Headhunter32746

This movie is Billy the Kid in name only. Anyone who has any kind of fascination with the Wild West or the historical William H. Bonney would do well to shy away from this flick. Almost all of the names have been switched around, the plot shares only a marginal familiarity with the true Billy and the lead actor Robert Taylor seems better suited for playing a 1930's era Chicago gangster than he does playing one of the most famous outlaws of all time.

Now that I've got my historical accuracy niggling out of the way - I still find myself unable to say many positive things about this film. But I'll give it a shot.

Some of the dialogue is rather inventive - and I do actually appreciate the relationship that Billy shares with ranch herder Eric Keating. There's an interesting exchange during Keating's introduction wherein he explains to a wary-eyed Billy why he doesn't carry a gun. Keating's naiveté rests upon a mythological ideal of frontier honor - an ideal that comes with a heavy price.

The movie itself is also wonderfully shot. The Technicolor treatment produces stunning visuals that can easily compare to westerns that are produced ten, fifteen, sometimes even twenty years after Billy the Kid.

Sadly, there simply isn't a lot of material available for Billy the Kid enthusiasts. Again, do NOT refer to this movie if you are looking to find insight into the true story of Billy the Kid. The closest you will probably come towards finding the definitive Billy story is in the 1988 fluff film, "Young Guns" and its subsequent continuation in "Young Guns II" - and even they take great spoonfuls of poetic license with history.

Hopefully Phone Booth will take away some of the stigma Joel Schumacher earned for himself as a result of Batman and Robin.

I won't bother running down the plot-points, since that's been done thoroughly throughout.

This is an above average movie with an engaging plot and solid performances. Even though Kiefer Sutherland only has about 8 seconds of actual screen-time, he is clearly the most captivating aspect of the entire spectacle. Not only does he have one of the most instantly recognizable voices in Hollywood, but his abrasive staccato easily dominates every scene.

The movie has an adequate running time of 81 minutes which is just enough to accomplish everything the film sets out to do. Any longer than that and you would end up with a tedious monotonous movie that drags on for far too long.

My only real criticism is the illogical segue into the second act. A pimp gets shot in the streets of New York and before you know it, eighteen cars with cops with kevlar vests are on the scene. The only reason they are there is based on the unreliable witness accounts of three overly-dramatic prostitutes. This was a bitter pill for me to swallow. But if you can get manage to turn off your "logic circuits" for a few minutes, I think you will be able to forgive it in light of the later dramatic sequences.

Sutherland rocks. I'm glad to see him doing movies again. (Or NOT see him, as the case may be).

There should be a standard rule in Hollywood. If you are going to dress up in anything less than a bikini, then pound for pound, you should weigh at least as much as your clothing. Malnourished women running around in their tighty whiteys doesn't do a lot when you can see their ribs sticking through their bodies.

But if you can get past that...Charlie's Angels is still a fun film. Don't look for any semblance of a plot. Don't look for high-quality acting. Just ease back for some fun explosions, music and corny dialogue.

It's not Shakespere in the Park. It's not meant to be. Some people seem to have a real hard time wrapping their widdle brains around that.