This is probably a good an example of an old formula Western as you can find. Noble Native Americans abused and used beyond their honorable means by a few rotten white guys, with a few white guys wise enough to know something is rotten in Denmark, or in this case, Saskatchewan.
And that's why this is a "6" instead of a "5". Old formula is just better and more entertaining than new formula, which means a modern neo nazi movie producer figures out ways to kill as many native American women as possible, and show that nature or God bends over backwards to make all women blond and blue eyed. This is loved by women, who can easily be blond just by being in the Sun, but it presents the most depressing world to heterosexual men.
The other new formula Western is to make one dimensional cardboard cutout characters, basically so vicious that you would have to stay alert and awake all night long to think of ways to be this vicious, and that's just the heroes. The bad guys have to "outsadist" every other movie's sadist, which is why "The Quick and the Dead" works as a lampoon of this "supersadist" in cult classic status.
Plus the old Western is better cinema. Great scenery and camera work.
The actors can't be judged here. They merely do what they're told to do. Again, the old Western is two dimensional characters as opposed to the one dimensional cliché of the Westerns popularized after about 1965.
This particular one really smacks of generic substance, though. It is pure formula, all the way through. It's as though every cliché of the time is used. There just isn't anything fresh here. The scenery makes up for it. It works as "art", and moves briskly. Still, it is duller than most of the older Westerns from the classic fifties, the golden age, and undeniably the best age of Westerns. It comes up short against its peers.
Blame it on the writing, but more on the directing. Clever directors find a way around making a cliché dull. This is done by making minor characters important. If the writer fails to do it, the ultimate culprit or hero in making the film is the director. If the minor characters hadn't been written so well in "Shane", the director would've still had the option of giving them the substance to make it more interesting, and likewise, the director can cut out great bits to make a movie less worthwhile.
If you do watch this, expect the "formula" of old fashioned fun, which still meant making a movie for the audience, instead of the "formula" on "sixties-seventies egotism", which meant the audience was supposed to be made for the alleged artists. You won't remember much either way, but at least you wont come away depressed, tired, and suicidal after watching this.
And that's why this is a "6" instead of a "5". Old formula is just better and more entertaining than new formula, which means a modern neo nazi movie producer figures out ways to kill as many native American women as possible, and show that nature or God bends over backwards to make all women blond and blue eyed. This is loved by women, who can easily be blond just by being in the Sun, but it presents the most depressing world to heterosexual men.
The other new formula Western is to make one dimensional cardboard cutout characters, basically so vicious that you would have to stay alert and awake all night long to think of ways to be this vicious, and that's just the heroes. The bad guys have to "outsadist" every other movie's sadist, which is why "The Quick and the Dead" works as a lampoon of this "supersadist" in cult classic status.
Plus the old Western is better cinema. Great scenery and camera work.
The actors can't be judged here. They merely do what they're told to do. Again, the old Western is two dimensional characters as opposed to the one dimensional cliché of the Westerns popularized after about 1965.
This particular one really smacks of generic substance, though. It is pure formula, all the way through. It's as though every cliché of the time is used. There just isn't anything fresh here. The scenery makes up for it. It works as "art", and moves briskly. Still, it is duller than most of the older Westerns from the classic fifties, the golden age, and undeniably the best age of Westerns. It comes up short against its peers.
Blame it on the writing, but more on the directing. Clever directors find a way around making a cliché dull. This is done by making minor characters important. If the writer fails to do it, the ultimate culprit or hero in making the film is the director. If the minor characters hadn't been written so well in "Shane", the director would've still had the option of giving them the substance to make it more interesting, and likewise, the director can cut out great bits to make a movie less worthwhile.
If you do watch this, expect the "formula" of old fashioned fun, which still meant making a movie for the audience, instead of the "formula" on "sixties-seventies egotism", which meant the audience was supposed to be made for the alleged artists. You won't remember much either way, but at least you wont come away depressed, tired, and suicidal after watching this.