High Plains Drifter review

 Number 652 on the top 1000 films of all time is Clint Eastwood's Western film 'High Plains Drifter.'

Clint Eastwood plays an unnamed lone gunslinger who becomes the unlikely saviour of a frontier mining town who are under threat from a trio of dangerous outlaws.

High Plains Drifter was definitely one of Eastwood's weaker Westerns and weaker films overall. It was a formulative, repetitive affair that followed the all-too familiar pattern of cowboy films: a mysterious stranger is drifting through a quiet sleepy town, when suddenly he turns into an unlikely hero. Throw in some equally unlikely love interests and lots of gun-shooting for good measure.

Clint Eastwood's unnamed character was little different to any other character he's played in any Western film or at all to be honest. He played similar characters in the Dollars Trilogy or The Outlaw Josey Wales, But in every film he basically plays a grumpy old man. This was the case here.

Yet he wasn't the only strange casting choice. None of the cast were particularly memorable especially Geoffrey Lewis, Dan Vadis and Anthony James who played the outlaws without any nuance or charisma. They were your daily villains. The female characters were pretty vapid too.

I could see Eastwood attempting to distinguish this film from its predecessors by leaning into a supernatural element. Was the mysterious gunslinger actually a ghost wreaking rightful vengeance? This was largely left up to the reader so who knows the truth?

But what is true is that this was definitely one of Eastwood's worse films.

Dead Man review

 Number 531 on the top 1000 films of all time is the acid Western 'Dead Man.'

William Blake (Johnny Depp) is a 19th century timid accountant who accidentally kills a man. He is forced to go on the run. While a fugitive, he befriends Nobody (Gary Farmer) an enigmatic Native American who believes that Blake is the reincarnation of the famous poet of the same name.

After Down By Law and Night on Earth, this is the third Jim Jarmusch film that I've seen. Although Jarmusch rejects the idea of being an auteur, I can't think of a better description of his films. They are always on the weird side with a healthy slice of surrealism. Dead Man was no exception.

Just like his third film Down by Law, Dead Man was in monochrome. This feeds into Jarmusch's minimalist style, but also removes any distraction for the audience. Instead their focus is purely on the characters led by the accountant William Blake played by Johnny Depp.

In many of his films, Depp plays an oddball character in a normal world. Here the inverse is true. Depp plays the relatively normal William Blake in a strange world full of strange characters such as the very surreal Nobody. It was enjoyable seeing Depp in a fish out of water role even if it wasn't one of his most memorable performances. Farmer was also enjoyable as Nobody.

Jim Jarmusch, perhaps because he is a musician himself, is well-known for casting musicians in his films. Johnny Depp also has an accomplished music career while Tom Waits has appeared in a couple of Jarmusch films. But as well as having music royalty appear in his films, he also has them provide scores. The brilliant Neil Young composed a largely guitar soundtrack that fitted the film perfectly.

Dead Man was an enjoyable film. It was surreal and strange with an interesting lead performance from Johnny Depp.

Blazing Saddles review

 Number 507 on the top 1000 films of all time is Mel Brooks' parody of the Western genre: Blazing Saddles.

Bart (Clavon Little) is a black railway worker in 1974 on the American frontier. When the townspeople of Rock Ridge realise they're going to be bullied out by the corrupt politician Hedley Lemar (Harvey Korman) they designate Bart to be the sheriff of the town. He is assisted by alcoholic gunslinger Jim the Waco Kid. (Gene Wilder)

My favourite Mel Brooks' film is his parody of Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I thought it was absolutely hilarious and so clever. In many ways Blazing Saddles was his warm-up act - to a lesser extent, you also had Young Frankenstein. But Blazing Saddles shared the same meta-humour as Men In Tights. Men in Tights even hearkened back to its spiritual predecessor.

Granted, Blazing Saddles gets a bit ridiculous toward the end where it not only breaks the fourth but the fifth, sixth and seventh walls. Bart and Jim's posse fight with Hedley Lamar's posse spills out onto a neighbouring film set and the real world with Lemar escaping to a nearby cinema. The cinema is showing none other than Blazing Saddles. It was silly, but I didn't mind.

The film was full of tis funny meta-humour like when Lamar recruits a posse and everybody from the SS to the KKK and the Hells Angels turn up.

Yet this film wasn't all just humour. There was also some good performances from Cleavon Little - for the longest time I thought it was Richard Pryor in the lead role, but he just wrote the script. Gene Wilder also showed his comedic chops with a touch of emotional intensity as Jim.

Overall, I enjoyed Blazing Saddles. Sure it was silly at times, but it was just a warm up for Men in Tights. Mel brooks was a master of parody, wasn't he?

The Magnificent Seven Review

Number 456 on the top 1000 films of all time is John Sturges' 1960 Western The Magnificent Seven.

A poor Mexican village is constantly being exploited by the cruel Calvera (Eli Wallach) and his gang of bandits. Having had enough, the villagers rally a posse of seven cowboys led by the Cajun gunslinger Chris Adams (Yul Brynner) to battle against Calvera's gang.

The Magnificent Seven is a famous remake of Akira Kurosawa's epic 'the Seven Samurai.' At three hours long, the Seven Samurai is not for casual film fans or even supposed film fanatics like me. Thankfully, the Magnificent Seven managed to tell the same story in a far more palatable two hours.

And it was certainly a great story - seven of the biggest actors of the time including Brynner, Steve McQueen and Charles Bronson team up to face off against Eli Wallach. Even for casual Western fans like me, it was certainly entertaining.

The on-screen, and at times, off-screen, rivalry between Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen underpinned much of the film, but all of the cast were good. Despite having a large ensemble cast and a limited two-hour run time, John Sturges took the time to develop each character into somebody interesting. You had the young upstart Chico (Horst Bucholz) as well as Lee (Robert Vaughn) who is haunted by a troubled past. Vaughn was a dark horse as he brought a quiet intensity to the role.

Eli Wallach's villainous Calvera wasn't as memorable as he could have been. Although it was probably overshadowed by his later and most famous role of Tuco in Sergio Leone's iconic 'The Good, The Bad and the Ugly.'

Nevertheless, John Sturges directed a fun and entertaining film, which balanced humour, heart and terrific set-pieces with a palatable two-hour run time.

Tombstone review

 Number 444 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1993 Western 'Tombstone.'

Tombstone details the events that led up to the famous Gunfight at the Ok Corral in Tombstone, Arizona. Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell) and his brothers Virgil (Sam Eliot) and Morgan (Bill Paxton) are three retired men who are looking for a quiet life in Tombstone. However, when the Cochise County Cowboys, led by Curly Bill Brocius (Powers Boothe) start pushing their way around town, the Earps are reluctantly drawn out of retirement to deal with the threat, helped by their close friend Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer.)

Anybody who knows me knows that I've never been a big fan of Westerns. The Gunfight at the Ok Corral as well as the Earps and Doc Holliday might be legendary parts of American folklore, but it's never been a topic that has really interested me. I'm not sure this film did too much to move the needle.

Of course this isn't to say that the film was explicitly terrible unlike some others I have seen, but it just wasn't for me. I can see what they were going. The charismatic Kurt Russell plays the sheriff who is reluctantly drawn back into his old life. He was good enough, as were his deputies Virgil and Morgan played by Sam Eliot and Bill Paxton. They played very different characters than in Frailty or the Big Lebowski. I think the good guys had a better characterisation than the Cochise County Cowboys. 

Perhaps that's because they were little more than a lawless rabble without more hierarchy or organisation. They were led by Curly Bill Brocious - Powers Boothe always gives recognisable performances, but the rest of the gang largely blended into one.

For me, the best part of the film was Val Kilmer. He played Doc Holliday - a cherished friend of the Earps who was suffering terribly from tuberculosis. Kilmer was definitely a dark horse considering his role was little more than just giving support to the Earps. Despite that, Holliday was a very tragic character who was also loyal to his friends. Kilmer's performance helped to demystify one of the most interesting characters of the Old West.

I'm sure there are many people who would love this film. These guys would also be big fans of the Wild West. I am not a fan of the Wild West, so I didn't much care for Tombstone, but that's just me.

The Outlaw Josey Wales review

 Number 395 on the top 1000 films of all time is Clint Eastwood's 1976 Revisionist Western 'The Outlaw Josey Wales.'

Josey Wales (Clint Eastwood) is a Missouri farmer whose family were murdered by the ruthless Union Captain Terrill (Bill Mckinney.) He joins a group of Confederate bushwackers to get revenge, but after the Civil War ends, they surrender to the union. All except for Wales who continues his quest for revenge. He is joined by ageing Cherokee Lone Watie (Chief Dan George) and pilgrim love interest Laura Lee (Sondra Locke.)

I've always been of the opinion that Eastwood is a better director than an actor. He won Oscars for directing both Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby. He has also directed critically acclaimed films like Invictus, Letters from Iwo Jima, Gran Torino and Changeling. However, the Outlaw Josey Wales was one of his weaker efforts. While by no means terrible, it was strangely structured and badly-paced.

Initially, it seemed like this would be a straight-forward revenge story with Wales exacting vengeance on the killer of his family. Wales is aided by a rag-tag band of rebels. It was all building to an exciting climax, but then the tension dissipated.

In the film's third act, it seemed like Wales had completely forgotten about his quest for revenge and was more interested in setting up house with his new found family - Cherokee Lone Watie, Navajo Little Moonlight (Geraldine Keams) and pilgrim Laura Lee and her grandmother along with a couple of others. It was a sure fire way to stop the pace dead at a time you think it would be heating up. 

There were glimpses of a secondary villain with a Comanche tribe, but our roguish cowboy quickly makes peace in an anti-climatic, and ultimately, inconsequential fashion. The Comanche played little role in the rest of the film.

Just when it looked like Wales might get his happily ever after, he's tracked down by Terrill and his goonies. The battle begins. But this climatic moment felt more like an afterthought, as if Eastwood had just remembered about his villain.

As I said earlier, he is a better director than actor. In his later films, he plays a grumpy old man. In his earlier films, he plays the antihero lone cowboy. Josey Wales was pretty similar to Eastwood's other roles as the Man with No Name in the Dollars trilogy. Not the best range from Eastwood.

During film, Eastwood and Locke began an illicit relationship while both of them were still in nominal marriages. But this off-screen chemistry didn't translate to the screen, as Laura Lee as much use as a wet blanket and had all the charisma of a stale ham sandwich. True, she joined the final fight, but she never felt like a suitable love interest for Eastwood. If anything, I think he would have been better suited to Little Moonlight whom he rescued from some unscrupulous men. She was more fun, interesting and gritty than Lee.

Despite these criticisms, The Outlaw Josey Wales was certainly an enjoyable enough film. It just isn't anywhere near as good as Eastwood's later films. That's a shame, as Eastwood is a great director. He's won two Oscars for a reason.

The Proposition review

 Number 824 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2005 Australian Western 'The Proposition.'

Charlie Burns (Guy Pearce) is the leader of a group of outlaws in 1880's Australia. After a gunfight with the police leaves all but he and his younger brother Mike (Richard Wilson) dead, Captain Stanley (Ray Winston) makes Charlie a proposition. Bring his older brother Arthur (Danny Huston) to justice or watch his younger brother Mike be executed.

This is an Australian film, filmed in Queensland, directed by Brisbanian John Hillcoat, written by singer and fellow Aussie Nick Cave and starring Geelong actor Guy Pearce. Just so we're clear, this film was set in Australia, directed by an Australian, written by an Australian and starring an Australian, so why did none of the principle cast have Australian accents? Guy Pearce and Danny Huston are Irish, for some reason. Meanwhile, Ray Winston, Emily Watson and John Hurt all use their native English accents.

The Western is such an Australian genre that it was a brave stylistic choice to relocate it to Australia even though there is no reason why it shouldn't work. However, this was a countermanded by the lack of Australian accents. It was a weird choice that didn't make sense.

However, the film's true weakness was its pacing. Some scenes dragged while others were rushed. The Proposition had some serious sagging middle-part syndrome. Charlie agrees to Captain Stanley's proposition and he goes to search for Arthur. Arthur finds him first and any narrative momentum just stops. Instead, the two exchange barbs, as we are introduced to the interchangeable members of Arthur's gang. 

The two then break Mike out of prison which is where Hillcoat started overcompensating for the sluggish middle with a rushed prison-break. The slow parts were too slow and the fast parts were too fast.

It didn't help that the actors lacked chemistry with one another. I had a hard time believing that Ray Winston and Emily Watson were husband and wife. Richard Wilson isn't afforded a single scene with Danny Huston. Plus, in his scenes, with Guy Pearce, he did little else but cry and whimper. That was it. We didn't get to see the two act like brothers.

Granted the Proposition had some gorgeous cinematography - it failed as a subversion of the Western genre with its cowboys and Indians being transplanted to Australia. It was mired by weird accents and poor pacing. 

Rio Bravo review

 Number 253 on the top 1000 films of all time is Howard Hawks' 1959 Western 'Rio Bravo.'

John Chance (John Wayne) is the sheriff on a boarder town who has to hold the wanton criminal Joe Burdette (Claude Akins) in custody until he is collected by US Marshals. However, Joe's brother and the rest of his gang are coming to get him back. Chance has to hold them off with the help of the alcoholic dude (Dean Martin,) the lame old Stumpy (Walter Brennan),) and the young gunslinger Colorado (Ricky Nelson.)

This film was Wayne's return to the Western genre after a dip in his career. Considering only a decade later, he won the Best Actor Oscar you could argue it was a very successful return.

But was Rio Bravo a successful film? It was watchable enough. I'm not sure whether it brought anything new to the Western genre. You had the men in white fighting off the men in black. You had the Mexican characters relegated to side parts. You had the insipid female lead Feathers (Angie Dickinson.) And you had lots of of gunfights. It was everything we've seen before. Yes, it was entertaining, but it didn't blow me away.

John Wayne was your standard, cut-and-dry hero. There was no depth to his character beyond that. The cheesy romance between him and Feathers didn't help either. And it certainly didn't help that Wayne was double Angie Dickinson's age.

The supporting cast where the film really shone. I've never seen Dean martin act before, but he was quite convincing, as the alcoholic seeking redemption. He made Dude a sympathetic character. Three-time Oscar winner, Walter Brennan brought a lot of energy and life to Stumpy. He was a joy to watch, as well as some more important light-hearted relief.

Of course you can't make a film with one of the era's biggest crooners and one of the biggest teen idols without having a scene of them singing together. While this was pretty shoe-horned in, it was still great to watch.

Rio Bravo certainly didn't bring anything new to the Western genre, but some of the supporting cast gave great performances.

Dances with Wolves review

 Number 333 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Kevin Costner's 1990 epic Western 'Dances with Wolves.'

Lieutenant John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) is a soldier in the US Civil War. In 1863, he is assigned to a military post in the American frontier. Instead of finding his assignment, he finds a group of Lakota. There everything he has ever known is flipped on its head.

I've never rated Costner much as an actor. He's very wooden and over-the-top. After seeing this, I don't rate him much as a director either. Dances with Wolves was a slow-plodding affair that had no business being three hours long. The film centres on Dunbar's relationship with the Lakota, but they barely feature until an hour in - which was also the first sign of tension.

How Dances with Wolves won the Best Picture Oscar is beyond me. How it beat out brilliant films like Awakenings or Goodfellas is even more stupefying. And don't even get me started on Costner being nominated for Best Actor. His constant narration slowed the film to an absolute crawl. He logs all his interactions with the Lakota in a journal. This is accompanied by the slowest, most monotonous, expository voice-over known to man. We see something on screen, and, for some reason, Costner felt the need to over-explain it ad infiniteum. 

It made everything very on-the-nose. It would have been much better if the audience had been left to figure things out for themselves.

Dunbar wasn't an interesting character to follow at all. I was far more interested in the dynamics of the Lakota tribe. It would have been more interesting if the film had been told from their perspective rather than from a tepid soldier who loves the sound of his own voice.

I did not care for Dances with Wolves. It was an overly-long, tedious affair. And how it was the 1990 Best Picture winner is a complete mystery.

The Wild Bunch review

 Number 286 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1969 epic revisionist Western 'The Wild Bunch.'

Pike Bishop (William Holden) is the leader of an ageing band of cowboys who are finding their way before the outbreak of the first world war. Wishing to retire soon, they want to do one last robbery, but they are pursued savagely by a rival gang led by Pike's father partner Deke Thornton (Robert Ryan.)

The Wild Bunch takes place at the end of the cowboy era, as these rustlers and would-be outlaws try to find their way in the ever-changing world. It is a swan-song to their legacy, but I would argue it is also a swan-song to the Western genre itself.

By 1969, Leone had released his dollars-trilogy and the best days of the Western genre were behind them. Spaghetti Westerns were becoming a thing of the past. Roll on the 70's with the resurgence of the gangster genre, as well as the rise of the Vietnam war films. Coppola and Scorsese released the Godfather and Mean Streets, which were followed at the end of the decade by the Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now. But the Wild Bunch paid homage to the best of the genre while keeping everything grounded in a gritty realism.

These aren't the romanticised, pretty-boy cowboys of Gary Cooper in High Noon, but rather the brutal anti-hero that Eastwood played in the Dollars' trilogy. The Wild Bunch have their own code of honour, but this doesn't apply to the civillians around them who are largely seen as collateral damage. It was a nice demystification of a highly romanticised figure. The Wild Bunch were just petty crooks masquerading as honourable cowboys.

They were led by William Holden in another morally duplicitous role similar to this Oscar-winning turn in Stalag-17. But he was good as the ageing, world-weary protagonist who just wants to retire and put the world behind him.

The Wild Bunch was an intensely violent, but enjoyable affair that acted as a lovely swan-song to the Western genre.

True Grit 1969 Review

 Number 885 on the top 1000 films of all time is Henry Hathaway's 1969 Western 'True Grit.'

Mattie Ross (Kim Darby) is a teenage girl living in Yell County, Arkansas when her father is unjustly killed by outlaw Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey,) she enlists federal marshals Rooster Cogburn (John Wayne) and La Boeuf (Glen Campbell) to bring him to justice. Accompanying them on their mission, Mattie soon forms a close relationship with Rooster and La Boeuf.

For a Western film, I quite enjoyed True Grit. This goes for both the original and the 2010 remake. Generally, I find cowboy films tedious and overly-long *cough cough* Sergio Leone, but True Grit was thoroughly watchable.

One reason was because of Mattie Ross. Just like in the remake, she was far from the typical damsel-in-distress cliche that many women of her era were relegated to, so it was very refreshing to have a character with as much agency and pep as Mattie did. She was a feisty female before that was even a thing. I do think it's a shame they gave her a tomboyish appearance though. She's a woman. Let her look like a woman. The Coen Brothers let Hailee Steinfield look feminine. Why not the same for Kim Darby?

True neither John Wayne or Henry Hathaway thought much about Darby's acting abilities, but I think that was more down to her dialogue. Her lines were so verbose and clunky, it was like she was in My Fair lady having elocution lessons with Rex Harrison. Her actions were also rash and impulsive and drove a lot of the film's conflict, but again that's more her writing than Darby's acting.

John Wayne gave a good spin as the irrascible Rooster Cogburn. It was good that he won the Best Actor Oscar. And I did enjoy his performance. He was a very likeable cinnamon swirl. Robert Duvall was also great as minor villain Ned Pepper. If anything he was better than Jeff Corey's rather simplistic performance as Tom Chaney.

Overall, I enjoyed True Grit more than I thought I would. It had John Wayne giving a great lead performance, a fresh spin on the standard female character and had that glorious cinematography that you would expect from a cowboy film.

A Fistful of Dollars review

Number 269 on the top 1000 films of all time is Sergio Leone's 1964 Spaghetti Western 'A Fistful of Dollars.'

Clint Eastwood stars as 'the Man with No Name,' a mysterious drifter who becomes embroiled in a battle between two warring families in a Mexican border town. Believing there is money to be made, he decides to pit these families against each other, and to save the rest of the town from also being consumed by this conflict. 

A Fistful of Dollars marked a number of firsts. It was the first of the spaghetti Westerns to be brought before an American audience. It was the first of the 'Dollars trilogy,' and the first time that Eastwood would play the Man with no Name. But it also marked the first collaboration between Sergio Leone and composer Ennio Morricone. And the music was the first thing I noticed about this film. Morricone might be best known for the classic theme tune from the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but I would argue he was just as good here, if not better. Every piece of music fitted the scene perfectly. Every note bolstered the tension. It was just brilliant.

I can't say the same for Clint Eastwood. I've never liked him as an actor, as I always feel he plays the same part over and over again. And that part is the grumpy old man. He has no depth beneath that. And 'a Fistful of Dollars' is where that all started. He played the gruff, anti-social loner and has been type-cast as that ever since. It was difficult to see any type of warmth from his role.

Yet Leone still directed a great film. The cinematography was brilliant as always with contrasting shots of the vast desert landscape to the extreme close-ups of the character's eyes at pivotal moments, which was a great way to build up the tension.

Many of my long-term readers will know all about my confusion as to why Italian films were recorded without sound and later had all the dialogue (badly) dubbed in. A Fistful of Dollars was no exception to this. I have finally found out the reason! It all goes back to Mussolini who made it as a law as he wanted to check all the dialogue for himself, just in case, it contained any subversive material. Even after his death, they continued the tradition. I don't know why, because it just looks so terrible, but the more you know.

I have to admit that generally I'm not a fan of Western films, but when you get a cowboy film that has Ennio Morricone scoring it, how can you not like it?

Brokeback Mountain review

 Number 585 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ang Lee's neo-western romantic drama 'Brokeback Mountain.' 

Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis La Mer (Heath Ledger) are two cowboys working up a mountain. After spending one fateful night together, the two fall madly in love. They spend the next twenty years seeing each other in secret, while trying to live 'normal' lives with their families and jobs. Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway co-star as Ennis' and Jack's wives respectively.

At the 78th Academy Awards, Brokeback Mountain controversially lost Best Picture Oscar to Crash. Many thought Brokeback Mountain was a highly superior film. Having seen both, I absolutely agree with this sentiment. Whereas Crash was contrived and half-arsed, Brokeback Mountain was wonderfully understated, but also very moving.

Great romance stories always hinge on the two leads. If they didn't have chemistry, the film would have fallen flat. But I thought both Ledger and Gyllenhaal were great together. They were very believable in the roles of the emotionally conflicted cowboys. Both of them are living double lives; trying to maintain their stoic cowboy image, while seeing each other in secret.

Heath Ledger was hesitant about taking the role, as he didn't think he would be able to do it justice. These fears were unfounded, as he was brilliant. Granted, he sometimes spoke with a gruff, mumbling diction that made him difficult to understand, but he was still superb. He gave a compassionate and layered performance. Gyllenhaal was equally good. Both actors played off of each other well.

The cinematography was also spectacular. Wide panning and master shots emphasised the sheer vastness and splendour of the landscape. It was reminiscent of the old spaghetti Westerns. 

I've spoken a lot about the male actors, but the female leads were just as good. Granted Anne Hathaway was under-utilised, both she and Michelle Williams were very good, as Alma and Lureen - two wives trying and failing to understand their husbands.

I thoroughly enjoyed Brokeback Mountain. It was subtle, nuanced and powerful with some great performances. And it certainly deserved to win Best Film Oscar.

Legends of the Fall review

 Number 846 on the top 1000 films of all time is the epic Western drama 'Legends of the Fall.'

Colonel William Ludlow (Anthony Hopkins) is a former army veteran who retires to a ranch in Montana. When his wife Isabelle leaves, he raises his three sons alone: the oldest Alfred (Aidan Quinn,) the middle son Tristan (Brad Pitt) and the youngest and most naive Samuel (Henry Thomas.) Also, on the ranch if William's Cree friend One Stab (Gordon Tootoosis,) as well as ranch hand Decker (Paul Desmon,) his Cree wife Pet and their daughter Isabelle Two.

Legends of the Fall is a sprawling narrative that encompasses a huge time period from the early twentieth century to World War One to prohibition and even the 1960's. Edward Zwick takes us through each era well. Although at times it felt very disparate which we will come to later.

When WW1 breaks out, Samuel and Alfred volunteer to fight. Trist also reluctantly volunteers. He has promised Samuel's fiancé Susannah (Julia Ormond) that he would keep him safe from harm. The war scenes were effective and well-shot. And Brad Pitt proved he's more than capable of doing quieter, character roles, as well as bigger, block-buster, action roles. Anthony Hopkins was also great. As the stresses of his life become too much, William suffers from a stroke, rendering him virtually mute and immobile. But Hopkins still generates a lot of sympathy for the character.

However, while the male stars and characters were great, I feel like the female characters were short-changed. Susannah didn't have much of a role beyond being the object of affection for all three brothers. Although she is initially Samuel's fiancé, when he *spoilers*

is killed in the war, she hooks up with Tristan, all while Alfred looks on in desire. When Tristan goes AWOL for years, Susannah marries Alfred. It was less than the most satisfying of characters.

When Tristan returns to the ranch, he finds that Isabelle Two has all grown-up. And the two promptly marry and start a family. Even putting the age difference aside, the brothers were all adults while Isabelle Two was still a little girl. I saw very little reason why she and Tristan would marry each other except they're both young and hot. At least you had Alfred acknowledging the oddity of the situation.

But returning to my point about the disparateness, while Legends of the Fall worked in little parts, the parts didn't coalesce well together. it was a massive film set across an expansive time period which encompassed a lot of genres. It began as a Western, flirted as a romance, turned into a War film and later on, during the Prohibition era, it even became a gangster flick. It seemed overly-ambitious. And I don't think it worked. Fewer elements explored in more detail would have been better.

Ultimately, I still enjoyed this film. The female characters weren't great, and it was overly-ambitious, but Pitt and Hopkins shone.

True Grit (2010) review

 Number 594 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Coen brothers' Western 'True Grit.'

Based on the book of the same name and a remake of the 1969 film, 'True Grit' follows the unlikely relationship between a teenage girl and a federal marshal in 19th century Arkansas. When the father of 14-year-old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is killed by hired hand Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) she hires federal marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to track him down and bring him to justice. Also searching for Chaney is Texas ranger Laboeuf (Matt Damon.)

As you may have gathered from my High Noon review, I am not the biggest fan of Westerns. They're not a genre of film that has ever engaged me. However, I was pleasantly surprised by True Grit. A lot of that was down to Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross. Unlike the female characters of the old spaghetti Westerns, she has a lot of agency. It is her pluckiness, determination and refusal to take no for an answer that kicks off the whole storyline. Granted, she is rash and impulsive which does lead her to make silly decisions for no other reasons than to advance the storyline, but it was refreshing to see a female character with ... well grit. Steinfeld played the part well. It was bizarre that she was only nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar when she was the leading lady, but don't ask me how the Academy works.

Jeff Bridges was also great as the male lead Rooster Cogburn. He is initially dismissive of Mattie, but the two progressively become closer even forming a father-daughter relationship. It was quite touching and formed the backbone of the film. To some extent, it reminded me of Leon: the Professional with Cogburn training Mattie to help him catch Chaney. Throw in Matt Damon as Labeouf and you have the archetypal odd throuple. The three leads were very funny together and the humour helped to offset the dark tone.

Another reason that the film surprised me is that I'm generally not a fan of the Coen Brothers. As a whole, their films are too weird for me. Yet True Grit was very straightforward. There was none of their off-the-wall surrealist humour that dominates their other pictures. And unlike other Western directors *cough cough* Leone, there isn't endless tension-building that slows up the storyline. The pacing was fast and slow as was needed.

For a Western and a Coen Brother's film, I thoroughly enjoyed True Grit.

High Noon review

 Number 195 on the top 1000 films of all time is Fred Zinnemann's 1952 Western 'High Noon.'

Marshall Will Cane (Gary Cooper) is ready to hang up his hat following his marriage to Amy Fowler (Grace Kelly.) However, he learns that Frank Miller (Ian Mcdonald,) an outlaw he put away, has been released and is coming for revenge. Will Cane must choose between running away with his new bride or standing and fighting.

I've never been keen on cowboy films. Westerns have never been something I've found engaging, so it's difficult for me to review this fairly, but I shall try. Honestly, I just found this film to be boring and generic. There was never any drama or tension. It was obvious that Marshall Will Cane would stay and defend his town. And that he would fight the outlaws alone after trying and failing to raise a posse.

This causes a problem with his Quaker and pacifist wife who threatens to leave without him, but jumps off the departing train at the last minute. All rather predictable. Grace Kelly did the best with what she had, but Amy Fowler was just a product of the female characters of her time - little more than inconvenience for the male protagonist rather than a character in her own right. Although I will admit that I did enjoy seeing her pick up a gun and shooting one of the outlaws. That was a nice touch of agency.

Gary Cooper won the Best Actor Oscar for this role. But I am at a loss to why. He has a reputation for being the strong, silent type, which I think is code for a big, block of wood. And that's exactly what he was, but, then again, I don't think the role of Will Cane afforded him a lot of opportunity to be anything else.

While some people might love Western and Cowboy films, they've never been for me. 

Open Range review

 Number 817 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2003 Revisionist Western 'Open Range,' directed, produced and starring Kevin Costner.

Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall) and Charley Waite (Kevin Costner) are two cattlemen hired to drive a herd across the state of Montana. But they quickly get on the wrong side of the local town mayor Denton Baxter (Michael Gambon.)

This Western strongly reminded me of the great Spaghetti Westerns of the 1960's. Of course, I'm talking about Sergio Leone who dominated the genre with his "Dollars Trilogy." Costner employed the same fantastic cinematography that made those old Westerns so visually stunning to watch. I loved the sweeping visuals of the great American landscape. It really emphasises the immensity and isolation of living in such an expanse.

Unfortunately, Costner traded off great cinematography with a plodding narrative. The pacing was slower than it had any right to have been. Except for the ending, which we'll get to, much of the pivotal violence happens off-screen. For example, Baxter's men attack Spearman and Waite's two ranch-hands killing one and badly injuring the other. We knew this was coming, so there was no surprise reveal. But because we didn't see this violence, we don't get to see Baxter's true villainy - or, in this case, his hired gun Butler (Kim Coates) who led the attack. Either way, Gambon's presence as a villain was severely hurt.

In the build-up to the climatic sequence, we get lots of banter between the two leads delivered in Duvall's most gravelly and Costner's all-American tones. And this wasn't the most interesting to watch. Waite also purses a relationship with the doctor's sister Sue Barlow (Annette Benning) which I found a little unbelievable. An attractive older woman like Benning has managed to stay single for just long enough for the cowboy Costner to sweep her off her feet?

We plod along to the final gunfight between Spearmen, Waites, and Baxter, and his posse. By all accounts, this should have been the most exciting part of the film, but we spent so long getting here that I had almost lost interest, The super-powered guns and questionable physics did little to help things either.

To be honest, I've never been keen on Westerns. Sure, they look great on-screen, but cowboys has never been something that's interested me. Open Range did little to change that opinion.

3:10 to Yuma review

 Number 489 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2007 remake of the Western action 3:10 to Yuma.

Christian Bale plays Dan Evans, a down-on-his-luck ranchers and family man. With steadily mounting debts, he decides to risk everything and earn a big reward by bringing outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to justice. Gretchen Mol, Ben Foster, Peter Fonda and Alan Tudyk all co-star.

Since starting this challenge, I've watched my fair share of Westerns and I can safely say that I don't care for cowboy films. Cowboys and gunfights have never been something that's interested me and, as such, I was pretty bored throughout this film. This isn't a valid criticism, but more personal preference. Obviously it has to be good, otherwise it wouldn't be on this list, but it wasn't for me.

As I wasn't interested in this film, I wasn't particularly invested in any of the characters. Yes, they do have arcs and they show some growth, but I don't think it was enough. Throughout the film, we're led to believe that Daniel wants to deliver Ben Wade to the law, so he can collect the reward and pay off his debts. Admirable motivation for sure. But at the end, it's revealed that all he wants is to make his sons proud of him. Yet I think that this happened too late for it to have any input. And I don't think it's very credible.

Yes it's established early on that he has a rocky relationship with his son William (Logan Lerman) but that doesn't stop him from accompanying his dad on his mission. The two of them fight side by side on multiple occasions.

Ben Wade's arc was a bit more interesting. he's quickly established as a ruthless outlaw - brutally robbing an armoured stagecoach and killing all but one of the Pinkerton guards. Wade later kills another man in his sleep, but as he and Daniel grow a burgeoning respect, Wade starts to reform his ways. In the end, he voluntarily goes to prison so that Daniel's family can have the reward money. Characters are never wholly good or bad.

Having said that, Ben Wade's right hand man Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) was pretty evil. In a hell-bent mission to rescue his boss, Charlie executes surrendering federal Marshals and shoots a man in the back. This unwavering loyalty was by far the most interesting part of the film and I wish they explored that further. I don't think they properly addressed why Charlie was so loyal.

While Western afficionados might love this film, it wasn't for me in the slightest.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Review

 Number 173 on the top 1000 films of all time is George Roy-Hill's 1969 Western, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and Harry 'Sundance' Longabaugh (Robert Redford) based upon the real-life outlaws of the same name, are your two most likable bank and train robbers ever. However, upon robbing one train too many, a bounty is set on their heads. To escape the hunters, the pair flee to Bolivia but their troubles are far from over.

In undertaking this challenge, I have watched a fair few Westerns and I admit that I've never been a big fan. Cowboy films just aren't my thing. Butch Cassidy and Sundance was an exception. And perhaps this is because the film doesn't take itself too seriously. Rather than watching two hours of Clint Eastwood scowling, I was treated to the brilliant on-screen chemistry of Newman and Redford.

Having already seen The Sting, I know how well these two can work together with Newman leading the action and Redford bouncing off of him as his sidekick. And the pair's relationship is obvious right from the start. Cassidy's crew have mutinied against him with Harvey Logan (Ted Cassidy) taking control. Logan challenges Cassidy to a duel but Cassidy fights dirty and quickly wins. All the while, Sundance never doubts his partner.

The two of them are so damn charming that their victims enjoy being robbed by them. Despite how the train guard on the Union Pacific Overland Flyer is so honoured to be robbed by the pair, but has to remain loyal to his company. For his loyalty, he is rewarded with a face full of dynamite. Later on, E.H Harriman, the owner of the Union Pacific, sends a posse of expert trackers and bounty hunters after our heroes. They are cornered to a cliff where Cassidy convinces Sundance to jump into the river below despite Sundance admitting he can't swim.

Having plunged into the waters below, Sundance desperately clings onto Cassidy to try and stay afloat. Their ensuing conversation was funny to hear, but this brings me onto my first issue witht he film. And it's how the E.H Harriman storyline doesn't go anywhere. At first, it's very intense to see our heroes be hunted across rock and sand by a ruthless posse and an expert Indian tracker, but this rising action doesn't culminate in any big climax.

Cassidy and Sundance escape and that's that. I thought that we would be in for a big dramatic gunfight between our heroes and the posse, but it wasn't to be. This tension culminated in a fizzle rather than a bang. Rather, we get our climax with the two hiding in Bolivia. Having tried and failed to go straight, Sundance and Cassidy return to robbing banks, despite their complete lack of Spanish, which leads to the film's funniest scene.

But they soon attract the attention of the Bolivian police and army who pin down our heroes with no means of escape. Again, I expected Harriman to appear, but again I was disappointed. Another thing I didn't like was the use of montage as a pure exposition device to showcase the hero's journey from America to Bolivia. It felt very rushed and I think this could have been explored more.

Lastly, I just want to praise Karathine Ross as Cassidy's love interest - Etta Place. Ross really helped to provide the film some heart. She begrudingly agrees to go to Bolivia with the pair on the one condition that she doesn't watch them die.

And this emotional subplot helped to balance out the comedy, drama and action. All of these elements blended together to make a vastly enjoyable film with great performances from its lead actors.

Unforgiven Review

Number 123 on the top 1000 films of all time is Clint Eastwood's swan song to the Western genre: Unforgiven.

Directed, produced and starring Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven tells the story of William Munny (Eastwood), once the most fearsome outlaw in the Wild West, now an ageing pig farmer.  He's brought out of retirement by young upstart "The Schofield Kid" (Jaimz Woolvett) who wants to partner with Munny, so that they can kill two cowboys who slashed a prostitute's face, within the town of Big Whiskey, Wyoming.  Munny agrees, and he, the Schofield Kid, and Munny's old partner, Ned Logan, (Morgan Freeman) go to exact vengeance. It also co-stars the late Gene Hackman as villainous, corrupt sheriff Little Bill. RIP.

When making this film, Eastwood wanted to honour the likes of legendary directors, such as John Ford and Sergio Leone, who of course, launched Eastwood's career, within the Dollar's trilogy.  The first way Eastwood succeeded in his mission was through his superb cinematography.

There were many camera shots that reminded me of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.  There were sweeping master shots of the desert landscape, but also plenty of tight close-ups, especially within the initial sequence, where the poor prostitute has her face cut up.  And there was also a great shot of Munny and Logan, silhouetted, as they rode past a gorgeous sunset.

Eastwood also captured the tension that was present within the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.  Some of the best scenes including the film's concluding and opening scenes, were shot with low lighting and tight camera angles.  This kept the tension high by keeping the audience guessing.

To keep comparing Unforgiven to Leone's work might imply that it isn't a good film in its own right, which would be a terrible disservices.  Eastwood is great in the lead role, as well as within the director's seat.  Beginning as a reluctant antihero, struggling to escape the demons of his past, his gradual transition back into his old ways was compelling to watch.  And it is a transition and not a devolution, as Unforgiven does explore themes of morality and vigilante justice.  Is Munny a hero because he kills men worse than him or is he an antihero because he is a killer?

His tipping point is when *SPOILERS* Ned Logan is captured by Sheriff Little Bill of Big Whiskey, and kills him, as a warning to any other would-be assassins.  This is enough to push Munny completely over the edge and to massacre a good portion of the town's police force.  To see him become so ruthless after so much indecision was great to watch.  Although a small criticism would be how they didn't show Logan's death on-screen.  I think it would have been much more powerful if we had seen how Denny had died.

Unforgiven earnt Eastwood the Best Picture and Best Director Oscars which were well-deserved.  It's probably quite telling that he won for producing and directing and NOT acting. In this film, like many of his films, he plays his usual grumpy old man with gravelly voice character. Gene Hackman was far more deserving of his Best Supporting Actor Oscar win. He was a great actor.

All in all, this was a great homage to the Western genre, one Sergio Leone or John Ford would have been proud to have watched.