Tom Horn

I often wonder how pre video audiences were able to take in the full effect and minor nuances of films as we can today. Watching a film again and again allows one to really study the work and pick up the director's deep intent for character and plot.

Watching Tom Horn a few times allows one to see that it really is a good movie. And after more than 20 years in motion pictures, McQueen finally just fits into his role, and does not "act" or play Steve McQueen.

The first scenes are excellent. McQueen establishes his character as a man who knows, and has seen most of, what the west is about. He knows who he is, and what he's accomplished, so he doesn't need to brag. The way he virtually walks into a fight in the bar with the pompous British fighter and his manager is superb. "Well, if he ain't won the fight yet, then he ain't the champ yet" is delivered with believable aplomb. When he says the guy's mother would have to stand on his shoulders just to kiss Geronimo's ass it is priceless. Especially good is his question "OK, if I win this fight, then does that make ME champion of the world?" He knows he is going to get his butt kicked but does all this for principle's sake. His running out the door and yelling oh s***, then throwing the plate of food at the fighter is one of the better acting sequences done anywhere.

His work as the stock detective is classic McQueen without his earlier years of mugging and panning. Good stuff.

The open spaces of this film, and Horn's subsequent incarceration gave me a feeling of freedom and claustrophobia. It worked well

The film is distinctive in four ways, the first being that Steve McQueen finally returned to the screen after having spent the 1970s elsewhere. He was a bounty hunter in the late 1950s on television, then jumped to prominence in "The Magnificent Seven" about 1960 and spent the next ten years as a dominant force on-screen. So this film was a "comeback." But McQueen came back as an artist, not as a cartoon version of his earlier self. His portrayal of Tom Horn does not use close-ups, quick draws or choreographed violence. The second thing that stands out here is the subject of the film, which is frontier justice on the high plains, a rough subject to be sure. "Tom Horn" (1980) is the first movie since "Shane" (1953) to deal realistically with the subject a part of which treatment is using the countryside itself as a character. There were a lot of movies beginning in the late 1960s with Clint Eastwood's "spaghetti westerns" which focused on the grisly righteousness of law enforcement, but it wasn't until Eastwood's "Unforgiven" (1998) that he finally made a movie that approached the quality of "Shane" and "Tom Horn," and employed some panoramic camera work. Third, the way the story is told is unfamiliar to most modern movie fans because it is so old, traditional and specific to the northern plains. The story is told, by veteran Western director Wiard, in the same way author Albert White Eagle tells stories, as a montage of contrasting fragments often out of chrnonolgical order -- "oh, by the way, I forget to tell you something, let me tack it on now" -- the juxtaposition of which fragments imply the surreal ambience of the times, an ambience which could not be effectively shown using the usual plot devices, cinematic close-ups, narrative summaries and chronological markers. For example, we see Tom in a jail cell looking at the clouds outside the little window, then we see him, with the same clouds in the sky behind him, shooting a young man (uncredited actor Sonny Skyhawk) who tries to kill the school marm as she bathes in the horse trough while talking with Tom. Is this something that really happened before he was locked up, or is it a fantasy or dream born of incarceration? It doesn't matter whether the scene is real or imagined, what matters is the jolt we receive by seeing it out of sequence. Most directors would have either shown Tom going to sleep in the cell, thus implying the scene was a dream, or would have had some narrative dialogue which indicated that Tom was remembering something that had really transpired. But Wiard, throughout the film, uses that northern technique. Another example is when we are visually escorted out of a scene in which Tom kills a rustler, with beautiful mountains in the background, into one where he is breaking a horse for the schoolmarm to eventually ride -- the same mountains are in the background, unchanged. A final thing about this movie was actor Richard Farnsworth. This was the first movie in which he had considerable dialogue, and was given a chance to demonstrate his skill at characterization. He plays John Coble, Tom Horn's employer. At the end of the movie is a 1904 quote from Coble, saying that that Tom was not guilty of the crime of which he was accused and convicted. This quotation, as Western researchers know, is from Coble's suicide note. And it foreshadowed Farnsworth's sucide twenty-two years later, a few months after being nominated, finally, for an Academy Award for his brilliant portrayal in "The Straight Story." McQueen, on-screen, and Farnsworth, on-screen and off, epitomized that quality of the Westerner least understood by people in the rest of the nation. The real Tom Horn said, "The people in the Northeast hire us to protect them from the people in the South," and, "We find the thing, whatever it is, then somebody else gets the glory for bringing it down, and somebody else makes the money for taking it back to the folks in town," but "You can either laugh or cry at your fate, and that's not much of a choice, is it, pardner?" The droll stocism and sardonic wit of the cowboy, and the western tracker whether white or Indian, has always enchanted and mystified the rest of the nation, and never really been understood. The movie, "Tom Horn," is a fitting tribute to the history and people of the northern plains, to Steve McQueen's artistry, to the memory of Richard Farnsworth, and to stories that are not easy to tell.

w. t. benda

This was a very good movie. One of my favorites of the west. I think it gives a good account of the actual event. I was in Cheyenne shortly after I saw the movie,the first time, and was able to find out a bit about the actual event.

As a McQueen fan I was somewhat disappointed in the film, but at the same time McQueen was ill, but proved that he could stick with a project to the finish. At least this version was more realistic than the David Carradine version "Mr. Horn", which was released in 1979. McQueen's version had a little more historical integrity than the latter version, and was more committed to telling the truth.

McQueen was always a physical actor, and especially in private as one of Bruce Lee's favorite Jeet Kune Do students, the others being James Coburn and Kareem Abdul Jabar. During the scene when Tom Horn escapes and is running from the deputies, I felt that McQueen was giving it his all, and that he knew his time was short, "so why not show the fans I've still got it?" The way he was gasping for air, and just gave up running made me think he wasn't acting, and however he felt after that take hurt me just the same watching it.

So let's not totally ignore what McQueen was trying to do. Even in "The Hunter", which was to go out in a blaze of glory. At that time in 1980, and his condition maybe that was the best he could give us. Still he gave of himself as an actor, an artist, and a professional right when the average guy couldn't, but we all know he wasn't the average guy. So let's give credit to "Tom Horn" where it's due, to it's star, who didn't want to let us down; by simply showing us he could still get in front of the camera and grace us simply with his presence.

My wife thinks this movie is a dirty portrayal of the West. Historians will argue about Horn and the events that happen in this film, but I like it. Do not watch the edited tv version, to get the real brutal feel of this film rent it. It is a good portrayal of how dirty and nasty the frontier really was. The end suits this film very well, and if my wife can watch an entire Western the film is well done.