Scott7411

For anyone who grew up on 1950s and '60s westerns (both TV shows and movies), this thing is a hoot. I know Roger Ebert in 1969 gave it a two out of four stars, and panned it for being what it quite precisely intended to be: spoof penance for all those old Western character actors...including Elam, Morgan, even star James Garner himself, being punished for Maverick (or reprising his best western role, take your pick). Even the over-the-top western music which critics deplored (a separate character unto itself, very much a part of the spoof and equally hilarious), was clearly intentional. But what this was for me (I just watched it after a few beers and several decades of avoidance), was a nostalgic laugh fest. And something else: This was James Garner at the top of his ironic game, preparing for his best and probably most popular role ever, two or three short years later: Jim Rockford. For Garner this was less a Maverick spoof retrospective, more like: What if Jim Rockford stepped through a time warp and arrived in an 1880s madcap western gold rush town? It's not Peckinpah or Eastwood or Leone, not even Mel Brooks slapstick. But it's good western comedy, nonetheless, and it is GREAT Garner.

I've read the reviews which panned this movie because it is unrealistic (as opposed to, say...Star Wars, the Bond franchise, the Bourne franchise, Dusk Till Dawn, Indiana Jones, Batman...you name it).

I've read that there's too much action, not enough plot (but Fast and Furious number X is knocking 'em dead at the box office--and the "plot" is...?) I've read that amnesia doesn't work that way (but Bourne and Memento were okay--how about the old B&W classic Random Harvest?). Me, I never watched the thing for a lesson in abnormal psychology or traumatic amnesia, and I didn't watch Bruce Willis and Steve Buscemi fly out to an approaching asteroid to learn about space science or well drilling technology, or even Physics 101 (you want realism, the fragments would have destroyed planet Earth, The End).

I've read that our or our allied governments would never stage or allow a contract false flag or large scale pre-emptive attack as portrayed by Chapter, in TLKGN (but it was okay in Three Days of the Condor, or in the Tonkin Gulf and a dozen other more recent historical actual events, for that matter).

This is nonsense. Someone very high up didn't like the premise and Hollywood came down hard on Shane Black's story (perhaps because they were planning something very like that). It was action/comedy not dissimilar to the Die Hard, etc. franchise, but it was made an example of. If you want to watch a realistic documentary-style production featuring intelligence agencies, then watch The Company or a half-dozen other offerings, NOT an action/comedy romp full of explosions and some of the wittiest dialog since Gross Point Blank. I might just as well complain that documentaries and docu-dramas deserve a 1 out of 10 because they are not funny and move too slowly.

I give this movie (which I and my partner own and have watched many times just for the acting and darkly comedic dialog, timing, and delivery) a 10 on it's own merits. Not because some reviewers overseas found it too "Hollywood," or some thought it appealed to 14-year-olds (like 14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed movies aimed at them), or some refused to watch it yet still felt qualified to vote and express an opinion, all the other usual suspect reasons for panning a movie and trying to sound outraged or intelligent, or whatever. Even Ebert was upset that the hero and heroine outran a fireball--see, they never put that in action/comedy movies because everyone knows it's impossible to outrun a fireball. (So what do we do, Rog, just end the movie there? They blew up, The End.)

Please, reviewers, if escapist Hollywood action/comedies are not your thing, stop reviewing stuff which offends your literal sensibilities, or which you did not bother to watch. Go review Heidi, or Wuthering Heights, or A River Runs Through it. But what's the point in comparing this sort of thing to Hitchcock and Bergman all the time? This movie is older than the age-group it was written for, and still stands out as a classic of its type (which includes Die Hard and Lethal Weapon). Ten out of ten.