This movie begins with a very cruel opening scene. For kicks, Billy the Kid, his friends and Pat Garrett are shooting the heads off chickens. Unfortunately, it appears as if the scene is 100% real. Now the blood and headless chickens didn't sicken me, but killing any animal for entertainment's sake seems sick--and is one of the few cases where I'd agree with the PETA folks. At least in other Sam Peckinhaph films where you see killing, it's all fake and it involves people who have a choice in the matter.
"Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid" is a revisionist film. Instead of all the old clichés of westerns, it keeps a few and introduces some new ones. In some ways it appears more realistic than earlier westerns, but to a retired history teacher like me, it's still a real mess. First for the good. Most of the folks in this film DON'T wear cowboy hats, they are often pretty filthy and some of the killing is far from glorious--such as shooting your enemy in the back. You certainly didn't see this in Roy Rogers' films and it's nice to see SOME attempt at realism. Now for the bad. Although the film looks more like the real West, it promotes a stupid stereotype of the bandit as a hero. The real-life Billy the Kid was a pretty ugly guy (based on the one surviving picture of him) and a murderer. He was NOT a hero of the people who fought against the evil cattle barons--he was just a cheap hood. But, here in "Pat Garrett...", he's handsome Kris Kristofferson and he is a force of good in a West filled with evil. He murders, but the men are enemies of the people and rapists. Instead, the lawman Pat Garrett is the nasty bully--the creep given a gun and told to kill for corporate America. If you think about it, this is a western for the Occupy Wall Street folks...but not history teachers!
Apart from all the inaccuracy, is it a good film? Maybe. It all depends on what you are looking for in a film. If you want the usual Peckinpah slow-motion violence with lots of unrealistic blood, swearing and occasional nudity, then you'll probably like the film very much. If this sort of stuff turns you off, then the film may be tough going--even with some nice performances. As for me, I found it all to be slow...very slow. And, since I'm not particularly a Peckinpah fan, I felt like it was a decent time-passer and nothing more.
"Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid" is a revisionist film. Instead of all the old clichés of westerns, it keeps a few and introduces some new ones. In some ways it appears more realistic than earlier westerns, but to a retired history teacher like me, it's still a real mess. First for the good. Most of the folks in this film DON'T wear cowboy hats, they are often pretty filthy and some of the killing is far from glorious--such as shooting your enemy in the back. You certainly didn't see this in Roy Rogers' films and it's nice to see SOME attempt at realism. Now for the bad. Although the film looks more like the real West, it promotes a stupid stereotype of the bandit as a hero. The real-life Billy the Kid was a pretty ugly guy (based on the one surviving picture of him) and a murderer. He was NOT a hero of the people who fought against the evil cattle barons--he was just a cheap hood. But, here in "Pat Garrett...", he's handsome Kris Kristofferson and he is a force of good in a West filled with evil. He murders, but the men are enemies of the people and rapists. Instead, the lawman Pat Garrett is the nasty bully--the creep given a gun and told to kill for corporate America. If you think about it, this is a western for the Occupy Wall Street folks...but not history teachers!
Apart from all the inaccuracy, is it a good film? Maybe. It all depends on what you are looking for in a film. If you want the usual Peckinpah slow-motion violence with lots of unrealistic blood, swearing and occasional nudity, then you'll probably like the film very much. If this sort of stuff turns you off, then the film may be tough going--even with some nice performances. As for me, I found it all to be slow...very slow. And, since I'm not particularly a Peckinpah fan, I felt like it was a decent time-passer and nothing more.