Open Range - sucked really bad
 

Saw Open Range yesterday... damn.. the longest 138 minutes and 14 seconds of my life.
Not only did they re-use every possible cliche of a western movie... but the predictable generic and horribly slow dialog, plot and storyline helps to put this movie way up on my shit list.
The only saving grace of this movie was the landscapes and pretty decent acting ... which still could not save the terrible plot.

Well, proof that opinions are like a**holes. Everyone's got one. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

wanted to get in before the lock. ;)

hated it also. too slow for my tastes (although the gun fight was good)

I hated it as well. Boring, and exteremely cliched.

Liked it.. except for the ending.

Decent western. Really, really slow but tolerable.

Amazing gun fight, good acting, slow movie. But worth watching for the gunfight alone imo.

I thought it was a good movie. Very underrated.

:lol: I was horribly confused, thought everyone was talking about Disney's Home on the Range.

Whew.. glad I wasn't the only one. I was like, 138 minutes?!

I thought it was a damn fine western.

Enjoyed it. Slow but fun gunfights. I'll say it is a different western compared with Tombstone or American Outlaws or Texas Rangers.

A great western. Duvall and Costner are superb, and the gunfight is one of the best I've ever seen. Solid , unpretentious direction from Costner. Grade : B +

I really liked it too. Good acting, good cast, great cinematography & music. Then again I like allmost all movies with Costner and most of them are movies that are have a slow pace.

Yup, gotta agree with the above opinions. Didn't even mind the fact that it took its time to tell its story. Although the idea of Costner as a Civil War "special forces" soldier did make me think of John Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank and his "certain moral flexibility".

What he said. I'm a HUUUUUUGE western fan & even a big Kostner fan, but this movie was just one long cliched filled turd, with absolutely NO interesting characters. Thought Duval's performance was extremely bland, the movie lacked a good bad guy. Kostner was the only decent part, & he wasn't that good, just better compared to he rest of the movie.

It was "aight"

Those who thought this was slow: I'd hate to see what you think of the best western ever made (Once Upon A Time In The West).

the thing is it was one big built up to one gun fight.. it's a western with one gun fight WTF!? .... that took about two hours to develop.

I liked it, but probably wouldn't have if I hadn't of seen it expecting a fast paced movie.

best western since Tombstone...

I like the DTS track. I nearly jumped out of my skin when that first gunshot went off!

Kick ass movie! Kevin Costner is great in it, along with Robert Duvall.

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? :lol:

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! :eek:

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... :thumbsup: :D

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.