a rancher (Irons) and his hands begin to bully the local citizens, even killing a Sherriff and his two deputies. They eventually get a witness to the murders and a trial begins.

Various other little stories pop up here and there, including when a young good-looking single woman comes into town looking for work and ends up wooing pretty much every guy in the movie. Played by Renée Zellweger, this character was actually a big sore point in the whole story. Primarily because the character was just bad, as you could never tell what she was thinking or who her loyalties were with. Saying it like that may make her sound interesting, but believe me it wasn't. But I think the character fails also because I just can't ever seem to buy Renée Zellweger as anything but Renée Zellweger. She always seems to immerse herself in the role, but somehow every time I see her, I can't separate the celebrity from the character. It isn't Renée Zellweger PLAYING a part as much as it is Renée Zellweger IN a part. Make sense?

The pacing is slow. Not paint-drying slow, but steady and deliberate. It's not bad enough to become a detriment, but you certainly feel it while watching. The gunfights are quick and to the gut (literally). The characters (Zellweger's discluded) are very interesting and they all have a few bad notches on their belt.

I greatly enjoyed how the movie moved around with time and places, and it gets to be very interesting in the end when the main baddie comes back into town with a Presidential Pardon after being on the run for a little while. He buys a hotel and begins the straight life, well this greatly irritates the two lawmen who put him away. And it is a very interesting thing to see played out. He is guilty, he has been proven guilty, but yet here he is smiling and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it, or is there?

The things I had wrong with this film were few, but very noticeable. As I said before, the pacing is very deliberate and methodical, but sometimes it can be uninteresting. The cinematography, normally a standout in many westerns, is surprisingly very underwhelming. The music is nonexistent, and the action is sparse. But I think the real strength of this picture is its actors and to an extent the dialogue. Ed Harris has assembled a fine pedigree of great performers and they deliver the goods. But I still have issues with Renée Zellweger.

This is not a shoot 'em up kind of film, and it knows it. The characters are rich with history and angst. And everybody plays it up to their fullest, giving us a very interesting addition to the western genre. I recommend going to see it, just don't expect to be blown away.

B

Sphere: Related Content