Monte Walsh

Rating:
Summary: Remake is good but fell short of original, especially music
Review: This remake of the all time great "future shock" western is very good but the original with Lee Marvin and Jack Palance was better. The original movie had Momma Cass Eliot on the soundtrack with the haunting melody "The good times are coming" which played well in the story line. Why doesn't someone put the original out on DVD remastered for quality? Still, especially if you haven't seen the original, Selleck plays the lead role well albeit the ending, which deviates radically from the original, is a bit corny.

Rating:
Summary: Remake is good but fell short of original, especially music
Review: This remake of the all time great "future shock" western is very good but the original with Lee Marvin and Jack Palance was better. The original movie had Momma Cass Eliot on the soundtrack with the haunting melody "The good times are coming" which played well in the story line. Why doesn't someone put the original out on DVD remastered for quality? Still, especially if you haven't seen the original, Selleck plays the lead role well albeit the ending, which deviates radically from the original, is a bit corny.

Rating:
Summary: George Eads is a hottie
Review: This was worth watching for George Eads alone!!! I'm not usually into westerns, but he is so yum, I was actually glad in the end I saw it. Not too bad. Probably very underated.

Rating:
Summary: 1970 VERSUS 2003 (YOU NEVER FORGET YOUR FIRST LOVE)
Review: Three of my five favorite Westerns concern the extinction of Western Ideals and self-reliant principles in the face of "progress." I commend TOM SELLECK for his desire to explore this theme, unfortunately, however, this story had already been committed to film and more successfully. True, this version illustrates a larger slice of the book upon which it was based, but that does not necessarily translate to better cinema, and it may be responsible for the slightly forced pacing of this newer rendition.

MONTE WALSH (2003) does contain inspired photography and an adequately bracing (although derivative) Western score, and Fightin' Joe Hooker's demise is much better handled this time around. Otherwise, 2003 is clearly overmatched by its 1970 predecessor. (Please see my review of the original MONTE WALSH, here on the Amazon website.)

A major drawback lies in the fact that SELLECK and KEITH CARRADINE lack the likeability that LEE MARVIN and JACK PALANCE brought to the principal roles. The sense of camaraderie between these two old saddle pals just does not come across. The dialogue misses the nuance and leisurely pace of the original. Where have all the "pregnant pauses" gone? Placed beside the earlier version, this one seems almost like a high school production where inexperienced actors rush through their lines, failing to experience the moment. Even all of the minor players of the 1970 MONTE bested the 2003 actors when it came to endowing their characterizations with distinct personality and unique qualities. Only the little dog here managed to go toe to toe to toe to toe with his 1970 counterpart.

But the biggest problem of all can be found in the love story subtext. ISABELLA ROSSELLINI who played Monte's "Countess" this time around is no JEANNE MOREAU in the acting department. She was fine, but the 1970 MONTE WALSH gave us one of the silver screen's most beautifully rendered, understated, and underrated movie romances ever! It was filled with subtle grace and magic. The easy-going rapport and playful attraction expressed in the original, by comparison, nearly reduces to an almost cold sniping the scenes between SELLECK and ROSSELLINI. It came as no surprise when JEANNE MOREAU revealed in an interview many years after the fact that she felt LEE MARVIN was "the most masculine" actor she had ever worked with. Her scenes with him in which they showed us a tender, wistful, and doomed love affair made for absolutely dynamite viewing. Trust me, BOGART and BERGMAN had nothing on MARVIN and MOREAU!

My lesser complaints have to do with being bludgeoned by the Cowboy Code. Don't tell it; show it! The Code came across loud and clear in 1970 without words. Less was indeed more. The bronc-busting scene was a mere child's ride on King Arthur's Carrousel compared with the 1970 wild "E Ticket" equine roller-coaster! And finally, although it's such a minor issue: I just couldn't accept Shorty Austin as a Hollywood Hunk with a Colgate Smile. Cowboys spent time in saloons; not salons. Cowboys spent time at the faro table; not the dentist's office.

Yes, the 1970 MONTE WALSH remains a relatively unknown Western masterpiece. But, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the 2003 MONTE WALSH was bad; just perfectly superfluous. And not necessary either.

Rating:
Summary: A STELLAR PRODUCTION!!!!!
Review: TNT's Western Epic "Monte Walsh" replaces "Tombstone" as the best western film yet made. A stellar cast and gripping story prove once again that the western is still alive! Grade: A+

Rating:
Summary: Mr., Are you a cowboy?
Review: Tom Selleck has made his living with western films lately and this is a nice addition. Selleck is a believable cowboy and may one day be remembered best for roles like this

Monte Walsh, a cowboy's cowboy! He's the guy all of us boys wanted to be. The best of Bronc Busters. Witty and intelligent. Tough as nails. Fast and accurate with a gun. Loyal to his friends.

Monte's goal in life was simple. He wanted to drive cows from Texas to Canada and get paid for it, if at all possible. Unfortunately for Monte and the other range riders, the modern era is fast upon them. Eastern corporations have begun to buy up the range and jobs are scarce. Bespectacled, bowler topped accountants assume they know how to manage the cow business, while the likes of Monte, Chet, and Shorty swallow dust day to day.

There is an interesting story line here and its fairly easy to follow. There is a little unnecessary language and some suggestive adult relationships to take away any opportunity to make this a good family film, but altogether tame compared to most. The show is nicely photographed and vivid in every way. If the truth is told, the story isn't nearly as important as the acting and the portrayal of the West we've dreamed about.