Change Your Image
Billy the Kid
Reviews
Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973)
Peckinpah's Masterpiece
I have to say that I am astounded by the rather low rating that this film has so far received on the Internet Movie Database. Personally, I regard "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" to be not only a great Western, but also a cinematic masterpiece. I do not make this claim lightly. The great accomplishment of the film is that it successfully combines a story of personal struggle between two men with an epic narrative chronicling the sad decline of the Old West. The fall of the West and the loss of the American frontier are central themes in many Westerns of the period, including "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "McCabe and Mrs. Miller," and Peckinpah's own "The Wild Bunch," but few films treat the subject as gracefully or as poignantly as this one. When watching this film, it is essential to understand that (on one level, at least) it is a eulogy for a lost way of life. Some people may complain that the film is too slow, but its pace perfectly befits its eulogistic tone, which is also complimented by Bob Dylan's superb score.
Billy the Kid (played by Kris Kristofferson) is the symbol of the frontier, who cannot or will not adapt to the new society that is gradually taking over. When told that times are changing, he replies: "Times maybe, not me." He is more than a mere symbol, however; he is also a real person. His adversary too, acting on behalf of civilization and modernity, is not a nameless, faceless agent of big government or corporate interests, as in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" or "McCabe and Mrs. Miller," but is instead an equally complex and developed character (Pat Garrett), brilliantly played by James Coburn. In highlighting the nuanced relationship between the two foes who still understand and respect one another, "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" is a much more personal film than most of its contemporaries. It is true that "The Wild Bunch" provides a similar situation with Robert Ryan's character as the former outlaw who must hunt down his old friends, but even it seems one-sided, and lacks the balance of "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid." Simply put, this is a movie worth watching. Watch it!
A Knight's Tale (2001)
A confused, poorly-written, badly-acted mess
This is not a movie that I would normally bother to comment on, but in this case, I feel compelled to provide some relief from the inexplicably positive tone of the reviews on this site. Simply put, "A Knight's Tale" is a bad film. Chief among its many weaknesses is that it seems to suffer from a sort of multiple personality disorder. Although I was not enthralled with the use of modern music and dance, I was willing to accept them. I have no problem with films that adopt a tongue-in-cheek approach to the past (I enjoyed "Start the Revolution Without Me," for instance), as long as they do not take themselves too seriously. This, however, is exactly what "A Knight's Tale" does. As early as the first scene, the film establishes its light, revisionist style, but with the romance between William and Jocelyn and the cheesy subplot involving William's father, the film abandons its earlier lightheartedness and instead displays pretensions of becoming a serious drama. After seeing Queen's "We Will Rock You" played at a medieval jousting tournament, how can the audience be expected to take anything seriously? "A Knight's Tale," then, is marred by a failed and misguided attempt to transcend the boundaries of tongue-in-cheek comedy.
Other problems also exist with this film. The dialogue is poorly written, the plot is downright cheesy, and the characters (particularly William, played by Heath Ledger, Adhemar, played by Rufus Sewell, and Kate, played by Laura Fraser) are flat, badly-acted stereotypes. Only Paul Bettany brings some life to this mess with his performance as Geoffrey Chaucer. "A Knight's Tale" is certainly not the worst film ever produced, but is one that should be avoided nonetheless.
Scent of a Woman (1992)
Al Pacino is excellent in this otherwise unremarkable film
For the most part, "Scent of a Woman" is standard Hollywood fare, featuring a "heartwarming" and "uplifting" story about personal growth, the strength of friendship, and the discovery that life really isn't so bad after all. The plot involves a young student (Chris O'Donnell), who agrees to watch over a blind and embittered ex-colonel (Al Pacino) for Thanksgiving weekend. He then goes on to teach the older man a few lessons about life, while learning just as much himself. If this sort of relationship sounds familiar, it is because it has been the subject of countless other films (think "Finding Forrester," for instance). "Scent of a Woman" is at least partially redeemed by the presence a few memorable moments, such as the scenes involving the Tango and the Ferrari.
What really sets this film apart, though, is Al Pacino's brilliant performance. Although he tends to overact on occasion (as in some of his other post-1970s films, such as "Scarface"), he still manages to reveal the complexities of his character in a way that no other actor could have managed. While Chris O'Donnell and James Rebhorn are fine in their roles, it is Al Pacino who gives us a reason to watch this otherwise unremarkable film.
All in the Family (1971)
One of the funniest, sincerest, and most intelligent shows ever created
Although I was not yet born when it first aired, I have come to regard "All in the Family" as one of the greatest television shows ever produced. As other reviewers here have pointed out, very few shows have ever been able to address real social and political issues with the effectiveness of "All in the Family." Although the hippie movement has long since faded away and Richard Nixon has died, the many core issues raised in the show, including social consequences of unregulated capitalism, widespread disillusionment with American democracy, and of course bigotry itself, are still as relevant as ever.
The real genius of the show, however, lies in the complexity and honesty of its characters and their relationships. The Bunkers (and Stivics) are a real family, as opposed to the nice, sugar-coated variety that we see in "The Cosby Show," "Full House," and countless other sitcoms. The intensity of the arguments between Mike and Archie and the way in which Archie orders Edith around reveal underlying problems and tensions that cannot be resolved in half an hour. Although all members of the household (including Mike and Archie) clearly care for one another, the family is still far from perfect. Instead of establishing an unrealistic standard of familial relations, then, "All in the Family" provides an honest reflection of reality.
Equally praiseworthy is the complex relationship which the show establishes between Archie Bunker and the audience. Archie is an ignorant, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, and often hypocritical man whose words and deeds are frequently reprehensible. It is difficult to imagine any other show eliciting audience sympathies towards such a character. Yet this is exactly what "All in the Family" does. Archie is presented as a real person, not just a soulless representative of a misguided point of view. Although we as the audience may detest what Archie stands for, we somehow come to like the man himself, and even (on occasion) empathize with him.
So there you have it. "All in the Family" is socially relevant, honest, and complex. It's also hysterically funny!
Shane (1953)
Formulaic American Western
"Shane" is the result of director George Stevens' attempt to create the archetypal American western. Before beginning work on the film, he reviewed the genre to determine its essential qualities, which were then brought together in "Shane." As a result, the film is the best example ever produced of a "typical" western. However, the flipside of this deliberateness is that "Shane" is also an extremely formulaic film. It exhibits virtually all of the genre's cliches, including (but not at all limited to) the fistfight in the saloon, the final shot of the hero riding off into the sunset, and the fact that the heroes wear white hats while the villains wear black. Even the plot itself is excruciatingly familiar, featuring the weary cowboy who reluctantly confronts the ruthless cattle barons in a climactic gunfight.
In spite of what I have written above, I do not wish to sound overly negative. What the film chooses to do, it does quite well. The cinematography (including the deservedly praised funeral scene) is often excellent, and the acting is solid, with Jack Palance giving an especially noteworthy performance. Its archetypal nature makes "Shane" a great introduction to the genre as a whole. Nonetheless, it is simply too schematic to be placed among the truly great (and perhaps more subtle) westerns of the period, such as "High Noon," "The Searchers," and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence."