I think a prerequisite is to read the book first, but even that might not help
Watched it because of the preview clip on Netflix (those guys should get an Academy Award for editing!). I don't see how anyone can figure this movie out along the way as there are just way too many bizarre scenes and little to connect them to. Plus it's just horridly S-L-O-W!! The car drive out to the farm lasted forever. There is no action and things are strung out and dragged along.
I don't know who if anyone I would recommend this film to.
I had heard good things about this movie and had seen the The Witch so figured it was a must watch. But it really was a long drawn out dredge of a movie.
I had just watched "We need to talk about Kevin" which also has lots of flashbacks, bits and pieces which need to be put together as the movie goes along, and I LOVED that movie, so it's not like I'm an anti-art house fan.
This movie is just a bore to watch. I fell asleep a couple of times it was so bad but when I woke back up, it's not like anything had changed - more drinking, more farting, more jerking off, more harassing of sea gulls, etc. And the damn fog horn. Maybe that's what drove them crazy. But it's not like other lighthouse keepers during that period all went nuts over such a short period of time, I mean 5 weeks is hardly a huge length of time.
and then it just sort of ended. I guess looking into a lighthouse freznel lens for a couple of minutes can do that to you.
One of the better films I've seen in the last couple of years in that it force's you to pay close attention to details and every word of dialogue. This is a very visual film without a lot of dialogue in it. I guess you could call it "art house" style but it's also easy to follow if you pay attention to each scene and then connect that with previous scenes, in the "Breaking Bad" style. The first 15 minutes or so could have been done better and half of it should have been left on the cutting floor. After that it tightened up considerably.
Some really great actors here. I found the end interesting. Did she finally give up on Kelvin and left intending a new start in life? I'm hoping she did.
What do they want? The folks who gave this 1 star?
I'm a voracious reader of history and list WWII as among my favorite grounds for research. This movie is hopefully one of the most persuasive mediums to those who know nothing about the great event. A great number of Germans knew that Hitler was a disaster for the empire. These people (no make that patriots) took an enormous risk to rid Germany of Hitler and the story needs to be told. So why the bickering over some time-lines? The scenery, uniforms, technology were faithfully exact and the sheer audacity of the whole plot was rendered in a true and believable manner. What do the 1 stars want? A stifled PBS document with a suitably dull narrator? I give Cruise and his cast a loud cheer to bring this moment of valor of the Germans to the large screen. I hope more like this come out but with the 1 star naysayers I doubt if we will see a big budget movie come out any time soon. I hope they are proud of themselves.
The first hour and a half could have been condensed to 20 minutes without leaving anything out. Sometimes less is more. Just way too much empty scenes that mean nothing.
Did some research on populations, ethnic stats, etc for Wyoming in 1890. There were only 2,300 people there in 1890. Casper had a population of 870 but from the street scenes in the movie you'd think the whole population was on the street at the same time! In reality the streets would have been almost empty with wind blowing the dirt around. And where did all these Slavic immigrants come from??? Almost none of them trekked West in the late 1800's. They mainly stayed in the East (NY, NJ, Pennsylvania) As for the battle itself, the "invaders" were trapped in a ranch bunkhouse not out in the open. There was no wheeling around the "invaders" like Indians. And there were no barrage wagons used. Instead of 100+ people getting killed in the "War" maybe 6 or 7 actually died.
And what is with the horrid visuals? I was getting nauseous from the yellow pall that constantly hung over the film.
All in all the film is way too long and boring. And terrible on the facts.
What were they thinking! The original Caddyshack was brilliant and should be considered a classic. Everything worked even though it shouldn't. I still quote lines from it 25+ years later.
The cast of the original was superb. For Caddyshack II however none of them seem right. There is no chemistry at all. All the jokes fail badly. I just felt sorry for both Mason and Akroyd (maybe they realized that they missed out on a fantastic movie the first time and were trying to make up for it) I generally will sit through just about anything I've paid $3 to rent but after 20 minutes I couldn't handle any more. Its THAT bad.
I am a big Victorian history buff so notice when stuff is blatantly wrong or off the mark. In this aspect, they did a nice job in clothing and weaponry. The town was also done right as well as the hog farm for instance.
And 3 wranglers running a herd of 500 horses is, well, pretty dang near impossible. But OK, its Hollywood.
As to the pacing of the story, I really enjoyed it. Nothing was rushed but then back in the 19th century, nothing was really rushed. You got to know the characters more and see the interaction. It could have used a bit more action or tension in spots but overall, the pacing was nicely done.
Hopefully this will be the start of many more Westerns being made. Done right, they can provide a great deal of viewing pleasure.
I don't get out to movies very often, maybe 3-4 times a year. So I was really ticked off that I ended up having to sit through this dreg of Cinematography.
Movies like this should ONLY BE SHOWN AT THE ART FLICK venues! That way normal viewers like me won't be subjected to this kind of thing. I don't dislike Art movies, I just don't want to be fooled into going to one. I thought this was going to be another "Pirates of the Caribbean" Same time frame, eh? Its not though. Just a nature film with an occasional shot of humans now and then.
After the first day of the movie (er, hour sorry) I started thinking, "Why didn't we go to Kong?? Monkey vs Dinosaur!" Yeah thats my kind of movie. It has action and even a plot you can follow. But alas I was sucked into "New World" and 3 hours of my life is gone that I can never get back. On the other hand, if I'm ever told that I only have a week to live, I'll rent this movie and watch it over and over. Will it cure me?? No, but at least it will seem as if years are going by and I'll be happy to die when it comes.
I guess you can say I didn't particularly like this film.
A decent performance (if it was a High School play)
Not sure if this is just a lousy movie or if it was intended to be a mockery of a "B" Western. Story line was so-so but the filming, editing and acting were just plain bad. Plus the music in the background was irritating to no end, too loud and just non-stop. Many times you could not make out the dialog over the background music. I'm in SASS (Single Action Shooting Society) and do some Old West shooting with them, and a lot of the actors are members of this group, so that's why I bought it. If you have no interest in this group of people, or that sport, you certainly most likely wouldn't even have this little bit of interest to help out with the film. The acting of even the veteran actors (particularly Stella Stevens) left a lot to be desired also.
This film is a mess. No coherency at all, I had no idea what was trying to be told. The editing is so choppy and you spend so much time trying to figure out what went on in the preceding "snippet" that it eventually just gets massively annoying.
30 minutes into the film I was drifting badly and ended making appetizers for my work's potluck the next day.
What the heck does the above line have to do with the movie? Well, I could say that about the movie itself. Half the "snippets" left you wondering what the heck was just said in relation to the movie. The movie is crying out for some kind of plot and never gets one.
This showed up on a DVD a buddy of mine bought for me. They had it listed as "The Savage Guns" which was an entirely different movie. Obviously the folks who packaged the DVD never bothered to look at what they were burning on the disk.
Anyway, this movie is about as bad as they come. The sound track is a combination TV Batman/Early James Bond/Spaghetti western. Lots of galloping around to this music. It appears that the guy has to gallop between scenes to burn up some time and give the sound track folks something to do.
English is dubbed over the Italian and it really shows. I wish it had been just a little bit worse and then it would have had some of the campy feel of the Ed Wood films. AS it is, it is just plain awful.