Rating: 
Summary: Lacking Color
Review: I found open range very disappointing. The universal missing link is color in every aspect of the movie. The characters, the scenery, the dialogue, the sincerity, the acting, the props, the make shift town all lacked quality and color. I guess for Mr. Costner it was about breaking even and making a few bucks. Hoping that his fans would flock to the shows to view a hope of greatness like Dances with Wolves. I felt so empty after viewing this picture. I read some personal reviews and could not believe my eyes. If you have seen the movie Mission you would remember the imagery and sound, that did not find itself in Open Range. Open Range was just another tired old western so a few people could make some money and ride horses.
Rating: 
Summary: Old fashion Western
Review: Open range is a story of sticking up for what is right. As Boss(Robert Duvall)and Charley(Kevin Costner)go after a small town outfit called Baxter crew who had killed a partner of their's Mose , and shot a young boy Button who was riding with Boss and Charley as well.Button ends up at the local town's Dortor's were Boss and Charley take the boy for his wound.The sister of the Doctor Sue (Annette Bening)takes care of the Boy and ends up with Charley in the end.It starts of slowly ends with a bang, a good gun fight you have to see .Good to see it was filmed in Canada some nice shots of the country, So saddle up partner and Enjoy
Rating:
Summary: A good western, but flawed
Review: Robert Duvall and Kevin Costner play cowboys who are holding out with the old ways of free grazing, where they drive cattle and let them eat on any land not owned, selling the cows as they go. They happen on a town owned by a powerful cattle rancher, who hates free grazers. They kill off one of the cowboys and hurt another badly. Knowing the sheriff in town is crooked, Costner and Duvall start their own war, with the town folk helping them. This isn't a bad western, pretty good infact, but it's a long way from "Dances with Wolves". It is at least twenty minutes too long, and the romance story with Annette Bening isn't that involving or interesting. Duval and Costner's relationship is much more interesting, they don't even know that much about each other, and they've been friends for ten years. Not bad, but it could have been better.
Rating: 
Summary: Ah, Westerns.
Review: I admit to being a Costner fan (I even enjoyed The Postman) and if you aren't then take away a star. All concerned give realistic portrayals and fine performances, however, Ms. Benings character could have been developed more. The film is fast paced and the story and characters believable. As far as I'm concerned if it were to happen, this is the way it would have.
Rating: 
Summary: I've seen better plots on Gunsmoke
Review: After watching this movie for an hour, I started laughing because the characters were so weak and the story was so predictable. I agree that it was good to be Robert Duvall in a role that was so much like Gus in Lonesome Dove, but that's about the only bright spot I could find in the movie. The story has just been done so many times. For such great acting talent, this one was a disappointment to me. My time would have been better spent watching The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Rio Bravo or Lonesome Dove.
Rating:
Summary: Costner, Back?
Review: Open Range - A realistic western, for once. This movie is worth watching just for the last scene (which on the DVD you can play over and over) is almost as good as the scene in "Unforgiven" with Clint Eastwood. This movie strives to be realistic and the cinematography is exceptional. Do you like the open range, the old west? This is the DVD for you. Costner has had a run of poor films, this breaks the streak. B Joseph Dworak
Rating:
Summary: One of the year's best
Review: "Open Range" was an exciting change of pace from the usual onslaught of special-effects driven garbage that piled into movie theaters in the summer of 2003. It's not built for viewers afflicted with attention spans of 20 seconds or less, but for mature movie lovers who admire carefully told stories that pay close attention to detail. Leave it to Kevin Costner, of course, to believe that there are still ticket-buyers out there who aren't in love with explosions and CGI. Costner has become something of a maverick, a filmmaker who really doesn't care what 18-year-old boys want to see in a movie and who bucks the Hollywood system (which only chases after whatever film made the most money last weekend -- how many pirate movies are we going to see within the next 5 years, I wonder?). Costner demonstrates ample integrity with "Open Range," telling a rather straightforward story of rugged individualism and revenge in a rather straightforward manner. This movie looked GREAT on the big screen; the sound effects were startling during the rainstorms and climactic gunfight. On DVD, the visuals are pared down a bit more in line with the story, which gets more of a chance to shine. The movie, overall, is superb, with excellent acting, evocative photography, a good score and a character-driven script. I look forward to whatever Costner chooses to do next -- particularly if it's a Western.
Rating:
Summary: "They shot our dog!"
Review: OK quick, what is the worst innovation for the Western in the modern era?.....Rain, that's what. Or in this case, rain and dogs! But the real problem with this flick is this - we dont know the bad guys. One particular character, advertised as the fastest gunhand in the west or whatever, makes about a 30 second appearance at the end of the movie just to get shot between the eyes. And the evil cattle baron has one scene in the beginning of the film, and then again comes back to get killed. And, since we were deprived of the "bar fight" that landed the big guy in the pokie, we basically are rewarded with a central conflict that seems somewhat arbitrary and as empty as a box full of air. Robert Duvall was terrific and obviously very comfortable in these roles and gets an 'A' for character development, but then there's Costner's character Charlie....we dont know a whole lot about him and that's too bad. I guess he was intended to remain a mystery but to tell the audience he had a "violent past" and leave it at that is a major disappointment. The audience doesnt know enough about Costner's character to by sympathetic. And although Annette Benning was very good, and gorgeous as usual, there is absolutely zero spark between her character and Charlie. The final scene in the saloon is almost unbearable. Ms. Benning looks like she's in pain as she says "I've been holding my love for a long time Charlie." Ouch! And then there's the big climactic gunfight that is a carnival of people and bullets that refuses to end. It just goes on and on while you're impatiently tapping your feet and looking at your watch and it still goes on for another ten minutes of irrelevant nonsense. Sheesh, give it up already! You know, I really wanted to like this movie, and I tried to be objective knowing what I know about Costner's style and devotion to his personal brand of noble sentimentality and detachment, but....it's just not there. "We're not ourselves yet!" Yeah, no kidding. The DVD package is well put together. The photography is amazing, and the 5.1 sound is very good, although the gunfire sounds a bit hollow in spots. Audio commentary, a "making of" documentary, and plenty of deleted scenes for those of you who find yourself all that curious about this thing. Also a boring music video that I suppose is designed to be some sort of tribute to Kevin Costner's genius as a director. Like I said, it just ain't there. 3 Yorkies.
Rating: 
Summary: Values of an old Western with Modern Production - Beautiful
Review: This has the values of the old fashioned Western with modern production values. It is beautifully filmed and I think the story is wonderfully told. The opening scenes have an almost languorous tempo that might seem slow to modern sensibilities. But I liked it a lot. It is nice to have time to absorb things, notice things, and have time to think about them without having the next thing crammed into your face. The poetic foreboding of the opening storm sequences is a bit thick, but there you go. The story is set in 1882. Boss (Duvall) and Charlie (Costner) and a couple of Free Rangers (guys who raise their cattle on open land rather than own any) with a couple of hands and a dog are driving their cattle near a town. They send one of their hands in for some supplies and the trouble begins. While Free Rangers aren't popular with folks who want to own land and raise their cattle on it, it was still legal and most people put up with it while discouraging the practice. However, the villain of the story, Baxter, (wonderfully played by Michael Gambon) wants no competition and his hatred is near maniacal. He owns that town and demands everyone bow to his will. I won't give away the nature of the conflict, but it leads to a very dramatic gun fight that does happen in spasms and very quickly. I don't think the violence should have gotten it an R rating, but the ratings people did. There isn't anything all that graphic by today's standards. But the guns boom like cannon and you can figure out who wins. Annette Bening plays a wonderful love interest with presence, beauty, intelligence, and does add a lot to the story. Duvall and Costner are terrific. Abraham Benrubi has a wonderful presence and his short role adds a great deal to the film. I enjoy him every time I see him and wish he were in more substantial roles. He is more than just a big guy. It is a good cast and an enjoyable movie. Rent it, buy it, see it somehow and I think you will enjoy it unless you need a frenetic pace to keep your attention focused.
Rating:
Summary: Overrated and Underwhelming
Review: I will be brief. The hype for 'Open Range' was long and loud from certain quarters of the internet's labyrnithic film-community. I have a feeling that either a) those paid opinions . . . err, "journalists" turned off their brain, munched their popcorn and descended passively into this creaky old-Hollywood western 'epic," or b) they were paid to hype a movie that, although promising in its initial hour, succumbs to bathos, leaps of illogical stupidity and some of the most horrid romantic 'acting' I've ever seen upon the silver screen. Return of the King, the highest grossing film of 2003, is affixed with the moniker of 'fantasy.' Open Range is a fantasy as well. At one particular moment in the movie, Costner's character unloads a shotgun at a sign in the town-saloon. How do the patrons react? By shouting, panicking, clapping their hands to their ears to blunt the acoustic-enhanced gun-thunder? By drawing weapons of their own and initiating a chaos-field of projectile iron and gunpowder smoke? By fleeing for the safety of the lives? Nope. The background extras keep to the back, as scenery, while a few townspeople stroll up and act the equivalent of "gosh! You're cool!" to Costner's hard-edged ex-soldier. Normally I'm not that nitpicky. I enjoy cheese when it is made correctly, and I tend to seek out the positive elements of a film, even if it is as rank as month-old limburger. So I'll give Open Range credit where credit is due: the cinematography is inspired and the choice of locations evocative; Duvall shines, as usual, adding the authoritative note so necessary in cow-poke films; and the climax gun-battle is technically interesting. The flaws are too numerous and too broad to ignore, however. The villains are one-dimensional, almost boring with the exception of one or two scenes; the humor, while technically on-target, jars the illusion-structure of the Old West; and Costner . . . [*sigh*] . . . Costner, perhaps one of the more inexplicable downward spirals in recent Hollywood history, starts out as adequate in his role (he keeps his mouth shut), but his flat anti-passionate acting "style" quickly becomes grating when he's required to fire an synapse and/or ape an emotion. To be honest, I cruised with the illusion throughout most of Open Range. I noticed the flaws but didn't let it affect my experience, *until* the Costner/Bening culmination. This scene not only has some of the most uncomfortable, unsexy and unromantic energy I've ever witnessed in a H-wood coupling, the ham-fisted dialogue was delivered so woodenly I kept expecting to hear an furious director shouting "cut!" "cut!" Oh wait, that was coming from *my* mouth . . . worse, it forced me to remember all of the little nits that frustrated me previous to that scene: the lack of development in both plot-construction and character-role; a load of talking and not showing; and finally the extended ending that went on far longer than necessary. Open range: beautiful on the surface, antiseptic beneath. Someone take this old horse out behind the barn and shoot it, please.
|
