Monte Walsh

This re-make of the 1970 version is considered just as good, if not better, by a lot of people who have seen both. I've only seen this one.

I found it much slower than many westerns but still almost as interesting. What I liked best, I think, was the cast. It fascinated me, especially being a regular viewer of the CSI shows. There are two actors whom I've gotten to know well from those shows and they have roles in here: George Eads having a major part while Rex Linn (?) is in a lesser role. Tom Selleck as "Monte Walsh" is a natural for these westerns. He, like Sam Elliott, has that rugged cowboy appearance that make him look genuine. Isabella Rossellini is past her exotic days but she's always interesting as are the following: Keith Carradine, William Devane, James Gammon, Barry Corbin and Wallace Shawn. Yup, this is a very deep and diverse cast.

You also get one of the better directors doing this made-for-cable TV movie in Australian Simon Wincer, who directed "Lonesome Dove." Plus, the film is based on a book from perhaps the most famous western author of all- time: Louis L'Amour.

The story is not an upbeat one, but not overly depressing despite the fact that few people are left by the end of the film. Despite that sad content and a film that many might consider a bit slow or too talky, this film has enough going for it to recommend.

The TNT remake of "Monte Walsh" is a wonderfully detailed character study of aging cowboys and their struggle with the decline of the old west.

Tom Selleck, Keith Carradine, William Devane, James Gammon and Barry Corbin are the last of a dying breed and they don't accept the inevitable change that progress brings. "I won't do anything I can't do from a horse" is the condition Monte Walsh demands for accepting a job at a corporate ranch.

There is more than a little humor in this film as the cowboys deal with their own mortality as well as the end of their way of life. William Saunders small but engaging turn as the trail cook Skimpy provides some welcome comic relief to an otherwise wistful and touching story.

This film has great acting, beautiful photography, gorgeous music and a wonderfully understated style of direction by Simon Wincer.

Worth the time and commercial breaks.

I dearly loved the original "Monte Walsh" (1970), starring Lee Marvin, Jeanne Moreau and Jack Palance. That was one of the best westerns (and best movies) I've ever seen.

This version, a more modern telling of the same story, is also quite good, but I found it lacking in the "grit and dirt" of the earlier one. Tom Selleck is convincing enough as a cowboy, but unfortunately he still has that "just stepped out of the pages of GQ magazine" aura to him that I don't think he is ever going to shake. There is nothing wrong with being as handsome as Tom Selleck, it's just that I found it hard to feel totally convinced of his portrayal of an authentic, hard-scrabble cowboy of the dying Old West.

I felt that too much attention was devoted to making it all so "pretty pretty" instead of letting it gather a patina of cow dung, as must have been the case in the *real* old West. Here the cowboy costumes were a bit too gorgeous and hokey to be convincing, and the cinematography, while breathtakingly beautiful, seemed distracting, as if it were all a travel-documentary. It all seems to have been "made for TV" sanitized, giving it more style than atmosphere.

But I'm being too critical here, and I don't want to spoil a good film by being unnecessarily nit-picky. All said, it's really a good movie with a powerful, timeless story about people losing their way of life thanks to rapid technological progress and corporate cynicism. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? I would recommend this film to any die-hard western movie fan, but please try to pick up a copy of the earlier 1970 version, and watch that one as well. The West is the Best, bar none.

Well produced TNT production. Great scenery and a well written story that keeps your interest. It is 1892 in Wyoming and the verge of progress is creeping in. Monte Walsh(Tom Selleck)struggles to maintain his identity as the job of cowboy is becoming obsolete. He is not looking forward to doing anything than can't be done from atop a horse. His girlfriend(Isabella Rossellini)is beginning to apply pressure to settle down and get married. But there is always something else to do before he resorts to "retiring".

Selleck(co-procucer)is excellent as Walsh. He carries his added weight well and still evokes the rugged cowboy of old. The beautiful Rossellini lights the screen with or without Selleck. But they work together tremendously. Supporting cast includes: Barry Corbin, Keith Carradine, George Eades, Robert Carradine, William Devane and Joanna Miles. This is well worth the time to watch. You will be thinking sequel.

Best known for the novel "Shane," Jack Schaefer also wrote the novel "Monte Walsh," a depiction of the life of the itinerant cowhand. There's not a lot of plot, but a hugely detailed and wonderfully described slice of life, tough, tender, and comedic. The first film of "Monte Walsh" was a great little picture, with a nice uncharacteristic role for Jack Palance as Monte's pal Chet. But this TV remake may in fact be a better film. Tom Selleck is just grand as Monte--getting a bit old for bronco-busting, but still full of piss-and-vinegar. And Keith Carradine is swell as Chet, the cowboy who gives it all up to marry the hardware widow. Everything about this film is done extremely well. The costumes are superb--colorful and mythic while at the same time obviously useful and well-used work clothes. This is not a clean-hat Western, one of my pet peeves. The music is really touching and classic and romantic, and the cinematography is, to coin a cliche', stunning. All the performances are really quite good, and the movie left me with the feeling that I'd really spent a few months with a bunch of cowhands. What plot there is is realistic and uncontrived, and is ultimately moving. But "Monte Walsh" really earns its spurs by showing a 21st century audience how wonderful and horrible life on the 19th century range could be.