Clint Eastwood is, by no means, a bad director. When he's at the top of his game, he's making great films like Unforigven and The Outlaw Joesy Wales. However, Eastwood has made plenty of sub-par to "just plain bad" films during the long expanse of his career - Pale Rider would fall under this category. It's not as if Eastwood didn't put any thought or work into this film, it's just that the generic and shoddy script brought the film down in a major way. Seriously, with a script like Pale Rider's, I'm not sure who could've had the ability to "save" this film. What really shocks me, though, is that the film would go on to be nominated for a Palme d'Or, which is the highest prize awarded to films competing at the Cannes Film Festival. That just blows my mind; how on earth could anyone see something great in this poor film? I digress, though, and shall proceed to actually explaining my contempt for this cliched film.
The plot follows a small mining community during the late era of the American Old West. The community may be simple and quite poor, but the people making up this community have big hearts and simply want to make an honest living during an age where dishonesty brings violence, immorality, and quick cash. Speaking of dishonesty, though, Coy LaHood - the richest man in the next town over - is the boss of a hydraulic mining company and wishes to take the small mining community's land. After multiple turndowns, LaHood soon resorts to raids and intimidation in order for the community to turn over their land. Just when things seem bleak, a drifter rides into town and singehandedly defends Hull Barret, a member of the miners, from a group of LaHood's ruffians. Dubbed only as "Preacher", due to his attire, the stranger helps defend the small community from the violent and greedy underlings of LaHood.
The concept's a bit lackluster, admittedly, but this film could've been decent, at best. However, the poor scripting, inherent lack of character, and the sloppy editing make this film's characters virtually impossible to get to know or like. I feel bad that the miners and their families are threatened, that really sucks, but the film gives me no reason to care about these characters. They're all cookie-cutter cliches that can be found in dozens of dozens of Westerns. They're not characters at all - they simply exist to give this film *some* sort of life and purpose. Sadly, because we don't any of these people, it's like watching a bunch of uninteresting strangers converse at an airport. It's boring. It doesn't help that the dialogue is completely expositional. There's no character development or focus, as the dialogue simply exists to get the film from one point to the next. In other words, I saw the characters' lips moving but I couldn't feel what they were saying. It was dull, trite, and lifeless. Even Clint Eastwood's character seems a bit cliche. Sure, everybody loves a cool gunslinger character, but we've seen elements of this character in a plethora of films like Shane or High Plains Drifter.
Speaking of cliches, this film rips off a catalogue of classic films. Seven Samurai, Shane, Leone's Dollars trilogy, etc. and so forth. It's virtually a hodgepodge of cliches from other - and far better - films. The nameless gunslinger, for instance, can be seen in films like The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly, Yojimbo, High Plains Drifter, Once Upon a Time in the West, and more. The village in trouble? Seven Samurai along with a bunch of films that tried to homage the aforementioned film - such as The Magnificent Seven - but failed. Greedy corporate leader? Too many films to list. 'Nuff said. Pale Rider is derivative and can't seem to come up with anything remotely original.
It's not all bad, though, as the cinematopgrahy's quite impressive and Clint Eastwood, despite a low quality script, is able to, as always, entice audiences with a great performance. The visuals, I thought, really showed off the beauty of the film's landscape and looked really nice in terms of old-fashioned style and taste. The best scene, for me, has to be when LaHood's men kill the man with the large shard of gold. The camerawork's great and the snow really blends in with the utter violence that's depicted onscreen. There's something morbidly aesthetic about the combination of blood and snow... Anyway, as I was saying, Clint Eastwood also proves his worth as an actor in this film. He's haunting, understated, and performs greatly in his role. It's virtually the same role he's always played, though, but that's not too big of a problem.
Pale Rider's just a poor film. It's got a great leading performance and decent visuals, but those elements are virtually the only good things about the film. It's got a nice story structure but that's useless without good characters. Cliche, dull, and filled with forgettable characters, the film has very little to offer.
No comments:
Post a Comment