Jonah Hex (2010)

2011 #59
Jimmy Hayward | 81 mins | Blu-ray | 15 / PG-13

Jonah HexJonah Hex is not a good film. Let’s just establish that, before I start being nice about it.

In fact, you don’t need me to be nasty about it — there are plenty of reviews that do that already. Those I’ve read are largely accurate. Despite that, I kind of liked the film, and not because I wanted to. I’ve read a few of the recent comics and enjoyed them, but this version isn’t really like those — they’re straight Westerns, whereas this iteration returns to a supernaturally-tinged version of the comics from some time in the past.

It’s difficult to know where to begin trying to praise Hex because, as I’ve implied, there isn’t much to praise. Unless you’re a 12-year-old boy, that is. Horses with Gatling guns! Giant cannons firing explosive balls! Corpses coming to life! Megan Fox’s corset-boosted cleavage! The undemanding pre-/early-teen is well catered for here. Possibly the undemanding child-minded adult too. I don’t think that’s why I enjoyed it though.

The movie is unrelentingly comic book, if one can use “comic book” as an adjective. Look at that last paragraph again: horses with Gatling guns? The physics of that boggles. But it has a certain Cool. The same for the ridiculously huge cannon that fires some kind of magic exploding cannonball. It doesn’t make historical sense, or even modern-science sense, but it is… well, it’s a Big Gun that makes things Blow Up. Awesome! A horse. With Gatling guns.Much of the film rattles on in this way. And rattle it does: 73 minutes before credits. As blockbuster running times spiral out of control, such brevity is almost welcome. It doesn’t feel exceptionally short, mind, except for when the plot occasionally jumps forward.

As the lead, Josh Brolin growls along marvellously. He deserves a better film. The character does too, actually. The President wants him to save America; he doesn’t care, except for that the person who needs stopping murdered Hex’s wife and child. Handy coincidence, that. There’s surely some drama to be wrung from that situation — grief, vengeance, all sorts — though no one involved seems to know how to go about it properly. The closest we get is a weird dreamy hallucinogenic fistfight. You’re right, that’s no substitute, but I did say closest.

John Malkovich does what he does as said villain. He’s been worse. Michael Fassbender is completely wasted as a henchman. I hope he was well paid. Megan Fox isn’t in it much. Her prostitute character, Hex’s new lover, is woefully underwritten and underused, turning up now and then to further the plotMegan Fox. Who has breasts. — usually improbably — or generally be a female. By “female” I mean “cleavage delivery device”. Considering her acting ability, her lack of presence is no real shame.

Jonah Hex isn’t good enough to be a guilty pleasure (like, say, The Transporter), nor bad enough to qualify as so-bad-it’s-good (like, say, Flesh for Frankenstein). Yet, while being fully aware it’s rubbish, I enjoyed myself. Not a massive amount, but a bit. Maybe it is one of those after all, then. It has a certain kind of B-movie charm, which is then intriguingly undercut by the A-list budget/promotion and awards-worthy cast. If it had been shot in Italy in the ’60s, a certain kind of person might just love it. Shot in America in the ’00s, however, its appeal probably lies with 12-year-old boys and… well, me, clearly.

2 out of 5

The Outrage (1964)

2010 #116
Martin Ritt | 92 mins | TV | 12

The OutrageIf you’ve ever seen Akira Kurosawa’s classic Rashomon, the opening minutes of The Outrage will leave you in no doubt that you’re watching a Hollywood remake. From the dilapidated-location-in-heavy-rain opening scene on, Michael Kanin’s screenplay sticks closely to Kurosawa’s, and Martin Ritt’s direction doesn’t stray too far either. But don’t mistake this effort for a thoroughly pointless rehash a la Gus Van Sant’s Psycho — though it can’t better the original, The Outrage has much going for it.

Naturally the story is as fascinating as ever, not just for the fact it offers different versions of what happened, but for what the protagonists feel the need to modify in their accounts — after all, they’re happy to confess to several crimes, so why obscure the facts in other ways. Was Rashomon so conclusive, though? I don’t remember it being so. Yes, The Outrage’s final retelling is still just one person’s perspective, but it’s set up as an objective and definitive one. Plus I didn’t get what was going on with the crying baby, which I seem to remember being in Rashomon but I don’t recall being baffled by. Maybe that’s just me.

Kanin’s reconfiguration of the story as a Western is seamless thanks to numerous intelligent tweaks and changes — if you didn’t know this wasn’t the tale’s original location, you’d have no reason to suspect otherwise. Ritt backs it up with some striking cinematography. It might not be as innovative as Kurosawa’s camera-into-the-sun antics, but he still produces a good-looking and meticulously composed picture.

Paul Newman is excellent, unrecognisable under thorough makeup and consistent characterisation as Mexican outlaw Carrasco. The rest of the fairly starry cast are also very good, the majority treated to interestingly conflicted or gradually revealed characters, not least Claire Bloom as the rape victim and possible murderess — and possibly many other things, depending which version you choose to believe; and possibly all of them, too.

The Outrage doesn’t seem to be very well remembered, rarely seeming to qualify even as a footnote in discussion of Rashomon (unlike, say, The Magnificent Seven for Seven Samurai), which I think is unfair. There wasn’t much chance Ritt’s film could outdo the original at its own game, but what it does manage is the almost-as-impressive achievement of retelling the story differently, and well.

4 out of 5

The Outrage is showing on More4 tomorrow, Wednesday 15th December, at 11:20am.

Pale Rider (1985)

2010 #67
Clint Eastwood | 111 mins | TV (HD) | 15 / R

Pale Rider is, in many ways, a pretty stock Western. The plot is likely to be familiar even to those who haven’t seen a great deal of the genre: remote community, where some controlling business-type is making life hard for a bunch of everyday poor grafters; in rides a mysterious stranger, who sees the injustice of the situation; when peaceful methods don’t work, there’s the climactic shoot-out; and the mysterious stranger finally rides into the sunset/from whence he came/forever on.

Really speaking, Eastwood — in directing and starring modes — offers only one significant addition to this concept. The mysterious stranger isn’t a gunslinger, or a do-gooder, or the new sheriff, or anything else. He is, on the one hand, a preacher — “surely a man of God is opposed to violence?”, etc. — and on the other, is he even human? Either way, it’s a bit different.

The former is pretty self explanatory, so let’s take a look at the evidence for the latter. He rides into town from nowhere — or, at least, from heavenly snow-caked mountains — in the wake of a girl’s prayer, immediately coming to the defence of her surrogate father. His steed is a pale horse, which, as a Bible reading coincidentally timed to his arrival in the good guys’ camp tells us, is the ride of Death himself. He has suspiciously nasty bullet wounds all over his back. And the gun-for-hire marshall brought in by the nasty business man at the film’s climax recognises the preacher’s description, but the person he has in mind is dead… and yet, when they come face to face, the marshall repeatedly utters, “it is you”.

Ooh, spooky.

The film pretty heavily suggests Eastwood’s character is some kind of spirit then, be he the avenging ghost of a dead man, or an Angel, or a Devil, or all three. But it still leaves it open — this could all just be coincidence. He doesn’t dodge bullets, or kill people with the wave of his hand, or muster a gun from thin air; indeed, he even has to go to a safe deposit box in another town to pick up his pistols. He’s capable of smashing rocks, of interacting with people, of making love apparently, and certainly of killing people. So why need he be a ghost? Why not just a man in the right place at the right time?

It’s this mystical side, particularly with its lack of definitive answer, that’s really the film’s strong point. There’s nothing particularly wrong with any of the rest — the characters are decently interesting, the acting good, the whole thing well put together, the brief flourishes of action fine enough — but it lacks a certain spark to raise it beyond the familiar elements. Aside from Eastwood playing more or less the character he always played, the only particularly memorable role is Sydney Penny’s naïve young teenager, Megan. Her shifting emotions and variable actions are perhaps the only parts of the story one can’t necessarily see coming from the off.

So Pale Rider may not be exceptional, but it is undoubtedly solid, doing what it does consummately. How important the mystical twist is, I couldn’t say; I imagine some viewers couldn’t care less, while others may take it as a point of debate. Really, it’s like mixing a slight extra ingredient into the stock: you might notice it, but it doesn’t change the essential flavour.

4 out of 5

Pale Rider is on ITV4 tonight at 10:50pm, and again on Wednesday 14th at 9pm.

Seraphim Falls (2006)

2010 #30
David Von Ancken | 107 mins | TV | 15 / R

Seraphim Falls sees Liam Neeson and a crew of hired hands chase Pierce Brosnan across every Old West landscape imaginable — from snow-topped mountains to bone-dry dustbowl — but why?

In practice, it makes for an unusual story. It’s centred neatly around Neeson chasing Brosnan, but the encounters they have along the way are increasingly bizarre. It’s readily apparent that there’s some Meaning and Subtext here, one that’s somehow related to religion (note the title; the missionaries; the destroyed Bible; the journey from somewhere high and calm, down through peoples of slipping moral standards, to the heat-hazy finale), but I’m not sure if one has to process this to appreciate the film — it’s a still a chase movie (of sorts) after all.

Indeed, one may not even notice all the allegories until Angelica Houston turns up, like some kind of inexplicable but convenient phantom, shortly before the final showdown. Who is she? What are her motives? What does it matter? (Her name’s a pun/clue, but I’ll leave that for you to notice/read on IMDb’s forum. Suffice to say, it fits with the other themes.)

Most characters are painted in quick sketches, and as soon as you get an inkling for who they are they’re dead or gone. The only exceptions are (of course) Neeson and Brosnan, who remain ambiguous for much of the film. The truth behind their chase is only revealed near the end, once most everyone else has fallen by the wayside. As the only constants, the various situations and their reactions allow the men to be slowly revealed. It’s not really a character piece, but they’re at least more complicated than your usual Good Guy vs Bad Guy setup — the story has you flip back and forth about which you think is which several times.

Subtly beautiful cinematography complements everything. Without being showy or overtly stylish, DP John Toll gets the most out of the film’s diametrically opposed locations: the lush, snow-drenched mountains of the first half, and the dry, barren dustbowls of the second, not to mention the burning autumnal tones of briefly-seen Seraphim Falls itself. Having caught this in SD, I look forward to watching it again on Blu-ray.

Though at times ponderously slow, the fact that Seraphim Falls contains an easily-understood driving plot alongside suggestions of a Deeper Meaning means it’s both accessible and relatively satisfying, even if its allegories pass you by. Conversely, the eventual dependence on these themes rather than a clear-cut finale may leave anyone who hoped for a straight chase/revenge story a bit miffed.

4 out of 5

Seraphim Falls is on BBC Two tonight, Saturday 9th August 2014, at 11pm.

Son of Paleface (1952)

2009 #2
Frank Tashlin | 91 mins | DVD | PG

Son of PalefaceA sequel to 1948’s The Paleface only in the sense that it features Bob Hope in a Western setting, this time playing the son of his character from the first film.

Much of it is only gently funny and likely to try the patience of an unforgiving audience, despite the addition of “King of the Cowboys” Roy Rogers to returning stars Hope and Jane Russell. Between them the three manage to deliver some songs too, but the only memorable one is a reiteration of Buttons and Bows from the first film.

Things improve as the film goes on though. It slowly morphs into a live-action cartoon, in the process becoming a lot funnier and, in recreating the style of cartoons, technically impressive too. That the comedy is genuinely entertaining when Son of Paleface finally reaches these sections makes it a shame it takes so much time — and viewer persistence — to get there.

3 out of 5

Texas Across the River (1966)

2008 #58
Michael Gordon | 101 mins | DVD | PG

Texas Across the RiverTexas Across the River hardly seems to be a well-remembered film — the only DVD edition available (as far as I can tell) is a legally-produced DVD-R, clearly in the wrong aspect ratio. I only come to see it because a friend happened to have a VHS as a child, enjoyed it back then, and we managed to track down that DVD. [It was later released on UK DVD in 2012. (Amazon claim 2007, which is clearly BS.)]

And actually, it’s a fairly entertaining film. Little more than a comedic Western runaround, it sees Alain Delon — as a Spanish nobleman — trying to get to Texas to escape the Cavalry (led by Jim Phelps himself, Peter Graves) and marry his betrothed. On the way he enlists the help of Dean Martin and his Indian sidekick. Hilarity ensues!

OK, so it’s probably funnier if you watch it before your age hits double figures, but it still has enough entertaining moments and decent gags that its complete expungement from almost anyone’s consciousness seems unwarranted.

I don’t expect it’ll ever undergo some miraculous revival (it’s not that good), and perhaps is of primary interest as a curio for fans of Dean Martin, Alain Delon or Mission: Impossible, but it made me laugh — and, as I believe I’ve said before, that’s all I really ask of a comedy.

4 out of 5

The Paleface (1948)

2007 #109
Norman Z. McLeod | 87 mins | DVD | U

The PalefaceBob Hope and Jane Russell star in this Wild West comedy, in which Calamity Jane (Russell) has to stop a group of men smuggling rifles to the Indians. It’s clearly designed as pure entertainment, mixing styles in a way no film would dare attempt today — there’s broad comedy, gunfights, horse chases, and even a song or two!

It works too. OK, so the direction may be a little flat and some of the comedy old fashioned… but it was made in the ’40s and there’s still a good number of laughs, so it seems churlish to complain.

4 out of 5

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005)

2007 #28
Tommy Lee Jones | 116 mins | DVD | 15 / R

The Three Burials of Melquiades EstradaEmpire gave this film one of their five-star reviews, immediately making me want to see it. Shame they overrated it then.

A confused first act (which jumps about in chronology for no discernible reason) gives way to a more linear second two that, while more pleasing, seem to do away with major characters for no reason other than the plot ran out of things for them to do.

The film has its moments, and some pretty views, but five-star it ain’t.

3 out of 5