The Hi-Lo Country (1998) User Reviews (33)

When The World Was Bigger

[jhclues · 7/10 · 14 April 2001]

This character study, set in New Mexico in the early '40s, begins with an enigmatic narrative that infuses 'The Hi-Lo Country,' directed by Stephen Frears, with a tension that ultimately runs high throughout the entire film. The story focuses on the friendship between a couple of cowboys, Pete Calder (Billy Crudup) and Big Boy Matson (Woody Harrelson), who upon returning from the war are trying to make a go of the cattle business, while bucking some stiff competition from the local cattle baron, Jim Ed Love (Sam Elliott). At the same time, Pete becomes aware that he is not alone in his obsession with a married woman, Mona (Patricia Arquette); Big Boy has it bad for her, too, and she just happens to be the wife of Jim Ed's foreman, Les Birk (John Diehl). And, as usually happens with a situation involving obsession, things quickly begin to get sticky for all concerned. Big Boy, it seems, is the one headed for trouble; he's hot-tempered, stubborn, and fearless to a point bordering on stupidity. Pete, on the other hand, has a good head on his shoulders and has a couple of things going for him: One is a woman named Josepha (Penelope Cruz), who cares deeply for him, and the other is his unwavering loyalty to Big Boy. The tension continues to mount, and the situation is complicated further by the fact that Big Boy isn't exactly discreet about his feelings for Mona, nor of his disdain for Jim Ed Love, for whom his younger brother, Little Boy (Cole Hauser) now works. Inevitably, things come to a head; but when it happens, the arena in which it transpires is something of a surprise, though not entirely unexpected.

Frears does a good job of capturing the essence of another time and place that seems so near and yet so far away. The world was changing around them, but in the Hi-Lo country there were still cowboys who punched cattle and drove the herd to market on horseback. Theirs is a fairly self-contained world, far removed from anything that is happening elsewhere; if a butterfly flaps it's wings in New York, it isn't going to affect Pete or Big Boy. Frears takes a look at the difference between the two men, Big Boy, who lives primarily for the moment (or so it would seem), and Pete, who is more apt to consider the consequences of his decisions, except, that is, when it comes to Mona. But even in that respect, it's Pete who ultimately shows some restraint. And Frears maintains the tension by keeping the situation between the men and Mona precariously balanced on the fence. You know that someone is bound to fall, but you don't know who it will be, where or when.

Crudup is convincing as Pete, bringing him to life with a reserved, understated performance. He brings an intelligent and introspective quality to the character that leads you to believe that Pete is always cognizant of what is going on around him, and where it's all heading. With Big boy, on the other hand, you never know if he's ever really aware of his situation, or if he just doesn't care. As Big Boy, Harrelson gives what may be his best performance ever. His portrayal is that of a true, rugged individual who keeps his deepest feelings to himself, but just may be a bit more savvy than he lets on. Initially, it appears that Big Boy and Pete are opposite sides of the same coin, but in the end you realize that they are not so different from one another after all.

As Mona, Arquette gives a somewhat subdued performance. Though attractive, she doesn't exactly exude the kind of sensuality that would seemingly elicit the obsessiveness of the men that is called for by the story, especially in Pete's case. Knowing what you know about the characters involved, it is hard to believe that Pete would look past the lovely and more alluring Josepha for even a second glance at Mona.

The supporting cast includes James Gammon (Hoover), Darren E. Burrows (Billy), Lane Smith (Steve) and Jacob Vargas (Delfino). A good, solid drama, 'The Hi-Lo Country' may not be entirely original, but Frears has a nice touch and gives it a sense of realism that will get you emotionally involved with the characters and their story. And, upon reflection, it's a glimpse of a world that not that long ago was so much bigger than it is today. I rate this one 7/10.

A Good modern Western

[turkam · 7/10 · 11 December 2002]

I was surprised and disappointed to see this film only get a 6.0 in the database. I am giving it a 7 because Penelope Cruz, who I respect as an actress- amazing beauty aside- doesn't quite fit into this film. Otherwise, the directing from Stephen Frears, who has tried (it seems) as many genres as Howard Hawks, is solid. Billy Crudup, Patty Arquette and even Woody Harrelson (still want my $ back from NBK even though it's been a decade now!) is quite good in this. It is very hard to make Westerns these days, and I'm sure the box office from this film won't help. But, along with "Dead Man" and "Unforgiven," this film proves it can be done. Worth a look, especially for those of us ( a minority in my generation- GEN X) who still apprecaite the Western as a genre and as an art form.

This movie could have been great

[panicwatcher · 7/10 · 11 May 2002]

This movie has all the ingredients to make a great movie. It is beautifully photographed with wonderful western landscapes. It has one of Woody Harrelson's best performances as a hard drinking, hard working, hard loving good old boy rancher. It has excellent support from Sam Elliot, Billy Crudup and Penelope Cruz. It is set in the late 40's, early 50's when small independent ranchers are being replaced by large commercial farms.

The problem with this movie is that is focuses way too much on the three way relationship between Billy Crudup, Woody Harrelson and Patricia Arquette. Arquette and Harrelson are lovers and Crudup lusts after Arquette. This relationship is not believable because Arquette's character is untrustworthy, amoral, and a liar. The woman who is more interested in Crudup is the Penelope Cruz character. The movie never explains why Crudup would prefer Arquette over the much more beautiful and sexy Cruz.

The Sam Elliot character is wasted. He does a good job of portraying the businessman rancher. He is not evil, but all the small time ranchers hate him because he is contributing to, and a symbol of, the end of small ranches. But it is not Sam Elliot that is destroying the small ranches, it is the progress of commercialization which Sam Elliot represents. It is this contradiction between good person Sam Elliot is and the evil that he represents that makes is character so interesting. This movie should have been more about Sam Elliot.

The movie falls apart into silly soap opera / action movie like scenes at the end. It abandons the interesting character study and gives us emergency rescues in a storm, deaths, murders, cover-ups and "dramatic" revelations. Those scenes belong in some other movie.

Good but badly let down by Patricia Arquette

[bob the moo · 4 April 2003]

Big Boy Matson and Pete Calder are friends who go off to fight in WW2. On their return they continue to farm in their old ways, however this way is challenged by Jim Ed Love, who has a huge ranch and employs many of the old land owners. To complicate this Big Boy is having an affair with Mona, the wife of Love's foreman, Les Birk. However Mona not only threatens to inflame the dangerous relationship between Big Boy and Birk but also between Pete (who loves Mona despite the attentions of Josepha O'Neil) and Big Boy.

Despite the poor box office that comes with a modern western (generally) I had heard reasonable reviews and wanted to give it a look. To call this sprawling is a bit of an understatement, it covers many themes and interrelating stories. The plots all spin around Big Boy and Pete and they hold together quite well on the whole. Only Pete's relationship with Josepha didn't get expanded as well as I'd have liked but the sweeping coverage of the main themes just about worked. Aside from the fact that it might have been very slow, the film could have used another 30 minutes to open itself out a bit more into the side plots. It is not as slow as it sounds but it does require a bit of patience and grace, so I suspect many will get bored.

Harrelson is really good in this. Some films he seems to work and others he doesn't. Here his cocky act fits the character real well. Crudup is more understated as Pete but is good in a different way. He provides more mystery that kept me interested. Elliot and Diehl are both strong characters. Cruz is pretty and interesting but criminally not used as well as I'd like simply because the film turns to focus on Mona. This is a shame because Arquette is bland and poor throughout the film. At one point she is talking about the blinking neon lights and says `I hate things that go on and on without changing', Yes! I screamed at my TV - like your tone of voice and your dull, droning performances! I hate to be cruel but since the film was focused around Mona as opposed to the other strands, Mona needed to be a strong performance – and Arquette just can't cut it. Her weakness is the weakness of the film – she is the reason that the film doesn't work at times.

Aside from this I did enjoy the film. It was involving and thoughtful without being too slow. The performances of the majority of the cast really help the film but Arquette is simply not able to deliver in the pivotal role of Mona and the film suffers as a result.

Underrated

[807 · 7/10 · 11 March 2012]

Set in the late 1940s, The Hi-Lo Country is a strange mix of drama, romance, western, buddy movie and something that can be best described as an Americana version of Latin America's magical realism: there's even a witch telling the future, and her prophecy fulfills! The movie does not offer much in terms of action: it rather sets out to be a "slice-of-life" piece, taking a look both at the events and the changes occurring in all the lead characters. I can understand this kind of approach can be disliked by some viewers; still, I found this movie interesting and somewhat underrated (picked it one evening on the cable). If you like a movie that emphasizes the mood instead of the actual action and with a strong cast ensemble (watch for Northern Exposure's Darren Burrows!), this is for you. 7 out of 10.

Should Have Been Much Better

[gbheron · 7/10 · 22 August 2001]

If you rent "The Hi-Lo Country", you're not ripping yourself off; you'll have a decent movie to watch. But what struck me after it was over was the unnerving feeling that it should have been so much better. The prize, a top-notch Oscar contender, was within their grasp, and they fumbled it. Not all aspects of the film miss their mark; there are parts that are much better than others. The professional critics have pointed them out, and they're on target. For one, Woody Harrelson gives a great performance, one of his best. But nobody else does, not even the usually excellent Billy Crudup and Bridget Fonda. For another, the cinematography that highlights the beautiful New Mexico landscape is great. But this is not nearly enough; The direction and editing are languid and loose. The tension inherent in the story slips away at key moments. As a result, the movie does not achieve the heights it could have achieved. If only Sam Peckinpah had lived a little longer

overall, enjoying, but not without flaws

[lumpynose · 7/10 · 3 November 2002]

Overall I enjoyed this movie. It wasn't great, and yet it wasn't bad.

I found Woody Harrelson's acting lacking; something about it just didn't make me believe him as the brash, swaggering cowboy. Billy Crudup's acting was very good and believable. Crudup did such a good job that it made me wish that they'd used someone as good as him for Harrelson's part; it would have the movie a lot better.

The story was a bit hard to swallow; Crudup was in love with the same woman, Patricia Arquette, that Harrelson was, but she was too unlikable and shallow and I couldn't understand how he could have the hots for such a loser of a woman.

The ending had a nice twist; the way the movie started it made you think it was going to end one way but it ended differently than you were led to believe. The ending was also bittersweet which gave it a nice finish.

A Surprisingly Good Movie!

[billyfish · 7/10 · 13 January 2006]

First of all, let me say I don't generally like Woody Harrelson, but I thought he did a superb job in this picture.

Billy Crudup plays Pete, a likable cowboy who returns from WWII to work his own land with some cattle he buys using his GI salary. Harrelson plays "Big Boy," his best friend; they both are averse to working for "Jim Ed" (Sam Elliot in a rare bad guy role), who owns most of the town and environs. It's a typical plot, with the little guys pitted against the fat cat, but one which is developed in a very realistic way. There were no gun fights or barroom brawls -- incredible for a Hollywood western! And the little guys just get by -- they don't somehow crush the fat cat. Quite refreshing.

I'll stop my praise-fest to say that no real Pete could be as stupid as this one. His would-be sweetheart Mona (Patricia Arquette), who couldn't wait for any of the GIs to return and married the first guy who asked her (her hubby works for Jim Ed, of course), flirts unabashedly with both Pete and his best friend Big Boy. Unbeknownst to Pete, who still holds a candle for her, she closes the deal with Big Boy, yet continues to lead him on. Meanwhile, Penelepe Cruz plays "Josepha" (she is obviously Mexican-American, and therefore should be "Josefa"), who loves Pete and waited for him throughout the war. Needless to say, she is HOT. Pete is obviously blind and does not see this.

This is where I have to stop and protest. Since when does Arquette come anywhere near the beauty of Cruz? Let's not even discuss appearances; in the movie Josefa exudes innocent and virtuous yet sexually attractive energy, whilst Mona is obviously nothing more than a cheap slut. Nevertheless, Pete is obsessed with Mona. Almost totally unbelievable. You feel for Pete, yet at the same time you condemn him for his blindness and stupidity.

Eventually, after he gets slapped in the face about a million times, Pete comes to his senses. Even in this reversal, the movie represents reality, because there are smart people who become stupid through the miracle of LOVE, and yet at some point see the light.

I was not prepared to enjoy this movie to the extent I did, having read a lot of reviews, but I have to agree with those who endorse it. It's well done and leaves you feeling good. A most enjoyable film.

There is a thin line between downbeat and flat.

[alice liddell · 5/10 · 9 August 1999]

The point of this exercise escapes me. Today, in 1999, there are probably two valid reasons for reviving a relic of a genre - to provide an old-fashioned, nostalgic, action-packed adventure, or to remould the Western in our age's image, to try to see what the form can say about us, our ideologies, and, most importantly, our relation to history. This film does neither.

On the one hand, it has many of the virtues of the traditional Western - lovingly bleached landscapes; a pompous, overwrought score; cattle runs; male bonding. But it has neither a compelling narrative drive, charismatic characters, nor a mythic sensibility.

On the deconstructive side, it seems to want to critique the problematic values of the West. The maverick rebel versus corporate muscle is, as has been pointed out, a theme worthy of Peckinpah, but its treatment lacks his romantic passion, violent sympathy, or dynamic self-pity.

The hero, Big Boy, is, according to some, a subject of the film's censure, but the only fault I can find in him is that he is probably impotent, and if that's supposed to be an iconoclastic weakness, than the filmmakers are being rather macho. So he's a bit wild and brutal; he's also loyal, dignified and amusing, and Woody Harrelson invests him with much charm. The rest of the characters, especially Pete, with his wretched narration(there are never voiceovers in Westerns!), are dull and unreal.

Jim Kitses has called the film a melodrama, and to an extent this is true - this is no quest narrative; there is no building a white US culture, no battle between the primitive and civilisation as one finds in the Fordian western. Much of the action focuses on the domestic. A recurring motif is barbed wire, suggesting that the characters are as corralled as the animals they steer, in a prison whose walls actively hurt.

The film is also faintly unusual in having a woman in a pivotal role, although Patricia Arquette is, as usual, quite appaling. However, without me revealing it, the coda betrays all this, reverts twofold to the old 'Print the legend' pack of lies, and still holds out faith in the 'Go west, young man' myth, exactly as they did in the old days.

Stephen Frears has been praised for adapting to the mores of the Western, but this is surely untrue. Photographing desert landscapes, however beautifully, does not make you a great Western filmmaker. You must have a critical apparatus, whether its through the use of montage, like Peckinpah, or though music and composition, like Leone. As a revisionist, Frears has actually regressed from these masters. There is very little of his stamp at all, none of the genre knowledge he showed in The Grifters, one of the great films of the 90s.

He is best at revealing claustrophobic and deceitful sexual tensions and power games between small groups of (often related) people. There are some excellent examples of this here, especially when the four lovers gather after the barroom brawl; there are also a few good scenes, and gorgeous silhouettes: but mostly the thing flounders in its own insecurity and reverence.

dull story about punks

[drystyx · 2/10 · 23 August 2010]

I can't call this a Western. Sure, it is set in the West, but it is far too dull to call a Western.

The story is about a bonding between two guys we could care less about, and who are more gay towards each other than the men of Brokeback Mountain.

The two aren't likable at all. No one is really likable. The story plods along, but it well acted, mostly by unknowns, although a few famous names are in this.

In the end, we see how self righteous and insane both of these two guys are. I actually don't blame the younger brother for what he does later. To him, these two must be like terrorists, relentlessly attacking him for no reason. He's backed into a corner, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for the older brother or his red neck punk friend.

Sadly, it seems evident that the director wants the viewer to empathize with the kill crazy hero. We can empathize with the mother, who is the lone sane character in this piece, and how she negotiates with the maniac. It's scary that there are people who think this maniac is identifiable and deserves any respect whatsoever.

A Great Movie Western

[Zilla-4 · 10/10 · 5 September 1999]

This is a wonderful movie produced by Martin Scorcese's group and is the best contemporary western I've seen since "Unforgiven". In some ways it is like a Cormac McCarthy novel brought to life. It has a mature and literate screenplay by Walon Green, is well acted by Billy Crudup and Woody Harrelson, has strong supporting performances by a large and perfectly cast group of actors (including Patricia Arquette, Katy Jurado, Sam Elliott, and Penelope Cruz), is beautifully photographed by Oliver Stapleton against spectacular backdrops in New Mexico, is very well directed by Stephen Frears, and has a haunting score by the superb Carter Burwell. Only an overly sentimental last scene weakens an otherwise great film, but the movie is still well worth seeing.

Good Night

[csarci-73-902708 · 2/10 · 24 March 2012]

With such a great cast, I expected a great film, but all it did for me was put me to sleep, or to be more precise, used the control to turn it off. The film was slow moving, predictable and the script left much to be desired.

As much as there are some people that are trying to take us back to the "good old days", this film reminds me why I wouldn't want to. It seems like everyone is overdosing in testosterone and stupidity and where the absolute meaning of life is drinking, fighting, womanizing, and being an absolute jerk.

Sorry, but with things as they are in the world today, I can't sympathize with a bully as a hero.

Again, quite a disappointment with so many great actors in the film.

Passionate, entertaining western melodrama

[PAolo-10 · 17 December 1998]

The Hi-Lo Country has it all: male bonding, bar fights, passion and obsession. The characters reflect the brutality and the charm of old ways which refuse to die. Great performances by Woody Harrelson and the younger Billy Crudup who star as lifelong friends whose world made of land and cattle start changing under their feet after their return from World War II.

The Hi-Lo Country is an involving, intense and somewhat nostalgic western which tries to abandon traditional plot lines while using all the classic western cliches. Strongly advised to people who like some "melo" in their "drama".

When men were still men, and women were still horses ...

[roessi · 1/10 · 12 April 1999]

This was definitely one of the worst "1 Point Movies" I´ve ever seen. This movie was so masculine. All the Protagonist should have died of an Testosterone overdose after 5 minutes. After seeing this we know, what's the difference between your horse and your wife: You can´t ride on your wife and catch a cow with your lasso.

Good ''modern'' western

[Ryu_Darkwood · 8/10 · 24 June 2007]

I really enjoyed this ''modern'' western about two young war veterans coming back home from the war zone and trying to make a living by working as old-fashioned cowboys. Pete Calder ( Billy Crudup ) is the shy and reserved one, Big Boy ( Woody Harrelson ) the risk taker with the biggest mouth and smoothest bluffing skills. Their friendship is threatened by the lovely Mona ( Patriccia Arquette ); an adulteress, sending in mixed signals to both of the boys.

You know, I sometimes don't get it why good movies get low or mediocre scores. The way I see it, this movie has its flaws, but it is almost as good as the recent Brokeback Mountain. I really like this epic story about unreachable love and jealousy at someone you consider as a true friend. Add the intense bar fights, gorgeous scenery and a top cast, I'd say this is a very good movie. The only thing I have to comment is that some of the characters just don't get so much attention as they deserve ( like the Mexican guy or Hoover Young ). It felt as if their characters had an important role in the novel, but there just wasn't the time for them in this movie to give them their deserved deep layer. Alas, I can live with that.

Uninteresting

[Mort-31 · 3/10 · 12 February 2002]

Utterly boring soft-western about a bunch of `real' cowboys on a `modern' farm after World War II. In some old black-and-white films I have problems telling the various female characters apart. In this movie, it's the men. Big Boy, Little Boy, Pete, Steve, now and then one of them dies, but nobody really cares. Sorry, this movie didn't keep me awake at all. I can't imagine that Sam Peckinpah would have been able to make a better movie out of a story of such poor interest.

a big-hearted film

[toto-40 · 2 November 1999]

People walked out of this film, presumably in disgust, perhaps because they were too hip for woody harrelson. I'm glad this film pissed people off - it proves it was stupidly honest, stupidly nostalgic, stupidly big-hearted and not cynical, clever, PC nor anti-PC, not a mockery of anything. It's an American film by a British director, and like Lolita, boils thick Americanisms down to crystals of statement, taste, elan. How could anyone walk out on the fat man yodelling as the camera dollied in to that tight close-up?! It was a gem of a shot, a little gauche perhaps, not unlike the marlboro country the film rolls through, and the naked desire for the days when men were MEN - with winning hands, whiskey shooters and a tasty redhead named Mona... But this isn't leering masculinity bristling with three day growth! There is a notable absense of guns (for a western), and when they appear they are not sharp and shiny but heavy, tarnished and chunky. This is MC Solaar's nouveau western - cutting up slow shy grins, dusty scuffles, mewling coyotes and a lugubrious soundtrack heavy with sentimental strings, trumpets and the convenient pause for punctuation. This is true Hollywood, and I mean that as a compliment. It was one of those rare occasions where suddenly you see the film as more style than substance. That's why it was showing in Darlinghurst and not the multiplexes! Because of Woody Harrelson - so stupidly generous, stupidly the big man with his big scruples and big square jaw - it is a film that could so easily slip by, scoffed at, discounted for wearing its heart upon its sleeve, pinned not far below the stars and stripes and the silver star for service to country, mateship as tight as knuckles, horses with bottom and all that glory.

It's a movie for Kerouac, he loved this kind of carousing and childishness. Here, life is Hi and the cattle lo, plain Lo, yet another adopted child of Scorsese and his deep deep pockets. "From the depths of my reputation I bring you..." How dare he! Kidnapping the history of American film, like he was god's gift to world cinema, doing it all as a public service. But its worth it for Billy Crudup with his old man's shoulders, Billy with his switchblade, Steve with his necktie, straight six and coronary, LB and Bigboy - it all comes down to Bigboy - the backbone of the film, the gut-feeling and laboured gasp of this weighty piece of cinema.

It's old-school treatment, all sinew and gristle, bloody hooves; pretty dresses, buddy bottles and mexican girls who visit fortune-telling witches. It's a film which doesn't teach America's children to express their anger with words not weapons. No, like Apache tank-killers and cruise missles flattening Serbian houses, it tells Americans to go hard or go home - take it square on the chin, tear those clothes off and take whatever gratification you can get whilst still being the best man, the best friend, a good man with a natural feel for horses. It's homestyle American apple pie, all fragrance and warm pressure, like a horse nibbling oats out of the palm of your hand. So rope em and rape em cause nothing's keeping a good man down cept for a bullet in the chest or a pair of wide open thighs... And while I bluster, it's all poetry in the Hi-lo country, with its bloated cattle and californian dreams, snow on the ranges and the good ol' boys, we're just telling it like it is...

Further notes. The preview contains many scenes that are not in the film : wartime footage, bigboy coming back for pete in the blizzard. In fact the preview contains all the elements superfluous to the film. It is not the story of a woman coming between two friends, it's a story about a way of life coming to an end, a coming of age, and the quality of relationships.

And returning to the generic music score I criticised earlier, from the preview I have identified (some of) it as sounding very similar to the opening to Fargo! What is this piece of music?

Turkey in the desert

[alanjj · 2/10 · 28 July 1999]

I usually love Stephen Frears, but he really missed the mark with this turkey. The people were all unlikeable, nothing of any note happens, and lead actress, an Arquette, is nothing more than a siren to make men to bad things. What a stinker! Billy Crudup, a sexy guy, had no sex appeal at all. Woody Harrelson was supposed to be charismatic, but I was glad when he was not in a scene. It did have some nice scenery--but it was not believable to me that they would even try to raise cattle in what appeared to be a dry, parched desert.

An Extreme Insult to the Cowboys of the High Plains

[sbox · 2/10 · 6 July 1999]

Woody Harrelson has to be one of the worst actors of our age. Despite hailing from Midland (which is dubious), he seems more of a San Franciscan socialite grabbing for his roots.

This film seems more of a plaintive attempt to put '90's era excesses into post war reality. The result is obvious and disastrous.

Having first hand knowledge of real characters of the region and their real excesses, I can only say that this movie fails to tap into the persona of high plainsmen. Don't waste your time on this movie.

Hi-Low Characters/Plot are Near perfect

[mg181818 · 9/10 · 2 August 2009]

HI-LOW's characters, with Big Boy and Pete central, and Mona as the obsessive lure for both, were perfectly developed and portrayed. Big Boy was a prototypical strutting, macho "stud duck" in a remote west-Texas grain farming and cattle region, along the base of the sharp, towering escarpment which splits the LOW and HIGH PLAINS. Big Boy and Pete were among the WWII combat veterans returning home to find draft dodgers acquiring property and wealth by any means -- most often questionable legal tactics. This happened throughout the Western U.S., even the Mid-West and South East. Many of these accumulated great wealth, but without respect within their communities or region. That lack of respect continues for many of their wealthy families to this date among "natives." Mona represented forbidden fruit, not because of anything she controlled, because she was a lost soul out of control, trapped in a miserable marriage to one of the despised prototypes of the era, a WWII draft dodger, who was foreman for the villain's growing ranch. Sam Elliott's villain earned the scorn by becoming a totally unscrupulous wealthy draft dodger. Mona was a poor, ill-educated nearly starving woman during the war years, forced to make a choice between abject poverty and creature comforts in a loveless marriage as trophy wife to a cowardly excuse of a man. "Draft Dodging" was the one unforgivable sin for any man of that era. Sleeping with his wife, and taking her, was "morally right." The Cruz character could not have more perfectly developed and portrayed as a young Latina woman, a "Mexican" in that culture. English was not her primary language. Attractive, and especially "available" Latinas were welcome to dance in the "whites' tonks", while in most communities, "Mexican" males might be permitted to stand along a back wall. At the end, while loving her, Pete still walked away because mixed marriage was unacceptable. In remote 1940s western areas, "dime vending machines' were common.

Bad Western

[ThomasColquith · 3/10 · 30 October 2021]

"The Hi-Lo Country" was pretty bad, I would not recommend it. I won't go into too much detail here, now 23 years later, but suffice to say that nothing works here: the plot, the acting, the music, the directing are all bad. A big disappointment, I had hoped that this was a hidden gem, but no it is a rightfully forgotten film. It was almost painful to watch in parts, seeing the dull expressionless actors (especially Arquette and Crudup) drone on throughout the film. This seemed to be at the start of that trend -- of films featuring dull wooden acting, posing as deep and wrought, but really just vapid and pretentious (e.g. See "Napoleon Dynamite" and "No Country for Old Men").

I will also start paying more attention to the directors and producers of films as there are some which I just don't care for and that I feel are overrated such as: Otto Preminger, Brian de Palma, and Martin Scorsese. Lesson learned. My rating for this film: 3/10. And "The Hi-Lo Country" is now chiefly remembered as being one of Penelope Cruz's first Hollywood films. She is good here as she always is, but it's just a supporting role. And Katy Jurado is wasted in a small cameo. It's a shame that this film wasn't better because it could have been great given the right script, discipline, and direction.

A very under-appreciated movie...

[illini_CHL · 9/10 · 12 April 2005]

How does an entertaining film like this get overlooked and undervalued? Woody Harrelson was born to play "Big Boy" and Billy Crudup does a fine job playing his sidekick. Patricia Arquette gets a little annoying about halfway through the film, but we've learned to expect that from her so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

The friction created throughout this film keeps the interest level up and makes for a lot of fun, especially when things really start heating up; Harrelson becomes more and more volatile while Crudup becomes more and more worried about Big Boy's safety, all the while dealing with the animosity and jealousy he feels towards his best friend.

It all adds up to a story that keeps you guessing as to how it will finalize. The ending won't surprise anyone, but it still feels right, even if it isn't exactly what we may have wanted. Good movies do that — instead of giving us what we want, they give us a better and more fitting ending.

Sure, 'The Hi-Lo Country' isn't the best western ever made, but it certainly isn't the worst. It's definitely one of the more entertaining.

was director hi or lo?

[giuliano-3 · 14 August 2000]

Probably lo, considering that the film runs its course over much too long a time span. The film is low on every kind of emotion that an audience member could possibly emote. *SPOILER* By the time Woody Harrelson's character is killed by his brother (something I freakishly predicted 10 minutes into the film) I didn't care and the three people I'd watched it with had fallen asleep. I had to rewind the movie to prove my prediction after they woke up. I actually dozed off for a minute or two, and I NEVER fall asleep in a film (except for Dune countless times). This movie could have been really good, as the acting is pretty much flawless across the board. Sam Elliot was born to make westerns, and no single person gives an unbelievable performance. There are some very nice shots of pre and post World War II Texas. Very authentic in its feel and atmosphere, where this film misses is in its flow. I rented this film because of the actors in it, but also because it had Scorcese's name attached to it as a producer. Scorcese didn't read the script, couldn't have, there is no way, PLEASE MARTY SAY YOU DIDN'T READ THE SCRIPT!!! Boring but not boorish.

A favorite

[dallasvaughnmichaels · 9/10 · 4 January 2008]

Without the drive or the sulfur smell of New Mexico or West Texas, you can live there for a few minutes with this wonderful film. There is outstanding photography of the west. My favorite tag-line of the film is, while placing a big bet at poker, Big Boy jokes, " Well, if you ain't chicken, you sure got hen-house ways." I use this film to take me away to the west of the 40's. So much of the tension is displayed in that anything you say or do can get you killed and Harrelson's character does and says as he pleases. In reality of the character of Big Boy, Harrelson portrays behavior so Audie Murphy and clearly alike with Murphy in real life with combat related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Both are bulletproof in their own minds as they still exist.