I will see this only because Cate Blanchett is in it. I hope to God Tommy Lee Jones does not chew the scenery like he usually does.

At first, I didn't think this flick would amount to much. After seeing all the previews, I definitely plan on checking it out over the long upcoming weekend.

Ron Howard's movies usually don't get very dark but I'm expecting this is going to be pretty dark and pretty violent.

Ebert's 2-star review here.

It's got a fresh rating at rottentomatoes right now. IT's at 64%, and will most likely drop as mor online reviews pour in overnight.

While I will try to see it, Ron Howard seems very hit and miss with his directoral efforts. Most of his films are solid, but audiences don't always bite.

Saw this last night and hated it. Barely over two hours long, but felt like six...

It's worth mentioning that Tommy Lee Jones was absolutely awful; despite playing pretty much the same basic characater he has in everything since the mid-'90s, he manages to screw it up by being totally unconvincing and unlikable. The lousy script doesn't help things (some lines felt so out of place that my friend and I were glancing at each other with 'what the hell?' kind of looks), and you never feel the slightest bit of concern for any of the characters.

Cate Blanchett drifts through her role, seemingly uninterested; I'd like to believe she was just bored and felt like showing up for a few weeks when the part was offered to her.

Just a thoroughly dull, droning film without much in the way of redeeming qualities beyond decent cinematography.

Rating: D

Just saw it. It's a mess, folks. I didn't hate it, but I couldn't recommend it either.

Blanchett is good. Jones is OK. The Thirteen girl is alright, but doesn't have much to do, while the younger girl exudes Hollywood spunk. (Lou Grant: "I hate spunk.") There's also Val Kilmer in a very odd cameo--odd because he plays a completely normal, quite bland character.

The story meanders between being a straight drama and a potboiler thriller, complete with a sequence that could have come straight out of a bad slasher movie. The villains in this one aren't just evil, they're eeeeeeevil. (The difference being that evil people act in a comprehensible manner for their own reasons, whereas eeeeevil villains do stuff purely to torment the leads. You can always tell an eeeevil villain because his eeeevil is expressed by way of poor personal hygene or physical deformity.)

Pass this one by unless you're a huge Blanchett fan; do yourself a favor and rent The Searchers instead.

:lol: I thought that was Kilmer!

I just saw it, and thought it was great, so there. -ptth-

It looked damn good, was well shot, and I for one thought the pace was just fine. It's not any grand achievement of high-brow philosophical/political/social commentary stature, but it was a damn fine western, and that's all I was lookin' for when I went in. :up:

:up: :up:

Must say I don't know what movie the detractors saw, I loved
this. It's nice to see Hollywood making some good westerns
again (Open Range). Lee Jones was good as was Blanchet. I
thought the little girl did fine. And the "eeeeeeevil" bad guys
clearly said they were paying the white man for the way they've
been treated.

The time the picture takes place is the later part of the west
where the Indians are being deported to Florida. The story is
really quite good, the cinematography was great at times and
the acting top notch. I've come to really beleive in Ron Howards
efforts. **On a side note, if you speak spanish, there is a lot of
spanish dialog, a lot of which is not translated that may enhance
your experience.

Do yourself a favor and see this on the big screen.

Jason

Liked it and Cate Blanchett was good.

Evan Rachel Wood as the missing girl was good in a part that didn't have enough screen time.

Tommy Lee Jones felt kind of odd with some of his dialogue and the Val Kilmer cameo was distracting and ridiculous.

Kudos to Ron Howard for doing something a little darker than usual.

Dull and plodding and the worst thing: I could not have cared less what happened to any of the characters. Cate Blanchett tried to raise the material but the script simply wouldn't allow it.

*½ / ****

Saw it. Underwhelmed to say the least. A good western in a technical sense, but the script was formulaic to say the least. In essence, this was almost like they took some old James Patterson novel (Kiss the Girls, Along Came a Spider), slapped Tommy Lee Jones in the Morgan Freeman role, and set it in the West.
I honestly felt sorry for Blanchett, she was giving it her all but the script was killing her. Also, a note to the filmmakers of this and all other kidnapping movies:

Saw this tonight and I liked it. It was a solid western and I felt the story was strong enough to hold my interest. Nice job by Jones and Blanchett and a solid directorial effort by Howard.

Yes, this movie is long, probably 10 minutes too long, but I was won over by the performances from Cate Blanchette, and the young girl who plays her younger daughter, Dot.

I was expecting the worse, but what unfolded was actually interesting enough to keep me interested in how it would end up. I did think the weak spot was Tommy Lee Jones, who doesn't bring much to the table (I thought it was almost sleepwalking through his role).

Ron Howard does humor well, decent with drama, and those parts work, what he isn't all that great at are the action scenes, the shootouts and gunplay.

Keep your expectations low, and you might come to like this film.

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

I give it 4 stars out of 5. Great flick, particularly for Cate's performance and the girl who played "Dot".

Tommy Lee Jones was good, but they good have done a better job of casting the role, imo.

Suprised to see that I have been able to watch two great westerns this year - Open Range and this.

Said by me on Nov. 18th: And Ebert confirms it on the 26th:

This is next on my "to see" list.