The Virginian

If you like an honest and touching western-like movie, you really got too see this one! Be warned however,this is not your usual all-shooting all-dancing big budget western movie ! Nothing has been exaggerated or romanticized like 98% of all other Western movies do,if you know what I mean... My English writing is not good enough to explain what I really mean, I can only urge you to read the user comment of Elizabeth (Feb-17-2003) ,that explains my thoughts about this little gem the best... If you're not blinded by hollywood standards and want to see an off-beat western, give this one a try,you won't be disappointed ! Go see it now,...hurry !! :)

This smoky dark western is filled with wonderful music designed to carry the mood from the beginning with the cello theme repeated in various forms throughout the movie as well as some very interesting pieces that were indicative of the times. The scenery and vistas are a delight. Some of the "Virginians" witticisms are quite noteworthy and I'm tempted to make use of some of them in my every day speech. It was fun to see a short appearance from James Drury (the actor as the Virginian in the TV series).

As many movies have set a tempo to our image of westerns, so has this wonderful movie in its own unique way. This is not the old shoot-um up western but a great drama lead by Bill Pullman and Diane Lane and their interaction with the other characters in the movie.

I'm still hoping that my only copy of this movie as a VHS will be replaced by a DVD someday.

...as said, the film was shot in Alberta, Canada... and it's simply beautiful. I've only seen 2 other remakes of The Virginian and this film is up there with the best of them. The acting is well done by just about everyone. It's a good TNT Original and a great start for Bill Pullman's directing and screenplay debut.

Also for those of you who don't know, his children & father-in-law cameo in this film as well.

I've seen many of the VIRGINIAN movies over the years from 1924 to the present and this one is more descriptive and the acting is great by Bill Pullman. Naturally with newer settings and color it is better, but the older ones, 1929 with Gary Cooper and 1946 with Joel McCrea had their merits.

...but quite different from the book. I saw this film first, then read Wister's novel, which was reminiscent of the better Zane Gray tales, in their portrayal of the real West and what westerners were like.

Bill Pullman did a fine job, as star and director, but I have to wonder why they made a number of pulp western-y changes. The shootout in the book was simple and powerful, compared to the film's version. The book had examples of rude horseplay and one-upmanship that was the basis of Trampas' hatred for the Virginian, and went deeply into what kind of a man you had to be to survive out in the West of that time.

In some way this gives you the best of both media: see the film first, for the enjoyment it provides, and then dig up a copy of the novel for an interesting, considerably different version of the story.