I thought it was a fluke over the opening credits, but it continued to catch my attention in the opening scene and beyond: there is an overwhelming sense of falseness to this picture. From the weirdly accelerated time-lapse photography over the opening credits, to the music that feels forced and charged; from the overly clean sound and visual effects, to the perfectly crisp and smooth cinematography, and pacing that feels a tad too swift and unnatural, the presentation comes across as a little hollow. I suppose part of it is that impeccable modern production values just seem ill-fitting for a genre that's filled with grit, dirt, and rough edges even in the storytelling, but then, there have been other westerns made in the past ten to twenty years that didn't suffer from the same issues. Maybe it's the very idea of a modern remake of a feature from decades before that invariably would have not had the benefit of the same pristine techniques and new technology; maybe it all can be laid on the shoulders of director Terry Miles, or producer Paul Malvern, and choices they made along the way. It's certainly not that 2012's 'Dawn rider' is outright awful, but it consistently feels like an imperfect facsimile of the movie that it's supposed to be.
The acting consistently feels empty, bereft of the earnestness that would make every moment real and impactful; it's like the actors are divorced from the characters they're portraying, and just going through the motions. The same quite goes for the fundamental orchestration of every shot and scene: the story beats, movements, stunts, effects, and lines are all there, but the heart and soul of the whole affair isn't. In turn, every word and story idea seems to have the strength sapped from it; the story feels overfull, for that matter, and for as quickly as the pacing blows past each notion in turn, nothing here is allowed to manifest, linger, and resolve of its own accord. The result is overcharged, thin, and less than entirely convincing. I see what 'Dawn rider' could have been, but what it could have been is not what it is. Why, by the time it feels like we should be at the climax, with surely only a few minutes left to go, it's mystifying to look at the digital timer and find that there are still somehow twenty minutes left.
Making a tale fast, snappy, sexy, and violent is not the answer to creating entertainment. The people telling the tale have to feel it in their bones to make it count for the audience; we in the audience have to feel it in our bones to get anything out of the experience. There's nary one beat or characterization that's believable, or that comes off well, and incredibly, I think this actually manages to get worse within the last act (before at least concluding on a better note). I appreciate what everyone involved put into it, and the basic work is solid. Somewhere along the line, however - or if we're being honest, at multiple points along the line, including and not limited to both writing and direction - the core value is greatly diminished as one decision after another creates a sense of heavy-handed artificiality. Had more judicious care been exercised in shaping the film, had it not been crafted with modern sensibilities, and had the pacing not been so brisk, then this could have been terrific. None of these changes would have been hard to make. Yet here we are.
I don't dislike 'Dawn rider,' and there's still value here despite all its many faults and shortcomings. The fact remains that this is no more than half the picture it should have been, and we have to work to find something to enjoy. I'm glad for those who manage to get more out of it than I do, but for all the other deserving westerns that are out there to watch - both classic and new - unless you have a particular impetus for watching, there's no major reason to check this out.
