Review of Open Range (2003) by Daniel K — 17 Dec 2009

3: This is a film that hits on all cylinders, but not well enough or consistently enough to be truly memorable. It is a quality western and one of the better ones from recent years, but it falls short of the genius of westerns from their heyday during the 1940's and 1950's.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I suspect it's largely due to the simple fact that filmmakers have moved on for the most part and it's just too difficult to replicate genres and style from the past effectively unless one overturns them.

The style of most modern dialogue, including much of it here, seems somehow inconsistent and out of place in this world when compared to scripts of classic westerns. Combine this with the altered delivery due to changes in performance styles and actors and you usually get something that seems a bit off.

I've never been a huge fan of Duvall or Costner, but I have enjoyed them in their best work. This falls a bit short for both. They largely look the part and work quite well together, but Costner seems a bit stilted and uncomfortable in his own skin.

He's trying too hard, when it should be effortless and natural. Bening and Gambon are both excellent, but no one really knocks it out of the park. The town, setting, scenery, sets, costumes, props, etc are all great.

That's one thing contemporary cinema of this type definitely excels at. The main issue I have with the picture is that each act becomes progressively worse than the last. If the entire film stayed at the level of the first act, then we would really have something.

I still enjoy seeing the film even after multiple viewings, but I have to view what is perhaps my favorite genre with a critical eye.