The Jack Bull

To those of us who follow any of HBO's original programming, it should come as no surprise that a film on the level of THE JACK BULL premieres on HBO. While the folks out in Hollywood are busy heaping money on so-called films such as AMERICAN OUTLAWS and TEXAS RANGERS, leave it to HBO and John Cusak to come up with the good stuff. Though the big screen fare is far glossier (and no doubt costlier), Cusak's gritty western is simply far superior. Boasting a cast including Cusak, John C. McGinley, John Goodman, and L. Q. Jones, the film out-acts its big screen competitors by a mile and a half. Combine it with a cold, smart, gritty screenplay by Cusak's dad and strong direction by John Badham and you have a film worthy of inclusion among really good Westerns.

f you want to see Ashton Kutcher, James Van Der Beek, Colin Farrell, or Usher Raymond, you'll have to rent the other two. But if you want to see something more on par with Clint Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN, well then, THE JACK BULL is calling your name!

WATCH IT. A great moral translated to a western tale. I have been a fan of Cusack for some time; my first impression was that in a Western he would not be strong enough. As Myrl Redding, the strong true and moral man pushed too far, he is driven and tortured by theft and the death of his wife; and he is wonderful.

The great thing about this movie is that L.Q. Jones' Ballard is not evil just the antagonist. This movie is filled with good people trying to do what they feel is the right thing including John Goodman as Judge Toliver. <br> The best compliment I can give is that it reminds a lot of `The Crucible' by Arthur Miller, though to be honest, I am never sure who is on the side of right . Since the movie is also set against the statehood debate there are so many subplots. Both Redding & Ballard are pushed and pulled by so many other forces, I am never quite sure to whom is delivered `More Weight' as was Giles Corey in the Crucible but the result is very watchable. That's why in the final analysis I like this film, it is not about `white hats' and black hats just sadly about flawed people.

There are descriptions here that may give the ending away.

Jack Bull is a movie based on a story written by Heinrich von Kleist. The story is called Michael Kohlhaas. Michael Kohlhaas is a horse trader just like Myrl Redding is in Jack Bull. Myrl Redding and Michael Kohlhaas are two alike personalities. In both stories, the horse dealers leave their horses to men who have put up a toll booth on their property. The horse dealers never having to pay for this before didn't have enough money to pay the toll and were told they needed a permit. So they each leave two blacks with the property owners. They return with the money and find the blacks abused, worn, and tattered. The horse dealers become furious and want their horses restored to their original condition. This never happens.

This is the basic beginning of both stories. At this point differences appear in the stories, although both are denied justice and take the law into their own hands. Myrl Redding and Michael Kohlhaas take up arms against the men who have caused them the injustice. The men flee from the horse dealers and hide away. Myrl Redding doesn't kill anyone but burns peoples barns, but Michael Kohlhaas has murder in his revolt. Although there are two killings involved in Reddings; one is in defense of Billy, the other is Grady's wife who is shot accidentally by Grady while he shoots at Myrl and Billy. Kohlhaas has more times to be able to forget the whole thing more than Redding does. Both started out wanting the horses returned but towards the end it is about justice. They seek justice where none is found. Both Kohlhaas and Redding lose their wives due to this event, which becomes an even greater reason to pursue justice. Myrl Redding has a little bit more righteousness in him than Kohlhaas does. Kohlhaas is a weird character, he prepares to hang men for taking advantage of this armed uprising. Kohlhaas in the end wants it to be over and flee to somewhere where a man can receive justice. Redding pursues it to the end saying he would follow Ballard to anywhere until justice was served even if it cost him his life. The decision Kohlhaas and Redding make to die is one that is hard. They will leave children behind and leave them parentless. They make the decision to die to set an example. Kohlhaas decides to die, though to spite the Elector because he has information the Elector wants. Redding dies because he says that `someone has to take responsibility for what has happened.' Myrl Redding says that, `don't let anyone step on your rights' as he says good bye to his son. Myrl does this action more for the morality and rightness and Kohlhaas does it more for just the principles. Myrl is the better of the two men because he is not as brutal Kohlhaas.

This film does a decent job of creating the feel of the late 1800s in the Wyoming territory and there are some decent performances. Having said that, I have to disagree with the posts that suggest this had some sort of redeeming message. What was it? The "bad guys" won-Cusack's character managed to get his wife killed (very predictable but the whole scenario was not even close to being consistent with the "Old West", or with Cusack's character up to that point) and to get himself hung for a crime he didn't commit, making his young son an orphan. The villain in the movie gets off with only two years in prison. How is that a good message? There were other problems as well. Cusack has a Crow Indian working for him, (eating at the same table with the family in one scene) and is not ostracized by the other people in town. Highly unlikely, given the treatment of Indians by white settlers everywhere (but very PC). There is a black man who is treated as an equal by a powerful rancher and a judge, even more unlikely in 19th century America. All in all, a film to miss.

I liked the film and thought the story was solid, with strong, believable perfomances throughout, but I have to agree with another reader who questioned the black man's role at the dinner table.

Don't get me wrong, I bought the Indian as an integral part of Cusack's character's homestead, because the character lent himself to a fair and equitable role through his life. The Character "Ballard" however, was basically a rotten @#&^%! though, and in that day and age, would a black man have found reliable and somehow trusted place among other scoundrels let alone at this land "Baron's" table? Had the guy's race been white, it would have been totally believable, but at least for historical accuracy, I had to question this plausibility.

It probably might not have distracted from the film at all had I not read it here first, but I have to agree with the observation. Otherwise I liked the work.