Appaloosa

Appaloosa as a western is okay, as a movie its okay, but as a character study it's great. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen are two of the most underrated actors (not stars) in Hollywood. Viggo should have had two or three Oscars by now. His rendition of Everett Hitch made the whole movie more than worthwhile. He's a man of little words but great thought. He also an observant man, of things and people. He's loyal but with practicality. He knows what the two of them do and why they do it and he know enough about Virgil not to step on his toes. But he also knows when to say what he as to say and leave it at that. I'm never that impressed by Renee Zellweger but in this movie she sort of fit in. 7/10

On the immediate surface "Apaloosa" occurs as an old school Western grounded in the battle of good against evil. For the most part first time director/ writer Ed Harris's "Apaloosa" is the traditional tale of gunslingers hired to protect the town against the malevolent rancher, who terrorizes the town of Apaloosa. This slithery and wily Rancher is Randall Bragg, well played by Academy Award Winner Jeremy Irons. Irons is amazing. In the opening Bragg (Irons) kills the town Marshall and his deputies in cold blood. So there is no question surrounding Bragg's character. Harris and Viggo Mortensen play Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch, who are lawmen for hire. The town of Apaloosa signs a contract with Virgil and Everett paying them to protect the town from Bragg. As part of the deal Apaloosa surrenders legal jurisdiction and autonomy to Cole and Hitch. This is pretty straight forward until femme fatale widow Allison French (Renee Zellwegger) arrives in town. Virgil takes a quick fancy to Allison, but her motives are vague and questionable at best. Will she threaten Virgil's partnership with Everett?

First off, I ultimately liked "Apaloosa", because Viggo Mortensen is awesome as Everett. Despite the movie's quirky idiosyncrasies, Mortensen commands the heroic presence as the sensible man of honor. Mortensen is the Western hero in the tradition of Clint Eastwood. As Everett, we always know where Mortensen stands, and he is both charismatic and cool. In a great scene a rival asks Everett about Virgil's gun prowess. Everett says plainly, "I haven't seen anyone as good as Virgil." Mortensen's Virgil salvages the movie's sense of honor.

As mentioned previously, "Apaloosa" is not really all that traditional just below the surface. And this is not necessarily a good thing. This is not the anti-hero masterpiece of Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven". In one sense, I think Harris would like it to be. For one thing although Harris's Virgil is brave and noble, he is an apparent partial nut job. He goes nonlinear on some hoods in a saloon, among other weird out bursts. Harris's Virgil is not an educated man, and clumsily forces his diction and stumbles through Emerson. Instead of coming off as charmingly eccentric, his Virgil occurs as a little weird. Renee Zellwegger is an amazing actress, but here she struggles to carry off pretty. Her character Allison also has the propensity to have sex with virtually any man with a pulse. Straight and narrow Virgil in love with psycho whore Allison is not the most conventional love story, nor is it the story's most endearing plot line. Again, this may be more artifact of the screenplay by Harris and Robert Knot based on Robert B. Parker's best selling novel.

In spite of its quirkiness and kind of nutty characters, Harris manages to reign in the movie as it concludes-- opting for the more heroic. There is a great scene before one the climatic showdowns where Allison asks Virgil and Everett, "Aren't either of you at all afraid?" Virgil says, "…I guess I don't think about that so much." Also in "Apaloosa" the action is not leveraged for the utmost drama. Director Harris's action sequences lack crispness—the gun fight blocking is mostly single shot, without any interesting angles. Aside from the last gun fight, most of the action is diluted of high drama. The action is well done, just not spectacular.

"Apaloosa" is an amalgamation of the traditional Western with the idiosyncratic melodrama of the new. The overall effect is compelling, and also makes you scratch your head. Viggo Mortensen's strong and charismatic performance as Everett Hitch eventually wins out, and makes "Apaloosa" worth watching.

Films are made for us to escape to a new reality, whether that reality be complete fantasy, present day, the future, or in this case, the good old West. What we have here is a great western that looks and feels like a classic in the making, an old school western with an old school touch of directing (and acting) from Ed Harris. Appaloosa is very accessible in a film genre that isn't so accessible. It's a straightforward film that, despite that, never becomes predictable and formulaic. Harris's wonderful job on all fronts make Appaloosa one of the most complete films of the year. It's got it all, great writing, killer acting, and a great atmosphere that allows the viewer to get trapped in this old western world.

Set in 1882 New Mexico, Appaloosa follows the fate of the town of the same name, which has fallen into the control of a ruthless outlaw (Jeremy Irons), and the powers that be have hired new hands to take control of the situation (Harris and Viggo Mortensen). However, when a mysterious widow (Renee Zellweger) arrives in town, loyalties will be tested, friendships will be put on trial, and guns will be fired.

The strong point, as I've said, is Ed Harris, who pulls the quadruple threat of acting, directing, writing, and producing. Despite all the work he did on this film, he still manages to turn in an Oscar worthy performance as the steadfast and unwavering commander of the town. Harris is subtle, nuanced, and never out of control. He commands the screen every time he's on it, without yelling or doing anything too crazy. Viggo Mortensen's near silent performance is not short on talent either, as one of silent acting's kings continues to show incredible versatility (the guy is a fantasy king, Russian mobster, and now an old west Deputy Marshall). To complete the trifecta of greatness, Jeremy Irons is the only guy I can imagine in the role of the film's villain. His freezing stare, mixed with the icy cold voice he is most known for, makes him one of the most memorable villains of the year.

Renee Zellweger really didn't add anything to the movie, though her character wasn't too interesting, and just serves as a plot device. This is what keeps the film from getting that "10" from me. The rest of the supporting cast is really a non-issue, as the story really only revolves around a few characters.

What I enjoyed most about the film is that it really made me feel like I was out west...right down to the little details, such as sandstorms, the presence of Native Americans, small drawls from the actors (thankfully none besides Zellweger had a bad one), and the different kinds of horses & guns in the film. Harris keeps the film moving nicely, and there's only a few moments where I felt it dragged a bit. Like I've said, it's hard to find a real fault here...the film is just well done all around, from a production standpoint.

When all is said and done, I knew how I felt about this film the second the lights went on. I clapped and said, "that was great". Appaloosa is an old school western that has everything a fan of the genre could want...including a suspenseful and tense gunfight and crazy Native Americans on horses! It's definitely one of the most complete westerns and films I've seen this year, and should be in contention for a few awards come Oscar season.

I saw Appaloosa last night. Absolutely fantastic. Whether it is because he is a bit older I don't know, but Ed Harris obviously actually understands westerns.

A straightforward western tale with very little revisionism, with real men doing "what men have to do". The sense of space, the wish to be part of civilization, the bad men resisting that encroachment, the sense of the mythic; it was all there.

A little bit more modern in approach than a classic 50's tale, particularly in how Renée Zellwegger's character developed, but a real story nevertheless; good guys, bad guys. Jeremy Irons is very good as the baddie. Timothy Spall is good comic relief and Ed Harris and Vigo Mortensen a terrific pair, carefully nurturing their relationship while understanding exactly what they have to do.

The pace was very good, allowing the story and character to develop properly. Even so, it could have and should have been shorter - John Ford, or more likely Anthony Mann would have got through this story in about 90 minutes, but very satisfying nevertheless.

Costner did a pretty good job on Open Range (that was really miles too long), 3:10 to Yuma was pathetic (why they bothered to remake it when the makers so totally misunderstood the thrust of the original I will never know).

But this was the real deal, or at least as near to the real deal as we are ever likely to get nowadays. Too bad it will disappear without a trace.

One reviewer remarked how "Ed Harris understands (the) Western (genre)" I couldn't agree more. This film is a delight. The writing is solid, the dialog sparked with humor, the heroes are more than caricatures and cardboard cut-outs, the villains are worthy anti-heroes and the back-up is wonderful. The performances of Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen and Jeremy Irons as the main protag-/antagonists are sterling. Harris is the lonely paladin, uncompromising in his ethic, drawn in by the warmth and softness of a needful woman, artfully and convincingly played by Renee Zellweger; Mortensen is the slightly jaded sidekick who both respects and doesn't completely understand his hero. A parallel villain is offered by Lance Henrikson, a kind of poor man's Clint Eastwood, giving an interesting twist to the story. Some comic relief is offered by veteran character actor, James Gammon and fine British actor Timothy Spall without reducing the tension in the story line or reverting to a burlesque. The mythic theme of the knight-errant works well in this presentation brought to light by the competent direction of Ed Harris. My only fear is that it being devoid of ballet-type ritual killings, CGI and only a mild spattering of violence, it will likely fly under the radar of much of today's theater goers, which is a shame. It's a fine film.