is there any reason why this is R? there is no blood and guts that you would expect from an R movie?

None that I can remember, do they drop a coupla f-bombs?

no

Saw it back in August in theaters. Thought it was good, but nothing exceptional. The movie alternated between being really good and really pretentious. Good gunfight though.

They do have a guy getting shot in the head at point-blank range. That and a healthy smathering of language of and violence is enough I think for an R rating.

I wouldnt go as far as saying it sucked. It was pretty good. Tombstone still the best modern age western to date.

I pointed out how I hated Open Range b/c of it being slow & what I think of OUATITW is it's masterfully paced & filmed filled with large than life, classic western characters. Open Range, is just plain slow, overloaded with western cliches & filled with hollow, empty poor western archetypes. I don't know what OUATITW has to do with Open Range & why you would hate to see what one thinks about it.

Open Range is very good.

Jason

I absolutely love OUATITW, but I believe it to be very, very slow - but unlike most of you, I don't think that slow = boring. Most of the criticisms levied on OR could be applied to OUATITW. Open Range isn't anywhere near as good, but one quality they share is slowness - they are paced very similarly - but I don't think that makes either of them a boring film at all. The Rundown, for example is never slow, but it is very boring.

I can easily see why people disliked this film, but I found it to be a great throwback to the classic westerns. I didn't particularly think it was too slow - there was some great tension building throughout the entire movie.

Count me among Costner's supporters on this one.

Completely disagree.

You pretty much have to get on "Being John Malkovich" level of weirdness to make any truly original anymore.

Everything has already been made, cliches are everywhere.

I'll see anything with Robert Duvall and Annette Bening.

my comments from the original thread that no one seems capable of resurrecting....

I hated it...

But it's still one of the best western's I've ever seen!

But what did everyone expect? It's a genre piece. Utterly traditional western about grumbling men seeking revenge. Sensibly made, overly long... a classic "western" IMO. I can't imagine anyone going in with any other expectations, especially after seeing the trailers. I was "forced" to watch it by a western-loving co-worker, and found it no better or worse than my pre-conceived notion.

That slo-motion shotgun blast was cool though...

I didn't mind the length at all. I enjoyed the fact that the film took its time. It seemed to reinforce the idea that Duvall and Costner's characters weren't all hot to get themselves mixed up with the Sheriff, they tried to avoid it until it was inevitable. The romance aspect was also nicely paced. If they had fallen in love within an hour, I would have probably just rolled my eyes. Again, they avoided the subject until the last possible moment.

Of course, what everyone has said about archetypes and genres is true, it is very difficult to make an original western anymore. I disagree that they were "hollow and empty" though. They spent plenty of time setting up the back stories of both characters; to me they were both very real. I find it strange that most complaints I hear about movies nowadays is that they don't spend time developing the characters, and when a film finally does, people complain that it is too long and drawn out, and there should have been more action. I read the same complaints about Master and Commander, another film that took its time to develop the characters, and still got slammed for being too long.

I wouldn't say this is "the best western ever," but since we rarely get them in the theaters, I will say this is the best one I've seen recently.

Doesn't suck in the least. Great Western in the way some of the 70's westerns were made, with some depth and a good story. Duvall should have gotten a supporting actor nod for this one.
I am continually amazed at how many "this movies sucks' threads the forum here manages to grind out. Lighten up for Chrissakes.

yeah, but it wasn't graphic, and what language?? i heard an s word here and there, but thats it. hell you can even show a bullet go through a persons hand and get a pg-13 (daredevil)

I liked it.

You have got to be kidding me. Kurt Russel's hilariously fake-looking mustache alone prevents it from approaching anywhere near that title.

Ya I know. Young Guns was da bomb yo!!!!@1

I really liked this one, but I do have to agree with Sessa on one thing. Lack of a great villian. For the life of me I can't even remember anything about him.

I also think it would have benefitted from more than one gunfight. I did notice watching it that the first bullet fired is 90 mins. in. And that was at a mirror in a bar! I enjoy slow pacing and engaging characters, but it was kinda disappointing for a western in that [gunfight, lack thereof] aspect. Still very enjoyable though.

I am really confused by a lot of comments here. People are complaining that the film uses a lot of cliches and then in the next breath complain that it doesn't have a good bad guy or enough gunfights, like EVERY OTHER WESTERN. So if it conformed to every other Western, with a good bad guy and plenty of gunfights, then it would be better, and less cliched? Hmmmm.

Not an overly huge Costner fan but I enjoyed it.

Just saw it tonight for the first time. DTS track blew me away, especially the gun fights. Acting was better than average for a Coster flick, and Duvall was great. What really brought it down was the stupid love story that turned a good movie until a bloated mess towards the end. If they ended after the gunfight, the movie would of been excellent.

Good movie, great acting, one hell of a gunfight.

Costner firing 9 or 10 shots from a 6 shot single action revolver was pretty sad