Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: cigar joe on January 19, 2006, 06:17:13 AM



Title: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on January 19, 2006, 06:17:13 AM
Ok picked these up a couple of day'a ago from Target for $19.99 a bargain compared to other stores.

Anyway if I had to pick one word to describe my impression it would have to be "underwhelming". I saw this in the theaters long ago, so its not my first encounter and I've seen an old VHS and probably some versions on TV, so I'm not a virgin to this film. But time had erased a lot of memories so I was viewing with a clean slate.

My first bone to pick is the selection of Kris Kristofferson (now there is a sure fire movie killer, lol, who also added "Heaven's Gate"). Who is responsible for that, I sure it wasn't Peckinpah, probably something the suits forced on him. So from the get go you got a major casting screwup, you got a popular (at the time) singer/songwriter (think Elvis or Ricky Nelson if it had been cast two decades ealier, lol) who's trying to act profound but comes off full of himself, bringing down in the process a very good supporting cast of classic character actors who's miniscule screen times bring flashes of brilliance to the film. The Slim Pickens/Katy Juardo, "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" is one of the great little sequences. On a whole the narrative seens very disjointed.

Bob Dylan was another distraction, he never sould have been in the picture he pulls you out of it everytime you see him, and his scoring of the film didn't add anything to the film, not like a Morricone score to a Leone.

The action sequences seem far and few between, and there is an unbelievably long stretch where after Billy breaks out of jail he seems to take 15 minutes of screen time to get out of time, the point of this sequence was for what? That Billy was so loved by everyone that he could dawdle.

Story wise you get absolutely no back story on the Kid, so since Kristofferson in not believable anyway you don't get any sense of Billy the Kid or what his reputation was for. At least "Dirty Little Billy" with Michael J. Pollard develed into Billy's beginnings as a New York City street punk and town tough, and that approach at least seems more believeable, but there is no inkling of street punk in Brownsville Texas native Kristofferson.

There are not a whole lot of memorable quoteable lines in the films dialogue, "Keep, the change Bob." being the one come to mind, and there are a few others. You get the feeling that they were trying to be profound but with Kristofferson they just don't quite work.

You don't get that iconic feel that you get with a Leone film. Unfortunately what you do get is the feeling that you are watching a bunch of loadies directed by a brilliant drunk who has one hand tied behind his back by the studios.

Now the special features had some interesting tid bits about the goings on on the set, and also a great section
by an editor on the various cuts of the film. One thing interesting that he mentioned was that the "directors cut" wasn't what he considered the final cut, another viewpoint, lol.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Leone Admirer on January 19, 2006, 06:22:32 AM
I'm looking forward to getting my copy as part of the Sam Peckinpah Legendary Westerns set, it should be here soon... hopefully.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Banjo on January 19, 2006, 08:05:50 AM
I taped and watched this movie of TCM channel a little while ago and i did find it a bit dull,depressing and overlong-thats my first impression anyway!
I didn't like OUATITW or DYS to start with so to be fair i'd have to give Peckinpahs movie another look or two.
   I didn't have a problem with Kristopherson as Billy as i think he's quite charismatic but was slightly disappointed with Coburn whose character is a bit dour in comparison with his Sean role in DYS.I thought Dylans scenes provided some of the highlights-he's suitably enigmatic and i just love his musical score-he's obviously sticking to what he knows -American roots music and its not really fair to compare this to Morricone.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Tim on January 19, 2006, 02:49:10 PM
  I actually really liked this movie, but Peckinpah can do no wrong in my mind.  One of the main reasons I bought the DVD was because I'd never seen the longer Turner preview version or in any form but pan-n-scan, so it was great to see a version close to what Sam originally intended.

  There is a disjointed feel to the movie and some scenes do stretch on too long.   I still like The Wild Bunch and Major Dundee more than PGABTK, but its a movie I'm glad to have in my dvd collection.  The DVD release, and with 2 discs at that, is long overdue.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on January 19, 2006, 04:30:56 PM
My favorite Peckinpah flicks so far are "The Wild Bunch" and "Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia" then "The Getaway". And I like the bits and pieces of "The Balad of Cable Hogue" that I've seen.

Quote
didn't have a problem with Kristopherson as Billy as i think he's quite charismatic but was slightly disappointed with Coburn whose character is a bit dour in comparison with his Sean role in DYS.I thought Dylans scenes provided some of the highlights-he's suitably enigmatic and i just love his musical score-he's obviously sticking to what he knows -American roots music and its not really fair to compare this to Morricone.


Well the actual  Billy was either 17 or 21 when Pat Garret shot him, so the 35-40 ish Kristofferson was a bit of mis-casting

http://www.aboutbillythekid.com/early_life.htm

I agree about Coburn, he has a sort of lost look, but maybe he's playing tired.

Dylan's score is ok but it doesn't help to dramatize most of the film, so yea I suppose you can't compare him to Morricone its very effective when dealing with Slim Pickin's death though.

I don't think this film is one that I'll be watching over and over again without tiring of it and that is the true test, lol.

 


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on January 19, 2006, 04:50:42 PM
I remember having liked it when I first saw it and also when watched it on tv. But this thread makes me wonder whether I should give it another try, this time undubbed: or is better to live with good memories?

Question: how much was this a Peckinpah's movie? I presume that after Wild Bunch he wielded more power than before, so if there were wrong choices maybe they were his own: or not? Expecially the fact that he picked Kristofferson for a later movie makes me think that probably this casting decision was made by him (and, I add, was a right one as I like Kristofferson in this movie). At the same time, I presume that the Dylan character could have only come from him: such a bizarre casting decision it is unlikely could have come from the production (but I leave the word to the P.'s experts, which I'm not).


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on January 19, 2006, 08:55:32 PM
grampa chum is the Peckinpah expert on this board, I don't know a lot about Peckinpah.

Kristofferson in "Bring Me The Head..." had a very, very small part.

As far as memories I guess that's up to you  ;D


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 19, 2006, 10:16:04 PM
The fact that P put KK in Alfredo Garcia after having used him in PG&BK would lead me to believe that P cast him for the earlier film. Why would you keep working with a guy who the studio forced on you?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on January 19, 2006, 11:10:25 PM
I didn't remember him in Bring me the Head. I was rather thinking about Convoy (not a bad movie, BTW).


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 20, 2006, 12:19:50 AM
Yeah, you could miss him if you blink, but he's in there. Okay, so we have KK in three Peckinpah films: he was practically a member of the stock company.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on January 20, 2006, 05:20:46 AM
The only reason I suggested the studio may have  forced him was because of how poor a choice IMO he was for a main lead, and I'd think that Peckinpah would have gotten someone better suited to the part. But like I stated above about this I know almost nothing.  8)

I've never seen Convoy, but in "Bring Me the Head..." his part is very miniscule.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: grandpa_chum on January 20, 2006, 07:31:32 AM
being that my 3 favorite movies of all time are OUATITW, Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia, and PG+BTK I can't say I share the opinion of most on this board, it's a much much better film than the wild bunch in my opinion(which for 3/4 of the film is uneventful and a bit uninteresting). In Alfredo Garcia kristofferson just plays a biker who rapes the lead female and gets killed. I like him as the kid. I love the ending, it's all great stuff... I am curious if they put the lyrics back into heaven's door on the new "2006 directors cut" as opposed to just the music and some oooing on the old directors cut(which I love very much).


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Nobody on January 20, 2006, 12:16:14 PM
They've put the lyrics back in. That's what I've read, at least (still waiting for the box set to arrive in the mail). I'm with you all the way Granpa, I love this film. I always felt KK was wonderful, but I only recently learned that The Kid was supposed to be around 20. That of course means that KK was miscast, but doesn't make his performance any worse. And I seriously doubt Peckinpah didn't approve of the casting of him. They were close friends, and there aren't many people who got along with Peckinpah. Kris Kristoffersen was one of the few.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on January 20, 2006, 04:57:14 PM
Its just not a film I could watch over and over again, the dialogue just seems a bit too contrived.  Its flawed for sure and possibly could have been much better if it was allowed to be edited the way Peckinpah would have been able to if he had the time.

Now BMTHOAG on the other hand is pretty original and off the wall enough to be a favorite of mine, up there with Blue Velvet, Angel Heart, Fargo and the Kill Bill's.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on January 20, 2006, 06:54:43 PM
My favourite Peckinpah (apart from Ride in the High Country) is The Iron Cross. Apparently though I'm the only one who likes it over here.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 20, 2006, 07:10:29 PM
Well, titoli, we finally agree on something. I'm a big Iron Cross fan myself.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on January 20, 2006, 09:41:13 PM
I haven't seen Cross of Iron yet  ???


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on January 20, 2006, 10:58:25 PM
Quote
Well, titoli, we finally agree on something.


Well, it is amazing that you say this, as I thought you were the one here with whom I shared most of my kind of approach. Of course, we can disagree on particulars, but that is not what counts, isn't it? (And even that it is not true, as you have probably already forgotten the thread on indians). And then, finally, I think we are in this forum to exchange, possibly, "different" opinions: if we shared the same ones, what we'd be doing here? talk about the weather?   

Quote
I haven't seen Cross of Iron yet 


Well, this is one of those strange things. Almost everybody here seems to have seen (and liked) Alfredo Garcia, not one of the most famous Peckinpah's and also a movie without a star. And everybody seems to have missed a Coburn. How do you explain this? Must I assume that in USA the movie wasn't so easy to get?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Banjo on January 21, 2006, 01:47:30 AM
Cross of Iron contains Coburns best performance outside of DYS-out of the movies i've seen with him in so far !


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on January 21, 2006, 02:28:31 AM
agreed. and this makes the question of the scarce popularity of the movie even more amazing.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on January 21, 2006, 07:32:36 AM
Quote
agreed. and this makes the question of the scarce popularity of the movie even more amazing.


Quote
Cross of Iron contains Coburns best performance outside of DYS-out of the movies i've seen with him in so far !


Its never even been on TV that I can remember and I've never seen it for rent in the Video Stores, what's up with that?

Just did a quick check on Amazon.com and the R1 version available is the Hen's Tooth DVD and apparently its very cut


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Leone Admirer on January 21, 2006, 07:35:55 AM
There is supposed to be a new SE of Cross of iron coming out soon I believe in R2. I havent seen this film in a while and am tempted to pick it up. I'm still waiting for my Peckinpah boxset though  :( (Oh well I've just made a start of my unwatched noirs, I watched A Dark Corner last night which was fantastic and am moving on tonight to see A Kiss Of Death  ;D )


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on January 21, 2006, 07:45:14 AM
Well, just so you know, Bo Hopkins (and not Kristofferson) was Peckinpah's original choice for Billy.  Make of that what you will.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on January 21, 2006, 08:07:44 AM
Bo Hopkins huh, very interesting, thanks Groggy.


And LA, Dark Corner is great, when Nick gets out of prison & goes straight the little neighborhood where he lives is along side Astoira Park (the Two Bridges in the bg.) as a kid I used to go there with the folks and watch the ships go by in the East River.

Though the commentators get it wrong when Nick and family are waiting for the train that scene is along the Hudson River not anywhere near Astoria.



Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Leone Admirer on January 21, 2006, 10:10:15 AM



And LA, Dark Corner is great, when Nick gets out of prison & goes straight the little neighborhood where he lives is along side Astoira Park (the Two Bridges in the bg.) as a kid I used to go there with the folks and watch the ships go by in the East River.

Though the commentators get it wrong when Nick and family are waiting for the train that scene is along the Hudson River not anywhere near Astoria.



Oh wow! That must have been amazing. It was fun watching it and recognising bits of New York that I am familair with and seeing them in the movie from 1946.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on January 21, 2006, 12:27:05 PM
Quote
Just did a quick check on Amazon.com and the R1 version available is the Hen's Tooth DVD and apparently its very cut

Then get yourself the Region2:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000056QAJ/qid=1137867505/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/026-0496406-8747637


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on January 21, 2006, 03:21:11 PM
Still off topic but Richard Widmark as Udo is a hoot, right over the top, lol.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: grandpa_chum on January 21, 2006, 03:28:40 PM
as for cross of iron... I've yet to see a peckinpah film I didn't love... cross of iron, osterman weekend, straw dogs, junior bonner, and yes, even convoy was pretty damn good.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on January 21, 2006, 04:19:03 PM
I think that Osterman Weekend ranks with its best, I prefer it to Garcia: it's a mystery to me why this last is so appreciated and the former generally it isn't.   Junior Bonner, Straw Dogs and Convoy are OK, but I don't think they rank with Cross of Iron. Can you anyway explain the matter with this movie in USA?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Sackett on January 21, 2006, 08:04:01 PM
I really like PBand BTK.  Dylan's score was terrific, but its a shame he was in the movie.  Matter of factly, when Young Guns came out, its score was compared unfavoraably with PG and BTK.  Understandable.  Who could write music like Dylan. I agree about Kris, but thats Kris being Kris. 
I enjoy its huge cast of stars and supporting actors  especially getting a few glimpses of Rita Coolidge. 


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 22, 2006, 09:02:04 PM
Dylan's score was terrific, but its a shame he was in the movie. 

Truer words were never spoken. I finally got a chance to go through the new Peckinpah box set this weekend and all the way through both cuts of PG&BTK I kept asking myself, What the heck is Dylan doing in this movie, and why does he get so many reaction shots? KK wasn't the studio albatross in this picture, Dylan was (but yes, the score he wrote is good).

Can't say I liked PG&BTK much, and I watched both versions (I prefer not enjoying the 2005 cut to not enjoying the 1988 Turner). Had a lot of nice bits that didn't seem to add up to much. Kind of like watching a Jarmusch film (would make a good double-bill with Dead Man). None of the characters came alive for me, so I couldn't really care if they lived or died (we learn from the docs that most of the cast was sick during the shoot and that may explain, though not excuse, some of the performances), and the tendency to have cameos just so the famous guy could get blown away got a little old. And speaking of cameos, when Peckinpah suddenly shows up for his at the end I just burst out laughing. What was all that crap about putting everything he owned in a baby-sized coffin and burying it? And why is it that KK and Rita have to take so long to get undressed? So that Coburn has enough time to waltz in undetected? And are we really supposed to keep a straight face when Coburn shoots the mirror, and then looks at his distorted image in it? ("Oh Noooo, he's "shot" himself!") And are we really expected to keep from throwing things at the screen when the film ends with the little boy throwing things at the retreating Pat? (Get it? Just like the ending of Shane, except this time the boy hates the hero. Clever, eh?).

Sorry, this film is a mess. I know there are plenty who like it but I don't think I'm ever likely to come around to that way of thinking. And it isn't that I don't like Peckinpah. I love The Wild Bunch and Alfredo Garcia and (as stated above) Cross of Iron, and I've really gotten into Dundee since the new DVD, but some Peckinpah just doesn't work for me (Straw Dogs is another Peckinpah film I can't appreciate).


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on January 23, 2006, 02:23:10 AM
Uhmm, seems like I'd better live with memories.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 23, 2006, 05:43:22 PM
DVD Beaver do an interesting comparison of the 2005 and 1988 cuts: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews20/pat_garrett_and_billy_the_kid.htm


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Tim on January 23, 2006, 07:33:57 PM
  So Dave what is your honest opinion of the movie?  Just kidding, buddy.

  I understand what you're saying, but there is something about this movie that I can't explain.  As they say on some of the extras, there is something very lyrical about PGABTK.  There is virtually no plot other than the rather slow-moving chase of the Kid, but for whatever reason it all holds together for me.  I might be biased because I've yet to see a Peckinpah movie I haven't enjoyed.

  And as for the casting, I think Kris Kristofferson works in the role although he was too old for the part of Billy.  His performance has grown on me each time I see the movie.  I've always been a fan of Bo Hopkins, but I don't know if he could play such a big role as Billy the Kid.  He's excellent as a supporting character in other Peckinpah movies, but what about such a big role as Billy?  One for the ages I guess.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 24, 2006, 01:39:39 AM
I thought KK was fine, I just thought his character wasn't given enough to do. So he starts to take off and runs into Paco being tortured to death by Chisum's men. He takes out the bad guys but it's too late to do anything for Paco. The Kid decides he can't run away and goes back. Okay, so far so good. But then what does he do? He just hangs around with Rita waiting for Pat to come by and blow him away. Excuse me? What about taking the fight to Chisum? What about taking the fight to anybody? What was it he went back for?

Give me Benny from Alfredo Garcia, who, although he knows he's going down, is determined to take everyone with him.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on January 24, 2006, 02:22:29 AM
Quote
I might be biased because I've yet to see a Peckinpah movie I haven't enjoyed.


Have you seen The Killer Elite?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on January 24, 2006, 06:23:59 AM
I think 40 year old KK was clean shaven in PG&BTK to try & make him look younger. I still maintain that Michaell J. Pollard in "Dirty Little Billy" fits the actual images of BTK that do exist, and he would have made a more menorable punk Kid, lol.

Check out that film here if you are interested:
http://www.bpm123.net/

I got a DVDr of it but it plays only on the computer, so you may be safer with a VHS


 
Quote
But then what does he do? He just hangs around with Rita waiting for Pat to come by and blow him away. Excuse me? What about taking the fight to Chisum? What about taking the fight to anybody? What was it he went back for?

I know its too disjointed he also dawdels in Linclon after he shoots down Ollinger and the other deputy, wierd film, you suspect that somebody connected with Chisum whould have shoot him in the back givin all the opportunities. KK just doesn't have enough charisma to make that scene believable.





Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Tim on January 24, 2006, 01:45:52 PM
titoli, I haven't yet seen The Killer Elite although I'd like to.  I know there is an old dvd of it, but I plan to see it at some point.  I take it that you're not a fan?

  And for the scene in Lincoln where Billy takes his time getting out of town, I've read that that's how it actually happened.  After killing Bell and Ollinger, Billy took his sweet time riding out of Lincoln.  Now, as for the singing I'm not sure about that.  The scene of Billy slowly moving out of Lincoln is one of the few scenes that I think just doesn't work.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: grandpa_chum on January 24, 2006, 02:18:45 PM
after reading that dvd beaver comparison I think I'll stick to my 88 turner cut(i have a widescreen dvd of it)... It's just not the same movie without the garrett death sequence... and call me crazy but I prefer the lyric-less knockin on heavens door sequence too.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on January 25, 2006, 01:38:11 AM
Quote
titoli, I haven't yet seen The Killer Elite although I'd like to.  I know there is an old dvd of it, but I plan to see it at some point.  I take it that you're not a fan?

Surely not a KE fan, which I find to be the lamest (pardon the pun: you will get it when you watch the movie) Peckinpah. 


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 25, 2006, 02:39:14 AM
after reading that dvd beaver comparison I think I'll stick to my 88 turner cut(i have a widescreen dvd of it)... It's just not the same movie without the garrett death sequence... and call me crazy but I prefer the lyric-less knockin on heavens door sequence too.
You get the Garrett death sequence in the 2005 cut, you just don't get it twice. Both versions open with Garrett's death, but only the Turner goes back to it at the end. I think the audience can remember it fine without having to see it a second time.

I think I prefer the lyric-less Knockin On Heaven's Door too, but realistically, that was never the way the studio was going to release it. Even if Peckinpah was given years to edit the picture, and even if every one of his other choices was going to be respected, the one thing the studio was going to make sure of was that they had that song tie-in. So, the idea of the 2005 cut is that it is a compromise between the theatrical release and the preview version, and since I guess we're never gonna get another chance to see the theatrical cut, I'm glad the 2005 exists.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: grandpa_chum on January 26, 2006, 08:11:52 AM
Luckily for me I'm not too concerned with the way people intended things or realistic depictions of what might have happened to a cut... I want to see the best movie possible... personally that is the death scene twice and no knockin lyrics... although I am interested to see the garrett's wife stuff... just not enough to buy the dvd.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: KERMIT on February 04, 2006, 11:20:45 PM
i don't have the exact story but sam wanted roger miller, that " king of the road " guy to do the music for PG&BTK.
colburn & kristofferson :
we begged sam to bring bobby down to durango. sam says we'll see. during supper after a shoot and much
tequila, sam truns to bobby and says you're the guy the kids USED to listen to. well,  let's see what you've got. bring your guitar ?  bob lead sam &  his favorite rocking chair into an alcove and pulled a curtian. a few munites later sam emerges from his rocker w/ hanky blowing his nose, obviously moved. sam : " WHO IS THE HELL IS THIS GUY ?  SIGN HIM ON !"
it's little stories you pick up you wern't looking for that wash off the dust of everyday life from your boots.
please ! let's don't bring dylan's acting into this, lol


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Leone Admirer on February 05, 2006, 08:02:07 AM
I'm actually going to watch PG&BTK tonight after an aborted attempt on Friday, I am looking forward to it and the accompanying featurettes whet my appetite.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: grandpa_chum on February 10, 2006, 08:15:24 AM
speaking of the garrett death scene... besides being a great note to end the movie on... I also always thought part of the point of having it at the end was the fact that the kid throwing stones was also the kid shooting garrett from behind the bushes... sort of a full-circle thing. garrett killed the kid and then a kid killed garrett.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Tim on February 10, 2006, 02:04:48 PM
  I first saw PGABTK last year in its cut form, about 106 minutes, and the bookends of Garrett's death really hurt the movie.  Seeing that scene reinserted in the beginning and end really helped the movie's tone overall, especially what grandpa chum said with Billy "shooting" Pat Garrett.

  Good movie and a dvd I'm glad to have in my collection.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: grandpa_chum on February 13, 2006, 09:55:05 PM
I bought the box set today and watched bits and pieces of both pg&btk... my suspicions were correct... the lyrics on the knockin on heaven's door scene simply don't work at all... not as well as lyricless anyway... and they took out one of the best lines of the movie to make room for the lyrics... they cut when LQ jones laughs and says to pat "best friends" just after pat shoots him off the rooftop... they also took out the epilogue death, the new ending works, just not as well... and since that disc has nothing else of value on it, it's basically useless to me... they also screwed up the sound at the end of the '88 turner preview cut... dylan's guitar sounds like an ice pick banging against a tin can... if it weren't for the featurettes and the commentary on the '88 preview disc it would be useless to me too, after all that work they put into it my bootleg dvd taken from the '88 preview cut laserdisc is the best version I own... it's even the same picture quality as the new '88 preview dvd because they didn't touch it up at all.

no matter though, The other 3 dvds in the set are well worth the 40 bucks I paid at best buy... it would have cost me more to get 'em seperately anyway.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 13, 2006, 11:10:46 PM
... if it weren't for the featurettes and the commentary on the '88 preview disc it would be useless to me too, after all that work they put into it my bootleg dvd taken from the '88 preview cut laserdisc is the best version I own... it's even the same picture quality as the new '88 preview dvd because they didn't touch it up at all.


It is a shame they didn't do anything to improve '88 turner; obviously the energy went into 2005. Too bad they didn't do right by both.

Can't say I'm bothered by cut lines from LQ Jones in his death scene. I find the scene annoying, especially the fact that LQ flagrantly violates Tuco's Law.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: grandpa_chum on February 13, 2006, 11:45:40 PM
tuco's law?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 14, 2006, 01:20:42 AM
You know, the one about shooting rather than talking....


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: grandpa_chum on February 14, 2006, 02:21:53 AM
oh yeah, well i don't think he qualifies... seeing as how every time he had a shot he took it, he just taunted pat when he didnt


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 15, 2006, 07:07:23 PM
That's the whole point. You don't wait for opportunities, you create opportunities. LQ Jones is just too laid back about the whole thing. He's not focusing on the task at hand, which is why he ends up dead. Also, it's always a bad idea to let an opponent who can't see you know where you are by chattering away.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: grandpa_chum on February 15, 2006, 10:56:33 PM
thats true... but that is why he's dead and garretts the professional... I don't think it's annoying that he was taunting garrett and died for it... but thats a matter of opinion...

i am btw warming up to a lot of the little things done to the '05 version, mostly changing some of the order of the sequences and the knockin on heavens door lyrics, still wish the opening credits and the end credits were untouched, they were so perfect as is... but they did a wonderful job with the middle 4/5's of the film.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Leone Admirer on February 19, 2006, 06:01:17 AM
I recently got round to watching the discs on the Warner set. What a great film. I'm wondering how the BBFC will handle the opening (animal killings can not be allowed into a film in the UK, the bbfc will cut it out).


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Tim on February 19, 2006, 01:30:43 PM
  I'm currently reading a new bio about Peckinpah, "Bloody Sam", that talked about the way animals were treated on PGABTK, most notably the chickens in the beginning and horses throughout, especially one particular stunt fall.  I think the one where Jorge Russek gets shot from his horse, but I'm not sure.

  The best part though was Peckinpah's reaction to receiving all that flak.  He went off on those detractors writing a letter that is both hilarious and terrifying at the same time.  If there are any Peckinpah fans out there, "Bloody Sam: The Life and Films of Sam Peckinpah" by Marshall Fine is an excelllent biography, and also an easy read.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on February 19, 2006, 08:15:08 PM
Thanks for the heads up I'll check it out. Once I'n done with John Reed's "Insurgent Mexico" which is also an easy and great read.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 13, 2006, 06:07:09 PM
For fans of the film, and anyone even remotely interested in Peckinpah, this is essential reading:

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=60755


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: grandpa_chum on March 14, 2006, 02:02:51 PM
the man who wrote that article sums up my feelings exactly... paul seydor ruined the movie, and they botched the '88 version dvd... it's sad reallly.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on November 13, 2006, 06:13:40 AM
Since I have today off from school, I'm planning to watch "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" today.  I'll be sure to post my comments on it as soon as I'm done.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on November 13, 2006, 08:09:10 AM
Kris Kristofferson sucks!!!!!
Coburn is excellent


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 13, 2006, 08:13:43 AM
Kris Kristofferson sucks!!!!!

Bob Dylan is even worse. Somehow though the picture manages to survive.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on November 13, 2006, 08:19:56 AM
Bob Dylan is even worse. Somehow though the picture manages to survive.

bob dylan looks like a romanian gipsy,but he wasn't so important anyway.it is kris k. that makes this movie look worse than it is,i wonder who's idea was to give him the leading role,oh my ::) ::)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 13, 2006, 08:46:00 AM
Grogs, which version are you watching, 1988 or 2005?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Tim on November 13, 2006, 09:16:55 AM
  Not Peckinpah's best, but I did enjoy it enough to buy the DVD last winter.  Part of the fun is seeing all the great western character actors pop up throughout the movie.  It seems every scene has someone show up for a brief appearance or cameo.

  Hope ya enjoy it, Grogs!


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 13, 2006, 09:51:09 AM
It seems every scene has someone show up for a brief appearance or cameo.

Slim Pickens and Katy Jurado have the best little scene, I think. Even Dylan's whiney music fails to ruin the sheer elegiac beauty of it.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on November 13, 2006, 11:54:32 AM
I watched the 1988 version.

Just got through watching it, and to be honest I wasn't impressed.  I wasn't sure what to expect, since I'd heard both good and bad about it, but I'll have to say that my first impression was iffy.

First, I'll say the good.  James Coburn was amazing and I think there's no doubt it's his best performance - he is Pat Garrett, it seems with no "acting" required.  Kristofferson and Dylan were okay, if nothing special.  Some of the shootouts were pretty well-done.  But there were a lot of things, some minor, some not, that I'll be more than happy to complain about.  ;)

First off: Bob Dylan's music was absolute bullshit.  Loud, annoying, distracting, it seemed completely out of place and certainly dragged down the movie.  The opening scene (the killing of Garrett and the killing of the chickens) was very well-edited, but the happy music ruined the power the scene might have had.  I'll give Dylan the benefit of the doubt; I'd probably like the music outside of the movie, but it came this close to ruining the film.

Second, the little parade of cameos, while amusing, made the film have a very cold and distant feel to it.  Other than R.G. Armstrong and Richard Bright (and maybe Jack Elam) none of the minor characters made much of an impression on me because their tenure in the film was so brief.  As "elegiac", "poetic", and "beautiful" as Slim Pickens' death scene allegedly was, I found it completely uninvolving because we'd only known the character for about two minutes before he caught a bullet in the gut.  It's hard to care for characters you know nothing about.  L.Q. Jones had an interesting character but he got killed off very quickly.  Jason Robards was cool as Lew Wallace, but how long was he in the movie?  John Beck, Charles Martin Smith, Barry Sullivan, and Richard Jaeckal were flat and uninteresting to an extreme, and Emilio Fernandez's bit was really stupid, to be quite frank.

Did I like the movie?  Yes, overall I did, and I'll certainly watch it again to digest it.  But it wasn't a clasic.  I'll give it a 7/10.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Leone Admirer on November 13, 2006, 12:10:04 PM
Thanks for your thoughts Groggy. Next time try the 2005 version, there is a lot of controversy around that version regarding, is it really what Sam Wanted, different opening title sequence, choice of music etc.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on November 13, 2006, 12:10:56 PM
Thanks for your thoughts Groggy. Next time try the 2005 version, there is a lot of controversy around that version regarding, is it really what Sam Wanted, different opening title sequence, choice of music etc.

I'll watch that version next time I watch the film, to be sure.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: The Peacemaker on November 13, 2006, 02:29:12 PM
I saw this movie just recently and I feel the exact same way Groggs. I enjoyed it but it's not great. My least favorite Peckinpah film for sure.




And Bob Dylan's performance was horrible. In every scene he's in he has this look saying " what the hell am I doing here? "


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on November 13, 2006, 03:55:56 PM
I always thought Kristofferson was too old for the part, that's why  they had him shave his beard, make him look younger, didn't work.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Leone Admirer on November 13, 2006, 04:00:26 PM
It could be seen as one of those films where what happened behind the camera was more interesting then what went in front of it, I've been told some great stories.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Amaze on November 13, 2006, 04:13:32 PM
I'll have to see this again sometime, last time I believe I saw the 2005 cut


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 13, 2006, 05:11:57 PM
we'd only known the character for about two minutes before he caught a bullet in the gut.  It's hard to care for characters you know nothing about.

You're missing the point as to why these well known genre stars were cast in the first place. As soon as we see Pickens, Elam, Robards et all, we know all we need to know about them. Peckinpah wasn't interested in developing or exploring any but the titular characters - the rest of the cast were there as a form of "typage", in exacly the same way Elam and Strode were cast in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. They brought to the picture a vast back-story in terms of cinema history, audience association and even affection.

It's entierly due to Kris Kristofferson and Bob Dylan's distinctive lack of these qualities that they remain so bland  in this movie (as well as their complete lack of acting skills). In a way, Peckinpah took Leone's interpretation of Eisenstein's concept of "typage" and tried to make it his own, but instead of unknowns, he employed stars he assumed his audience would recognise (if not nesseseraly be able to put a name to). As such, when we see Pickens stagger off to die, we see this gentle, almost dumbly brave, slighty foolish and dumpy figure we've known for years near the end of his life both in the fiction of the film, and in his own time left on Earth (he'd live only for 10 more years. The younger Peckinpah would outlive him by just a few months). Slim's wide eyed, almost sheepish expression in his final look to camera has an almost too painful awareness of all of this.

Edited for awful spelling and grammar.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on November 13, 2006, 11:39:23 PM
I agree on the "typage" cameo's, if he had used another actor rather than KK this would have been a much better film.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on November 14, 2006, 01:46:30 PM
No Juan, I got the point of the cameos.  My complaint is, why should we care what happens to any of those guys?  Did we feel sorry for Elam and Strode when they got gunned down in OUATITW?  No.

I don't like the idea, however, that I need to be familiar with an actor (or two dozen actors)'s career(s) before watching a movie.  If a movie can't stand on its own merits, then what good is it?  I enjoyed OUATITW the first time I saw it even though I didn't get all the little homages.  They add a nice layer to the movie, but the movie itself is so well-done that the film would work even if all the ideas were original.  If, as you imply, PGABTK relies entirely on such an idea, then it's really nothing more than an in-joke for Western fans.  The film still seems to me very cold and distant, particularly compared to "The Wild Bunch" and "Ride the High Country". 

And I agree with Leone Admirer.  Reading Peck's bio by David Weddle, he was drunk or very sick (along with most of the cast) about 95% of the time filming this - and studio interference certainly didn't help.  It seems like Peckinpah wasn't really trying, or wasn't able to come up with anything genuinely interesting.  The studio is a convenient scapegoat, but there's more to it than that.  Like with "Major Dundee", I think the main problem was not the studio, but rather than Peckinpah had no idea what in the hell he was doing.  I think I'm beyond thinking he's a genuine genius, maybe a flawed one at best.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 14, 2006, 03:19:27 PM
Did we feel sorry for Elam and Strode when they got gunned down in OUATITW?  No.

Of course not! They were up against one of the Saints from THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, so naturally they were the baddies, their treatment of the poor old ticket seller notwithstanding. Films do not come along as individual entities without any cultural baggage whatsoever, this woud only be possible if you had never, ever seen a single film, television programme or even theatre production.

I agree that Sam was out of control and his own worst enemy, but at this point in his career he could still command the loyaty of a vast and talented cast and crew. Fortunatly some of that quality has made it on to the screen, even Peckinpah gives a very interesting little performance.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 14, 2006, 07:23:27 PM

I don't like the idea, however, that I need to be familiar with an actor (or two dozen actors)'s career(s) before watching a movie.  If a movie can't stand on its own merits, then what good is it?  I enjoyed OUATITW the first time I saw it even though I didn't get all the little homages.  They add a nice layer to the movie, but the movie itself is so well-done that the film would work even if all the ideas were original.  If, as you imply, PGABTK relies entirely on such an idea, then it's really nothing more than an in-joke for Western fans.  The film still seems to me very cold and distant, particularly compared to "The Wild Bunch" and "Ride the High Country". 

And I agree with Leone Admirer.  Reading Peck's bio by David Weddle, he was drunk or very sick (along with most of the cast) about 95% of the time filming this - and studio interference certainly didn't help.  It seems like Peckinpah wasn't really trying, or wasn't able to come up with anything genuinely interesting.  The studio is a convenient scapegoat, but there's more to it than that.  Like with "Major Dundee", I think the main problem was not the studio, but rather than Peckinpah had no idea what in the hell he was doing.  I think I'm beyond thinking he's a genuine genius, maybe a flawed one at best.
Grogs, well done. Both points are well articulated and, to my way of thinking, unassailable.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 14, 2006, 07:51:59 PM
Grogs, well done. Both points are well articulated and, to my way of thinking, unassailable.

Dave, is this British sarcasm seeping in to your posts now?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 14, 2006, 08:15:55 PM
No, take my words at face value, please.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 15, 2006, 07:14:14 AM
No, take my words at face value, please.

Wasn't Henry Fonda employed as Frank by Leone, purely because of the cultural baggage his previous screen persona would bring to the role?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 15, 2006, 09:07:02 AM
Yes, but what are an artist's intentions compared to the work itself? As Groggy points out, it is possible to enjoy the film without knowing anything about Fonda's career. Indeed, for the lucky someone whose first film viewing experience is OUATITW, Frank is simply a character. It is not even necessary for such a person to consider that "Frank" is a role being enacted. And there are people 500 years from now who will enjoy the film without knowing anything about the people who made it.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Tim on November 15, 2006, 09:10:57 AM
Quote
Wasn't Henry Fonda employed as Frank by Leone, purely because of the cultural baggage his previous screen persona would bring to the role?

  I think that was the intention, but I agree with what dave is saying.  The first time I saw OUATITW, there was genuine shock value when Fonda first appears on screen. I was blown away at what I was seeing.  Now after seeing the movie many more times, I do see Frank as a character and not just as Henry Fonda.

  However, sometimes I have to remind myself that Frank is, in fact, Henry Fonda.  Go back to his early roles with Ford and it makes the part even better.

 


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on November 15, 2006, 09:19:54 AM
I am one of the viewers who, almost 40 years ago, exclaimed  (to my father) like Leone meant, "Christ, but it's Henry Fonda". And, as differently from Tim, I still can't easily reconcile myself with Fonda's character each time I see the movie.
But of course DJ is right: there's not a single way of reception of a work of art because the fruitors are all (thank god) different, with different cultural baggages, experiences and so on. A work of art is also such because it gives infinite opportunities for reception. That's why, BTW,  we are at this board.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on November 15, 2006, 04:30:09 PM
Wasn't Henry Fonda employed as Frank by Leone, purely because of the cultural baggage his previous screen persona would bring to the role?

But Fonda's given a huge part and ample room to develop a character, so it's not really comparable to a two-minute Slim Pickens cameo, for instance.  Plus his performance is in and of itself excelelnt.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 15, 2006, 07:56:57 PM
I gets yas. So, let's look at this pre-modernist universe, playing by the above rules, and look at a few film stills.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/1.jpg)
Bad drawing of a craggy faced man wearing a cowboy hat. Possibly a member of a gay 1970's pop group?

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/3-1.jpg)
Cavalry officer in the Confederate army in the US civil war. Upholding a racist cause which want's to see people of a different origin kept as slaves.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/4.jpg)
Sour faced fella in Stalin's cavalry (men on horses seems to be some sort of theme here). Judging by the expression, is particularly complicit in the horrors perpetuated by that regime, with more blood on it's hands than Hitler's.

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/2.jpg)
Beats the hell outta me.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 15, 2006, 07:58:45 PM
Just a gag, but you see what I mean?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 16, 2006, 12:05:01 AM
Just a gag, but you see what I mean?


oh oh!


 do me, do me!!!


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Amaze on November 16, 2006, 02:59:56 AM

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/2.jpg)
Beats the hell outta me.

looks like kinski to me


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 16, 2006, 08:30:52 AM

oh oh!


 do me, do me!!!

Sadly, the best offer I've had all week.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on November 16, 2006, 01:44:33 PM
Yevgraf was a policeman dude.  ::)

I will admit your post made me chuckle - I agree with you on the Bronson avatar.  ;D


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on November 16, 2006, 02:07:40 PM
Indeed, for the lucky someone whose first film viewing experience is OUATITW, Frank is simply a character.

For example me. (OUATITW wasn't my first film, of course, but first and still last with Fonda.) And, believe me, his acting is more important than his previous roles. I was shocked by his coldness, no matter what his usual roles were.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2006, 03:31:43 PM


I will admit your post made me chuckle - I agree with you on the Bronson avatar.  ;D
Hey!


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on November 16, 2006, 08:12:11 PM
For example me. (OUATITW wasn't my first film, of course, but first and still last with Fonda.) And, believe me, his acting is more important than his previous roles. I was shocked by his coldness, no matter what his usual roles were.

Agreed.  OUATITW was far from the first movie with Fonda I'd seen, but it the first movie I'd really noticed him in.  Ever since I first saw that movie, I was always think for a moment, "Hey, that's Frank!" whenever I see Fonda onscreen in a movie, regardless of the role. 

Also, while I knew Woody Strode the first time I saw the movie (as a fan of John Ford how could I not?), I had no clue who Jack Elam was.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: mike siegel on November 20, 2006, 08:28:19 AM
Interesting views. I partly agree. Not so much about Kristofferson, I think his rebel quality helped his performance (Sam wanted Bo Hopkins, 'fought for him too).
The whole thing is a hippie western I think. And as most of Peckinpah's best work it devides audiences. I know a lot of () expersts, who have PAT on their Top 3 Peckinpah list. Doesn't make my Top 5 although it's a very good film, not a GREAT one though. I never liked parts of the costumes & haircuts, much unlike BUNCH and other Sam-classics it looks very much 1973. But I love the soundtrack, then again EASY RIDER is my 2nd favorite film :)
It was a very very though film to make and it shows.
My opinion is, that from day one it was one of those cursed films - even until today. The 1073 version was fucked up by the studio; the 1990 version was screwed up too and Seydor managed it to make some major mistakes too. His version is the best, but still only 90% at best (fot ex. he or whoever choose the wrong music tracks for the raft scene and especially KNOCKIN'). There two sloppy edits (no sound fading), and some scenes are the short now.

Anyway, some people are reeally touched by the film. And that's the proof it is something significant. All in all one of the very last 'great' westerns ever made.

(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1612/7186524/13731420/206515481.jpg)
[/img]


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on January 08, 2007, 12:17:46 PM
Bringing this thread back with a hope that I might see this film (i.e. Pat Garret and Billy the Kid, for those, who already forgot it ;D) on big screen... it's being brought to Czech cinemas by "Projekt 100", a project that is trying to promote a certain number of old and independent films every year.
(I would give a link, but the page isn't available in English yet, so it would make no sense.)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 08, 2007, 05:27:42 PM
I wonder if that's going to be the discredited 2005 cut of the film?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on January 08, 2007, 11:21:39 PM
I wonder if that's going to be the discredited 2005 cut of the film?

I don't think so... but you never know. The informations about it on the web aren't much detailled - and the source is also speculative, because when I read there their informations about another film I saw, Andrzej Wajda's Pan Tadeusz, there were at least two mistakes in the plot and the names were in English or French or what, instead of Polish - so the person who wrote it didn't bother watching it or learning more about it. They probably just translated it from another source.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on January 29, 2007, 09:54:14 AM
So it will be on 22.2. in my favourite cinema in Kolin and they write it has 122 min. What version is that?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Leone Admirer on January 29, 2007, 10:00:40 AM
That'll be the 1988 restored version done by Roger Spottiswoode  :)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on January 29, 2007, 10:28:53 AM
Thanks. :) Is that a good version? Anyway, I cannot choose. ;D


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Leone Admirer on January 29, 2007, 10:36:57 AM
I personally think it is. It's the one that Peckinpah had the most control over. It's certainly better then the 2005 recut...


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on January 29, 2007, 10:43:44 AM
Then I'm lucky. :) Let's hope I'll really make it to watch it on 22th... but I don't see any problems, except the possibility I could be ill.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Leone Admirer on January 29, 2007, 10:51:08 AM
I hope for you thet your not :) . It's a good if flawed film. (also with this version the audio is still in it's unsweetended state. Just to warn you)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: The Peacemaker on January 29, 2007, 10:58:21 AM
I agree. The 1988 version is the best. Although 2005 one had more scenes, the editing in the '88 film is far greater.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on January 29, 2007, 12:13:45 PM
(also with this version the audio is still in it's unsweetended state. Just to warn you)

Well, I suppose it will have subtitles, so I guess I won't mind so much. :)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on February 14, 2007, 04:24:15 PM
Just for the record, I tried to watch the 2005 version today, and I found it so horrible I turned it off in forty minutes.

Having seen the '88 version, I do know what's missing.  I was particularly galled by the fact that half of R.G. Armstrong's lines in the jailhouse scene were trimmed out for no apparent reason. 

And did anybody notice that the Ida Garrett scene was edited in out of order?  Consider: there's the scene in the saloon where Garrett meets with Alamosa Bill, and tells the little boy to go tell Mrs. Garrett that he'll be home for dinner.  Also, at the end of the scene, Alamosa Bill sets out to begin his expedition.  Then we go to the scene with Mrs. Garrett.  Pat tells his wife that he's going down to the bar to talk with Alamosa Bill, and Ida asks him if he'll be home for dinner.  That's a really blatant, amateur mistake, and after watching that scene I saw no reason to watch the rest of the movie. 


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Tim on February 14, 2007, 07:20:09 PM
  One of the things I liked best about the '88 version, I think it was that one, was the credit sequence.  It was just like the one used in The Wild Bunch.  And the appearance of "Directed by Sam Peckinpah" is pretty good, although not as good or well known as Pike's "If they move kill them line" in TWB followed by Peckinpah's name.  I'm really glad I have that DVD though, it's a flawed movie but one I really enjoy.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: tucumcari bound on February 14, 2007, 07:50:59 PM
Yes, the movie has it's flaws but I absolutely love it. I just love the atomosphere of this film. The cinematography is downright beautiful. That shot of Pat Garret riding off into the sunset is outstanding. Sam Peckinpah was a great director boy.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on February 24, 2007, 03:26:52 AM
never liked parts of the costumes & haircuts, much unlike BUNCH and other Sam-classics it looks very much 1973

That's one of the things I thought...


Now I'm totally confused about what version I actually saw. Nevermind, I'll probably never have a chance to see another one, so I don't have to care too much. What I'm more confused about, are all the actors and characters you are discussing here... This film really seemed to me like being just about the two title characters.

What makes me feel sorry is exactly the begining... that's one thing I'd probably enjoy more with more viewings, when I would already know who is who. I just jumped into it and probably missed some more subtle things, like the appearance of Peckinpah's name discussed somewhere above. Yes, the title sequence was cool, but maybe a bit too complicated for me to follow.

Generally, I liked it, but it really is cold and distant. It might actually be one of the things I liked about it, however. I think I was surprised in a good way by this film. Because all I've read here made me a bit afraid of it, but it was better than I expected.

James Coburn was really great. Worn out might be the best word for describing his Garrett. :)


BTW, another point to the evergoing discussions about women and westerns... women had slight majority among the viewers in the cinema. ;)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Rojo Ramone on July 18, 2007, 12:20:17 PM
Well i watched this again thanks to my local library and...Like EL TOPO we've got another hippy western.(although not as annoying as TOPO)
Kris sucked as usual, Bob was annoying...and yes, i know gringos suck! (sarcasm)
Two scenes i liked were the shotgun full of dimes and Slim's Knocking on Heavens Door death (I'm a huge fan of the song)



Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 18, 2007, 12:31:27 PM
Well i watched this again thanks to my local library and...Like EL TOPO we've got another hippy western.(although not as annoying as TOPO)
Kris sucked as usual, Bob was annoying...and yes, i know gringos suck! (sarcasm)
Two scenes i liked were the shotgun full of dimes and Slim's Knocking on Heavens Door death (I'm a huge fan of the song)



I don't really get how people think Kris sucks. I think he's a pretty good actor. I'm not saying he's going to win awards, but he can handle himself.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Jill on July 18, 2007, 01:03:54 PM
Yes, the 2005 cut isn't so good. The best lines missing!

But the scene with Garrett's wife is good. She even knows what's going to happen with him. "You are dead inside."

No mercy for missing lines! Turner version is much better.

James... oh my God. He's not playing, he IS Garrett.
Oh... I feel pity for his charakter.  :'( Just looking into his sad eyes and I know he didn't wanted it and he did it, but for what? For nothing. And he lost his peace forever. At the end being murdered by Poe and the other SOBs.

Who do you think the third killer is? Who first shoots him.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 19, 2007, 07:00:56 PM
Yes, the 2005 cut isn't so good. The best lines missing!

But the scene with Garrett's wife is good. She even knows what's going to happen with him. "You are dead inside."

No mercy for missing lines! Turner version is much better.

James... oh my God. He's not playing, he IS Garrett.
Oh... I feel pity for his charakter.  :'( Just looking into his sad eyes and I know he didn't wanted it and he did it, but for what? For nothing. And he lost his peace forever. At the end being murdered by Poe and the other SOBs.

Who do you think the third killer is? Who first shoots him.

It was me Jill, I was the first one to shoot him! O0


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 20, 2007, 06:02:12 PM
Ignore.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Jill on July 20, 2007, 06:33:02 PM
Tucumcari just kills every men I like!  >:D

I heard a theorie that the murderer is the little boy who throws him with stones in the end. He grow up... and he killed him.  ;D


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: T.H. on April 03, 2009, 12:06:45 PM
Finally saw the 2005 cut and I have some quick observations.

note: I can't really compare versions b/c it's been at least 5 years since I saw the 88.

anyway

I like KK in this movie and Scorsese's 'Alice'. Dylan shouldn't have had a screen role, that I think we all can agree with. The score is great, I've owned that album since I was a kid.

my biggest gripe is the manner in which the cameo players get killed. The audience isn't going to care for characters introduced to die, these scenes simply do not work (nor do the lyrics to KOHD). It would be like if Leone played Jill's theme as Elam, Strode and Mulock were shot by Bronson. It's irrelevant whether or not the audience is familiar with Slim Pickens or not.

this was noted before but this has some really rough edits.

DJ, I don't see any problems with the final sequence. When Coburn shoots the mirror, my impression was that the guy was disgusted with himself, seems logical enough. I also don't have any qualms about the last shot when the child throws rocks at Coburn. It won't be the last time that Shane is in a director's thought process.

I love the first thirty minutes or so, everything up to and including the escape. After that, not enough time is spent with Billy. He becomes an afterthought so a guy from gunsmoke can get his head blown off.

overall, PGaBtK is undeniably flawed but it's more intereting than the vast majority of westerns I've seen. I just wish that Peckinpah wasn't such a drunk.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on April 03, 2009, 04:36:13 PM
Quote
my biggest gripe is the manner in which the cameo players get killed. The audience isn't going to care for characters introduced to die, these scenes simply do not work (nor do the lyrics to KOHD). It would be like if Leone played Jill's theme as Elam, Strode and Mulock were shot by Bronson. It's irrelevant whether or not the audience is familiar with Slim Pickens or not.

 O0 O0 O0


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: T.H. on April 03, 2009, 06:16:07 PM
I just went over this thread again and I missed your post, groggs. I would have just quoted it since we completely agree about those scenes.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on July 03, 2009, 12:33:06 PM
Rewatched this movie again today (the good cut) so here's a review. This is slightly tweaked and updated from an IMDB comment I wrote awhile back since I didn't feel like writing something entirely new.

Quote
Perhaps even more than the infamous Major Dundee, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973) is touted by Sam Peckinpah fans as a lost masterpiece, ruined by studio interference. This is certainly valid to an extent, especially given the cruel cutting and micromanaging wrought by MGM's James Aubrey, but on the other hand Peckinpah himself brought on many of his through his excesses of drink and drugs. The result is this curious, interesting but unsatisfying film, which is great at times but never quite the sum of his parts; it's Peckinpah's most schizophrenic film, alternating scene to scene from brilliant to indifferent to outright bad.

In early 1881, Pat Garrett (James Coburn), an aging outlaw, is elected Sheriff of Lincoln County, New Mexico. He is pressured by Governor Lew Wallace (Jason Robards) and business interests to track down former partner William H. Bonney, alias Billy the Kid (Kris Kristofferson) and his gang. Bonney is captured but escapes, killing two deputies (Matt Clark and R.G. Armstrong), and Garrett - accompanied by several reluctant and generally short-lived deputies (Slim Pickens, Katy Jurado, Jack Elam, Richard Jaeckel) and one hired to keep an eye on Garrett (John Beck) - is forced to track down his former friend, decimating his gang in the process. Garrett is made to feel guilty over "getting fat" and betraying Billy, and when he finally confronts the Kid, it seems like he's killing himself.

The biggest problem with Pat Garrett, even in its "preview cut" form (I'm not touching the God awful 2005 edit with a ten-foot stick), is that it's unfocused and virtually plotless; only a few characters appear for more than one or two scenes, and most scenes play as isolated episodes. It is also a surprisingly distant film, especially compared to Ride the High Country and The Wild Bunch, and it's virtually impossible (for this writer at least) to become deeply involved in the story. Billy in particular is hard to care much about, as he does little more than drink, kill, and whore throughout the course of the film, with only the thinnest and most facile motivation given to his actions. And the theme that Garrett and Co. are selling out is expounded upon so often that you think Rudy Wurlitzer was getting paid for each time he wrote them.

The film's use of various Western icons in various bit parts actually (with a few exceptions) undermines what Peckinpah is trying to achieve; by not letting us get to know these characters, it becomes virtually impossible to sympathize with them. Slim Pickens' famous death scene is allegedly the most poignant and moving scene in the film, but as we just met him two minutes ago when he buys it, it's hard, for me anyway, to care what happens to him. One might argue that Pickens' own iconography and backstory bring weight to the character, but I'm not buying it; Once Upon a Time in the West employs a similar strategy in employing Henry Fonda, Jack Elam and Woody Strode as villains, but on the other hand the film works on its own terms. If this argument has any validity, it's saying that Pat Garrett is basically an in-joke for Western buffs - and I don't buy that as much of an argument.

Some cast members are outright terrible: John Beck is obnoxious as Poe, and while that's appropriate to the character he grates on the viewer's nerves. A very young Charles Martin Smith whines his way through the opening scene as a particularly obnoxious cohort of Billy's. Emilio Fernandez, so effective as General Mapache, has a worthless role as Paco, the Mexican sheep-farmer who befriends Billy, and his scenes are some of the worst Peckinpah ever filmed. Richard Jaeckal gives a wooden performance and his horrible-looking wig doesn't help matters. But most of the cast members simply aren't around long enough to make much impact - Pickens, Jurado, Paul Fix, Dub Taylor, Elisha Cook Jr., Jason Robards, and Barry Sullivan (among many others) are all in the film for five minutes or less, just long enough for a viewer to recognize them before they bow out. Bob Dylan's bit has little impact on the film; his twanging, whining, droning music, however, is borderline terrible. It might be good outside of the film, but for the most part it distracts from the action and makes the film periodically insufferable.

The film does, however, have sporadic moments of brilliance, starting with James Coburn's performance as Garrett. Coburn gives the best performance of his career, as the sarcastic, biting, fatalistic Garrett. He is a nice counterpart to Deke Thornton, but even more compromised and fatalistic. Garrett genuinely regrets most of his actions - many of his confrontations with Billy's gang are outright murder - but does them anyway, driven by a cruel sense of duty and inevitability; he knows that times are passing him by but does his best to stay alive, regardless of the cost. Coburn is wonderfully subtle and you believe he IS Garrett, rather than acting the part. Kris Kristofferson is good if unremarkable as Billy, though he can hardly be blamed for the poor interpretation of his character. And there are some members of the supporting cast who are effective: Richard Bright and L.Q. Jones as two of Billy's more colorful gang members, R.G. Armstrong, playing the psychopathic Deputy Ollinger ("Repent, you son of a bitch!"), and Chill Wills as a gutter-mouthed, shotgun-toting bartender.

Peckinpah's direction is sporadically brilliant. The shootouts of the film are blunt and violent and lack the visceral thrill of The Wild Bunch's blood-soaked massacres. This is not a criticism; in fact, it is very effective. The film's art direction is wonderfully authentic; the whole film has a rustic, lived-in, worn-out look that adds immeasuribly to the film's depressed atmosphere. There are some truly brilliant sequences sprinkled throughout; the shootout at Billy's hideout and Billy's escape from jail, the chance encounter and duel between Billy and Alamosa Bill (Jack Elam), Garrett's "shootout" with a river barge, the slow, methodical murder of Holly (Bright) by Garrett, Peckinpah's cameo as a coffin maker, Garrett shooting a mirror after killing the Kid. All of these scenes individually are among the best work Peckinpah has ever done; it's shame they don't gel into a more pleasing whole.

Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is a difficult and frustrating film to write about. For every good scene there's one that makes you scratch your head and ask "What the hell's going on?" It's a good film with occasionally great scenes, but it's far from a masterpiece.

Rating: 7/10 - Recommended

http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2009/07/pat-garrett-and-billy-kid.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2009/07/pat-garrett-and-billy-kid.html)

PS: Anybody else think that the ending goes on, like, forever? I found it pretty damn near insufferable.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 03, 2009, 04:33:29 PM
DJ, I don't see any problems with the final sequence. When Coburn shoots the mirror, my impression was that the guy was disgusted with himself, seems logical enough. I also don't have any qualms about the last shot when the child throws rocks at Coburn. It won't be the last time that Shane is in a director's thought process.
Both are examples of what we call "over egging the pudding."


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: T.H. on July 03, 2009, 10:27:48 PM
Both are examples of what we call "over egging the pudding."

Directors like Peckinpah and Fuller deserve special treatment in terms of being criticized for overdoing anyting, afterall, it's their forte. It's not like the rock throwing scene was shot in close ups or anything - I'm not going overstep myself and pen it poetic but it's something I'd consider to be a flaw only in the script. You can make a better case for the mirror shooting but these moments are homages, albeit it could have been executed in a more subtle manner.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: mike siegel on July 04, 2009, 03:10:44 AM
In WILD BUNCH children are throwing rocks at the Bunch when they enter Mapaches Hacienda.
STRAW DOGS begins with children throwing rocks at a dog...
It's a constant theme in Peckinpah's work.
Same with the mirror.
In the case of GARRETT: when he made the decision to kill Billy, he also made
the decision to kill himself - his old life, his friends and values. He sold out
and shooting at himself (or his image) is the last possible gesture.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: T.H. on July 04, 2009, 08:40:37 AM
Isn't there a mirror shooting in the opening moments of The Deadly Companions? I only saw the first ten minutes b/c the copy I receieved was pan and scanned. It was dollar store quality.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on July 04, 2009, 09:47:11 AM
I thought the mirror scene was a great touch.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Amaze on July 04, 2009, 12:08:39 PM
I think so too. It's been a long time since I saw the movie, and I saw the bad cut I believe.
To me it just meant he couldn't bare looking at himself anymore. But it''s always possible there was even more symbolism to it.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on July 04, 2009, 01:20:57 PM
On a literal level Peckinpah seems to have been fond of doing that himself, and Coburn wanted to use it in the movie.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Amaze on July 04, 2009, 03:08:59 PM
shooting mirrors?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on July 04, 2009, 03:38:43 PM
Yep. He also liked to throw knives into the wall of his hotel room.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Amaze on July 04, 2009, 06:35:42 PM
interesting  ;D


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 25, 2009, 01:47:29 PM
Hmmmm . . .  http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews46/requiem_for_billy_the_kid.htm


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: The Firecracker on July 25, 2009, 09:02:52 PM
I always thought Garrett shooting the mirror was heavy handed.
Coburn looking at himself in disgust would have been perfectly suitable for me.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Jill on August 04, 2009, 05:19:55 AM
I love that mirror shotting. It adds to the moment (especially after Billy forgets to bleed).

Coburn should've totally won an Oscar for Pat, but the Academy was always blind and idiot.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on August 04, 2009, 09:35:46 AM
(especially after Billy forgets to bleed).

I forgot this moment. ;D

Who did win an Oscar that year, then?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: mike siegel on August 04, 2009, 10:44:13 AM
I love that mirror shotting. It adds to the moment (especially after Billy forgets to bleed).



As far as I could research it, they had a 'long night' in Durango the evening before that shot
and  heavy-headed forget to prepare special effects for Kristofferson the next day!
That's what two of the crew told me. I believe it, since it is rather unusual for Peckinpah not
to show ANY kind of impact here..


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on August 04, 2009, 11:12:07 AM
Jack Lemmon won Best Actor for something called "Save the Tiger". ??? Also up that year were Al Pacino, Robert Redford, Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando - all of the early '70s darling actors. I definitely agree Coburn was Oscar-worthy but no chance in hell he was gonna win with that kind of competition.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on August 04, 2009, 11:18:28 AM
Jack Lemmon won Best Actor for something called "Save the Tiger". ???

Yes, I also looked it up... Never heard of it. Although that doesn't mean much with me.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Jill on August 04, 2009, 01:33:44 PM
Why is it that so many great actors don't get it?  :( Or not for their greatest role.


But really, Billy not bleeding is strange. Sam was not called Bloody Sam for nothing... maybe he was like: "They'll expect a LOT of blood, so I'll be aesthetic, heh heh!"  :P


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on August 04, 2009, 02:42:46 PM
Why is it that so many great actors don't get it?  :( Or not for their greatest role.

And great directors. It's all the same with other artists, too, I hear...


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on August 05, 2009, 04:10:56 PM
Save the Tiger is a good movie with a great Lemmon performance. Not his best one (that is - for me - Some Like It Hot), but one of his best. Surely worth an Oscar, though i can't remember the other contenders.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on August 05, 2009, 05:14:46 PM
Brando - Last Tango in Paris
Redford - The Sting
Pacino - Serpico
Nicholson - I don't recall, look it up


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 06, 2009, 12:24:16 AM

Nicholson - I don't recall, look it up


The Last Detail I think.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on September 08, 2009, 08:33:18 PM

Can't say I'm bothered by cut lines from LQ Jones in his death scene. I find the scene annoying, especially the fact that LQ flagrantly violates Tuco's Law.

There's a problem with this assertion which bugged me as I was reading through the thread (again). To my way of thinking, Q's character is deliberately trying to distract Garrett with his chatter, so as to catch Garrett off-guard when he does get a shot at him. This seems pretty obvious to me if you pay attention to the scene, and reading it at such, it would be an inversion of Tuco's Law.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on January 03, 2010, 04:21:19 AM
About the 2005 version of PG&BtK:

The 2 biggest mistakes Paul Seydor made was to restore the theatrical credits, instead of using the preview credits, and not to return to the 1909 framing shots, which are there to close the circle. And the whole film is in it's episodical structure about circles.

These are 2 ideas nobody else would have done besides Seydor.

His best ideas are the earlier presenting of the raft scene and the including of the Knocking on Heaven's door lyrics, both like it was done in the 73 cut.
All the other changes are debatable for me.

I also think that some of the violence wasn't cut in the way Peckinpah has done this before. But Seydor hasn't tried to change it. An example is the Billy and Alias shooting of Chisum's men after the turkey chase. Here several slo mo shots are presented as a whole, whereas Peckinpah had them mostly (always?) intercut with other shots.

I had seen for many years only the theatrical version, and it was always Peckinpah's second masterwork for me. Due to it's episodical structure the film wasn't as damaged as Major Dundee (still is) and the shorter versions of the Wild Bunch. It wasn't as complex as the longer versions, but PG&BtK already worked in this version. And you could see what it was about, you only had to look a bit closer.

When I first saw the Turner cut I was a bit disappointed as the film had, apart from the new opening scene, not improved as much as I had it expected. I still think the pacing of the Turner cut is not good, and that's why I prefer the Seydor version. Even if some beautiful moments are gone, the film leaves a much greater impact.

I would cut some of the violence different, I would use of course the preview credits and the preview ending, and I would maybe put some minor pieces back to the Seydor cut. Especially some of the violence like Billy's 2nd shot on the already dead Ollinger.
Then it would be perfect. Unfortunately this all will never happen.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: sargatanas on March 13, 2010, 02:59:41 AM
orginally, sam wanted roger miller to do the sountrack. kriss kristofferson phoned bob to come down to the  set.
at first, sam didn't know or like dylan who took sam  took sam into a corner and played knockin on heaven's door. peckinpah emerged w/ tears yelling SIGN THIS KID UP !  the rest is western movie making history.
 O0
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070518/


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 13, 2010, 03:05:33 AM
Never heard about that! Cool :)  O0


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on March 13, 2010, 03:41:23 AM
except he sort of sucks in the film as an actor, soundtrack is good though.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Novecento on March 13, 2010, 03:52:11 AM
except he sort of sucks in the film as an actor, soundtrack is good though.

Well I don't think his acting causes the film to suffer in any way, although his strength is certainly in the soundtrack.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: sargatanas on March 13, 2010, 08:38:14 AM
except he sort of sucks in the film as an actor, soundtrack is good though.
rambling robert zimmerman made his film debut in PGABTK. he jerks his head around a lot and does what he's told  ???


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 13, 2010, 09:45:33 PM
Well I don't think his acting causes the film to suffer in any way, although his strength is certainly in the soundtrack.

Well I agree with this. Sorta.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: cigar joe on March 14, 2010, 03:25:10 AM
Quote
Well I don't think his acting causes the film to suffer in any way, although his strength is certainly in the soundtrack.

If he wasn't there at all I wouldn't have missed him.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: mike siegel on March 14, 2010, 07:28:58 AM
The reason why Dylan looks so lost is because he was lost. His part was not in the script and Sam
didn't tell him much what to do. Under those circumstances he did very well I think.

Kris told me that the production suggested Dylan. He then was probably the link between
Dylan & Peckinpah who thought at first that MGM wanted to include a 'pop singer' to
make the film more commercial.
But Peckinpah soon fell in love with the music Dylan had already prepared for the film (on spec).
The score was recorded in Mexico while the film was shot, Dylan used Kris' band for it...

The first dailies came out too dark and unusuable. MGM had provided the new Panavision Cameras
but refused to pay for a mechanic / technician on the set. So the first shots were unusuable.
Peckinpah was (drunk and) furious and pissed a S on the screen.
Dyland then included in the song KNOCKIN 'it's getting dark, too dark to see' Kris said probably as a reference
to that dark unusable footage.
 That film had many problems. (http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/sam/pat-bts8sambob-kl-1.jpg)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: titoli on May 03, 2010, 02:39:42 AM
Saw the 2005 version. I didn't know there were so many around, though. I had always seen the 1973 version in the theatre and subsequently on tv: I think it's better than the newer one. I rank with those who rate this above WB, though it has many faults. But  I can't understand how one cannot see that this is Coburn's greatest performance and a huge one at that: Oscar worthy, in my opinion. Each scene is in it's worth watching, even the one in the whorehouse. That suffices to give the movie 8\10.   KK is very good: I thought so at the time, dubbed,  and more so now. If there are any problems  with his performance talk to the screenwriters (how many were there?). And, beardless, he looks in his 20's. What doesn't work with the movie is, I think, that only westerns buffs know what is going on all the time. The background of the story is minimal and doesn't help to understand how things stood between the various characters: and that goes not only for what passes between Billy and Pat but also between KK and Elam, or KK and his acolytes. Furthermore, the movie looks cheap: not so much for the Fort Sumner scenes but for the Chisum ones, which always come unexpected and do not rhyme whit Chisum's stature: you see his cowboys but not the longhorns: is this the most powerful man in texas? So it was better if Chisum could have been left  out of the story completely, just being mentioned in dialogues. Or maybe take some film stockage from some McLaglen's flick. Some characters are useless (Dylan, Fernandez - he has less sheeps than those feeding near my metropolitan Rome mall)  and Coolidge, who doesn't look like a mex). But the movie is great in parts (for example all the sequence of Billy in jail or the one of Pat in Wills' cantina).


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: mike siegel on May 03, 2010, 04:37:06 AM
Believe it or not, I agree with you on everything you stated above.
Except for one thing: THE WILD BUNCH is not only one of the best westerns ever made,
it is one of the best films ever made. To me on one list with LAWRENCE, BEST YEARS OF OUR LIFES,
ROMAN HOLIDAY and those other few flawless masterpieces of our beloved art of film making.

As for the 'look' of PAT: This was a very troubled production and one of the last films MGM produced.
The budget became less and less as the filming went on (no sheep money). Countless problems as the refusal of MGM
to give Sam a technician for the new Panavision cameras (consequently the first rushes were
damaged and had to be re-shot), serious illness of many cast and crew members down in Durango,
Sam's usual fights with the head office... I like PAT a lot, but it shows a lot of these problems. What I never
liked is the look of BILLY's gang. In TWB he had told Gordon Dawson to make Strother Martin look 'like
a 1913's hells angel..' That worked very well. I think in PAT it doesn't work to well. They all look like
a bunch of hippie cowboys, wardrobe is so-so but the hairdos look very much like 1972.

That film was cursed I guess. Three versions by now - all messed up.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on May 04, 2010, 02:14:47 AM
It doesn't look cheap. There is so much detail in the sets, which look incredible, and they look even better after having seen so many cheap SWs over the last years.

I agree that the hairdos could look a bit less 70s style, but apart from that the costumes and all the sets are very atmospheric.

The Chisum scene is an important one imo, and the depicting of Chisum sitting on a fence and watching other people shows him exactly like I view him according to my knowledge about the Lincoln County war. A powerful man who remains passive when he shouldn't.

I still think that the 2005 version is the best so far, but the film works in all 3 versions, but is less complex in the short theatrical version, while it has rhythm problems in the long version.

One of the 4 or 5 best westerns ever. 10/10


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: mike siegel on May 04, 2010, 04:23:09 AM
Well 'cheap' is the wrong expression. But we're jammering here on a very high level, I guess that doesn't come through. Of course
PAT is a great film, Peckinpah did 80% fantastic work in his lifetime. Otherwise I wouldn't have spend four years of my own lifetime
'working' for him :)

We just wish PAT would have the same scope as WILD BUNCH in terms of production value. A few more sheeps & cows :)

Of course the film still works in ANY version and I like the 2005 version a lot - but the deleting of certain scenes and dialogue (great dialogue!) is inexcusable to me. So is the fact that a great film was messed up. BUNCH shines in its full glory by now, so does GBU, OATITW and others thanks to CAREFUL restauration. PAT is not among those, a sad fact.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Dust Devil on May 04, 2010, 06:00:29 PM

The movie itself is not a masterpiece (in my book) but every scene is well worth watching. (Couldn't have put it any better.)

By coincidence: I watched it again just the other day - somewhere between 7.5 and 8 out of 10.


Were the poor chickens alive while the boys practiced shooting on their necks?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on May 04, 2010, 07:02:29 PM
Yeah, the chickens were squibbed to death.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Dust Devil on May 05, 2010, 04:13:03 AM
I'm waiting for the Siegster. >:D


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 31, 2010, 02:50:32 PM
Just in case anyone was following this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/us/01billy.html?_r=2&hp


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: marmota-b on January 11, 2011, 04:24:01 AM
I wasn't following it, and thanks. :)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on January 11, 2011, 08:57:20 AM
Just in case anyone was following this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/us/01billy.html?_r=2&hp

No reason for him to be pardoned. I think his shooting down the deputies during his prison break voids any pardon he may have been given before. But then I'm not a legal expert.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Robert Muller on January 11, 2011, 10:14:00 AM
Does anybody know, if there is any chance of a blu-ray release.....soon?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 12, 2011, 01:24:38 AM
No reason for him to be pardoned. I think his shooting down the deputies during his prison break voids any pardon he may have been given before. But then I'm not a legal expert.

Actually, even if had "just" escaped without killing anyone, it would be sufficient (from a legal standpoint) to bypass any pardon. Their are such cases in american jails right now (I heard about two case of innocent people with a life sentence who tried to escape from jail before their innocence was proven... they got a second life sentence, and then they were proven innocent, which didn't change anything).

Anyway, this deny of pardon 120 years after Billy's death, it rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ishhtLI1JIQ


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Jill on January 27, 2011, 05:12:45 PM
Should re-watch again. It's one of the most beautiful and sad movies I've seen, and Coburn is at his best.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 12, 2011, 12:05:03 AM
just saw the movie on TCM for the first time. (Prior to the screening, Robert Osbourne [the TCM host] said that while the version doesn't restore everything Peckinpah wanted, it is much closer to peckinpah's version than the theatrical release was).

1. the movie is visually stunning and the casting and acting was good, but overall I was very unsatisfied. I'd rate it 6.4/10:

2. There were frequent brief references in the dialogue to Pat and Billy's having rode together in the past, yet no further explanation of the backstory/motivation, and I did not feel I could "identify" with them.

3.Throughout the film, the blood looks so fake it is laughable.

4. I always hated Peckinpah's shtick with the slo-mo violence.

5. The film kind of drags on for stretches with nothing happening. According to Robert Osbourne's introduction, that was a problem the studio execs had with the film, which led to them cutting it for theatrical release. While I have never seen that theatrical version, who knows -- maybe the studio execs did have a point, for a change. Parts of the film did seem to drag on needlessly IMO.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Finally, I couldn't tell who those guys were that killed Pat in the opening scene -- can anyone help me out on that? Thanks  :)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on June 12, 2011, 02:03:26 AM
just saw the movie on TCM for the first time. (Prior to the screening, Robert Osbourne [the TCM host] said that while the version doesn't restore everything Peckinpah wanted, it is much closer to peckinpah's version than the theatrical release was).

1. the movie is visually stunning and the casting and acting was good, but overall I was very unsatisfied. I'd rate it 6.4/10:

2. There were frequent brief references in the dialogue to Pat and Billy's having rode together in the past, yet no further explanation of the backstory/motivation, and I did not feel I could "identify" with them.

3.Throughout the film, the blood looks so fake it is laughable.

4. I always hated Peckinpah's shtick with the slo-mo violence.

5. The film kind of drags on for stretches with nothing happening. According to Robert Osbourne's introduction, that was a problem the studio execs had with the film, which led to them cutting it for theatrical release. While I have never seen that theatrical version, who knows -- maybe the studio execs did have a point, for a change. Parts of the film did seem to drag on needlessly IMO.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Finally, I couldn't tell who those guys were that killed Pat in the opening scene -- can anyone help me out on that? Thanks  :)

One was his former deputy Poe, the others are unknown hired hands.

Poe represents the compromise Garrett made (while Billy represents the ideal and freedom), and therefore had always to bear the humiliating outbursts of Garrett's self-hate.
That Garrett in the end becomes killed by Poe makes the film even more pessimistic, even if Garrett was already inwardly dead since he killed Billy.

The reasons for cutting down the Theatrical version to 106 min are pretty complex, and have also a lot to do with Peckinpah's behaviour.

If you saw the long version of the film, then I agree it drags here and there. Despite some major flaws the version released on DVD does the narrative flow more justice.

But I think you won't like the film very much anyway.

But the film was for irritating at first also, and it has so much poetic qualities, that I began really to love it after I watched it a second time. And that was the butchered 106 min version, but thanks to the episodic structure oft the film it works also in that version.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 12, 2011, 02:38:57 AM
Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Pat-Garrett-Billy-Two-Disc-Special/dp/B000BT96DC says the dvd has: on Disc One a "Special Edition" 115 mins. version

and on Disc 2: a "1988 Turner Preview version" of 122 mins.,


so not sure which was the version I saw on TCM, but I guess we can certainly say it NOT the 106 min. version... well after seeing how long and disjointed the story seems of the edition I've seen, maybe I'd like it a little more if I had indeed seen the 106 min "butchered" version... either way, Iam not dying to see other editions now. it was not a good film for other reasons


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on June 12, 2011, 03:18:47 AM
I'm sure it was the 122 min version.

What about the scene with the dying Sheriff at the river. Ain't taht a beautiful scene? (A scene which is btw even more beautiful in the shorter versions.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Richard--W on October 23, 2011, 03:54:34 AM
rambling robert zimmerman made his film debut in PGABTK. he jerks his head around a lot and does what he's told  ???

Dylan made his TV debut on live television in a BBC play in 1962.
He made his film debut on a newsreel taken at a civil rights rally in Greenwood, Miississippi in 1963 followed by the films Festival! and Dont Look Back, both in 1965.

Richard


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Richard--W on October 23, 2011, 06:00:06 AM
(http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/Richard--W/16c.jpg)
Fort Sumner, New Mexico Territory, circa 1875, before it was decommissioned
and before the Maxwell family bought it.


I love the look and feel of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. There is every indication that the art department did their research, especially in the courthouse and at Fort Sumner. All that adobe and stone and rough-hewn boards give the film a tactile quality that is harmonious with the weary sadness of the story. Little splashes of color like the jacket Garrett wears, made from an Indian blanket, amidst Coquillon's deep rich autumnal color that was so breathtaking on the big screen. Kristofferson's low flat voice; a voice and an accent like that are from deep Texas. It can't be faked.

...

But the scene with Garrett's wife is good. She even knows what's going to happen with him. "You are dead inside."

No mercy for missing lines! Turner version is much better.

James... oh my God. He's not playing, he IS Garrett.
Oh... I feel pity for his charakter.  :'( Just looking into his sad eyes and I know he didn't wanted it and he did it, but for what? For nothing. And he lost his peace forever. At the end being murdered by Poe and the other SOBs.

From an historical and biographical perspective, the film gets most things wrong, but some things are right. The interaction with Bob Olinger and Bell, the escape from the courthouse, the singing of a song, the bucking horse and the blanket in the street, are all close enough. The interior of the courthouse, the exterior of Fort Sumner and the house in which the Kid is shot, are close enough. The film is being told in the blink of an eye as Pat Garrett dies; it's his memory of the most important event of his life, shown to us the way he sees life. The guilt, the infinite sadness, the weariness, the intolerance for everyone he meets, the baseness of his personality -- this is the real Pat Garrett. In actual fact he never stopped paying for killing the Kid, and nobody ever let him forget it. He lived in poverty, his family often starved, and he drank away and frightened off every opportunity that came his way. He became an agnostic, quoting Ingersoll and picking fights with everybody. I don't know how Peckinpah and Wurlitzer discovered Pat Garrett, but they get the spirit of the man right. I don't know how James Coburn intuited the man, but his performance is dead-on accurate. When you see the self-loathing and exhausted look in James Coburn's eyes, it's as if he's channeling Garrett rather than acting. It's just a remarkable performance.

In contrast, the Kid was hopeful and had everything to look forward to when he shot the guards and escaped from the Lincoln courthouse (on Thursday afternoon 28 April, 1881). He was in love with Paulita Maxwell (the girl played by Rita Coolidge), the young sister of Pete Maxwell, and he rode back to Fort Sumner because she was there. He had other girlfriends, too, but it was serious with Paulita. If only the film had ditched Paco and given more exposition to the Kid and Paulita. At Fort Sumner, he was bunking with Garrett's sister-in-law and fooling around with Charlie Bowdre's widow, among others, while trying to romance Paulita. That's why he stayed instead of leaving the Territory. Recent research indicates the Kid was probably between 18 and 19 when Garrett shot him (just before midnight 14 July 1881 also a Thursday); he hadn't grown up yet. Garrett had just turned 31. Later, Garrett would write a book in which he tried to exonerate himself. He asserted that the Kid was 21 years old and had killed one man for each year of his life because he did not want people thinking he had killed a minor. It was another lie, of course, but it stuck and it's still repeated to this day. The Kid was younger than 21, and that's why everyone called him a kid. He was extremely popular, but Garrett was neither trusted nor very well liked. He was not re-elected. His deputy, John Poe, ran against him and won. That says a lot about how the small population of Lincoln County felt about Garrett and his killing of the Kid. The boy who throws rocks at him at the end is not known to have happened in actual fact, but metaphorically it's the literal truth.


Richard


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Jill on August 03, 2012, 05:59:18 PM
Watched it again. Maybe 5th or 6th time? And it made me feel really melancholic and sad.  :'( Also, the more I watch it, the more I love Kristofferson's Billy.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Novecento on August 04, 2012, 06:51:15 AM
I hope you watched the 1988 Turner Preview version


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Jill on August 04, 2012, 11:52:50 AM
Of course. I only watched the 2005 one once and it was confusing. They cut a lot of good lines and there were only 2 new scenes. Couldn't they just put those in the Turner and leave it alone otherwise? (Ok, maybe cut the Poe scene where he beats up some dudes for information since the Ruthie Lee scene has the same function and honestly, I want to punch Poe in the face every time he's on screen. (Isn't he also one of the guys who eventually kill Pat?)

I wish they would make a real uncut version once. The footage exists, doesn't it?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on August 04, 2012, 01:46:05 PM
I couldn't even make it through the 2005 cut. It really screwed up the pacing, from cuts minor (individual lines and shots) to major (arranging the chronology, cutitng the Dub Taylor/Elisha Cook Jr. scene). Hated the opening credits too. I liked the Aurora Clavell scene but that alone didn't justify all the other garbage.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Jill on August 04, 2012, 01:52:14 PM
And it's shorter than the '88 version. How is a *special edition* ever SHORTER than the original?

I love the scene with Garrett and his wife though. Adds some new layers to his loneliness.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 04, 2012, 02:42:00 PM
No, no, no, the 2005 cut is in fact the best so far, not the best possible, but it works better than in the 1988 cut.

And it's shorter than the '88 version. How is a *special edition* ever SHORTER than the original?


Cause the 88 version was a rough cut, and the 05 version is a try to make a fine cut.

Using the credits taken form the 73 version was a stupid idea, and not closing the circle at the end by not returning to the opening scene was another stupid idea. Apart from that the Seydor cut does the film more justice than the previous versions.

And fine cutting always means to kill some of your darlings.
Just watch the deleted scenes on DVDs. There is sometimes terrific stuff amongst them. Now imagine there was a first version which had such a terrific scene, and then the director makes a new version and cuts it out, and everyone had seen the film before with that scene, then most will complain "how could he dare to cut it". But if you know that scene only as an out-take most will accept it for what it is. A good scene which probalby hurts the film.
Yes, there is some good stuff missing now, that's how fine cutting works. But overall it is the better version for me.

I probably had also cut the scene with Garrett's wife. Too talky, too obvious. The shot in the 88 version in which Garrett stops at his garden fence says everything we need to know about his marriage, and is probably the perfect way to end this scene before it really starts.
But it is only missing from the 88 version for sloppiness, not for artistic reasons.
Strangely the Ruthie Lee scene was not part of the 88 version. A more essential scene for me.

I have very precise perceptions how the "perfect" version of PG&BtK should look like.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on August 04, 2012, 09:54:44 PM
I've only seen the version on TCM. And I don't think I have any interest in seeing the movie ever again.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 05, 2012, 01:33:53 AM
If you don't see the beauty of the scenes it is not necessary to watch it again.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on August 05, 2012, 01:47:12 AM
I felt they moved awfully slowly, there was so much time where shit just dragged on and on needlessly. And btw, while I am a big fan of Bob Dylan, IMO his music was not appropriate for this movie. "They say that Pat Garrett has got your number/So sleep with one eye open when you slumber" is that really the kind of music you want to hear in a Western?

Recently, the movie was playing on some shitty tv channel, I believe it was Encore Westerns, which shows everything in pan and scan, I hardly ever look at that channel. Anyway, it was almost at the end of PGABTK and I watched the final scene again, the long scene where Billy visits the girl, they spend the night together, and then Pat kills him. I have to say that that scene was beautiful. Just terrific. And I really liked Kristoffersen as Billy, and Coburn was amazing as Pat. But overall, I just did not like the movie. Way too much shit dragged on and on. I've never been a big Peckinpah fan, his slo-mo violence irritates me to no end. Anyway, I'll probably watch it the next time it plays on TCM. Opinions can change with a re-watch after several years. But after my first viewing, I just didn't like the movie.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on August 05, 2012, 07:39:53 AM
It's a movie of moments even in its best cuts. Lots of great individual scenes that goes nowhere. I completely agree with Drink about Dylan. Wretched performance and inappropriate score.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on August 05, 2012, 09:34:31 AM
It's a movie of moments even in its best cuts. Lots of great individual scenes that goes nowhere. I completely agree with Drink about Dylan. Wretched performance and inappropriate score.

I don't have a problem with Dylan's performance, I thought his performance was fine. It's just that his music was inappropriate for the movie.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 05, 2012, 10:03:48 AM
I like both.

What Dylan does isn't really acting, but being there.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on August 05, 2012, 11:56:23 AM
What Dylan does isn't really acting, but being there.

Or wasting time.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Jill on August 05, 2012, 01:18:20 PM
"Beans"  ;D

Was there any hidden symbolic meaning to that scene or Pat just felt like trolling?


By the way, there is also a Billy the Kid version from 1930, is that available ANYWHERE? I can find nothing. It's so old it must be in public domain...


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: mike siegel on August 05, 2012, 04:09:57 PM
Of course. I only watched the 2005 one once and it was confusing. They cut a lot of good lines and there were only 2 new scenes. Couldn't they just put those in the Turner and leave it alone otherwise? (Ok, maybe cut the Poe scene where he beats up some dudes for information since the Ruthie Lee scene has the same function and honestly, I want to punch Poe in the face every time he's on screen. (Isn't he also one of the guys who eventually kill Pat?)


That comes close to my opinion. The cutting of some of these lines is unforgivable. Also the choice of some wrong music (which was right in 1973 & partly in the Turner cut) and some sloppy sound editing. .  A lot has been written about the three flawed version now existing. The only thought that softens down my feelings is that it somehow all still is in the tradition of this troubled production.  A big chaos. BUT there was a reason why the film (one of MGM's last productions before they turned completely to Vegas and their Grand Hotel there) was such a mess during shooting and distribution. There's no real excuse for the 2005 restauration mess. A missed opportunity.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 05, 2012, 06:09:17 PM
Ah no, a masterpiece in either of the 3 versions.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: mike siegel on August 06, 2012, 02:06:06 AM
No Sir :)
BUNCH is a masterpiece. RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY,
STRAW DOGS, JUNIOR BONNER ...
PAT just has too many flaws.

But since it was made by the master, and since it has
so many great scenes, moments and unique little details.
And also one of my all-time favorite soundtracks..
Yes, I guess you're right in the end :)

(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/sam/DSC01504.jpg)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 06, 2012, 05:33:47 AM
Yes, the score is great, and yes it has so much incredibly beautiful scenes, so much stunning stuff, and for all that it is a masterpiece for me. Also for others.

The storytelling is more episodic, which is the reason why even the 106 min version works. It is less complex than the other versions, but who wants to see can see the whole picture.

And unlike other Peckinpah films it is an extremely fatalistic film, and cause of that fatalism some looser directed scenes don't hurt the film. But I still think that the editing is also in the Seydor cut not always optimal. Some scenes are not cut in the way Peckinpah did them in his other films.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on August 06, 2012, 06:16:01 AM
Quote
And unlike other Peckinpah films it is an extremely fatalistic film, and cause of that fatalism some looser directed scenes don't hurt the film.

Not sure I follow the editing logic. I probably wouldn't grant the premise anyway, if only for Alfredo Garcia.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Jill on August 06, 2012, 05:20:29 PM
The main flaw I see is not giving the supporting characters enough time. They look interesting, but we simply can't get attached to them, they are killed too fast. And they have potential. Bell is a nice guy, Sheriff Baker is someone I just want to hug, Alamosa Bill is someone I want to know more about. Who are the family of redheads, random Tullys on the West? And Billy's various friends everywhere, we know nothing about their past together. Everyone just seems to like him.

Why couldn't this be 3 hours long.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on August 06, 2012, 05:59:46 PM
I also don't feel that the movie devotes enough time to Billy and Pat's past friendship. As soon as we meet them, they are already antagonistic toward each other (even though Billy says, "he's my friend," they are in the beginning stages at least of the antagonism). If the movie had seriously dedicated a large portion to their friendship, then perhaps we'd feel the depths of Pat's betrayal more. But as it is, though we are told that they're friends from the past, we never really see and feel the friendship; hence Pat's betrayal is not nearly as devastating as it can be.

I don't know if perhaps this issue was explored more in scenes that were cut. (I've only seen the TCM version).


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on August 06, 2012, 06:21:57 PM
The main flaw I see is not giving the supporting characters enough time. They look interesting, but we simply can't get attached to them, they are killed too fast. And they have potential. Bell is a nice guy, Sheriff Baker is someone I just want to hug, Alamosa Bill is someone I want to know more about. Who are the family of redheads, random Tullys on the West? And Billy's various friends everywhere, we know nothing about their past together. Everyone just seems to like him.

Why couldn't this be 3 hours long.

I agree, perhaps even more so. I've explained before my indifference towards the film's big emotional set piece, Slim Pickens' demise. It's a nice little self-contained scene, but we've only met the character about three minutes ago. Why care if he bites it? I don't much care either for Juan's casting argument, or else I'd weep when all those character actors get wasted in cruddy '70s John Wayne vehicles (poor Christopher George! You could take down a grizzly bear, why not wormy extras in Chisum?).


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Novecento on August 06, 2012, 06:25:48 PM
Cause the 88 version was a rough cut, and the 05 version is a try to make a fine cut.

It's rough cut or nothing for me. To quote my own thoughts from a separate thread:

Quote
I'm definitely not a fan of this kind of tinkering unless the instructions by the director are very explicit (as in the case of Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" for example) and at least some kind of approximation can be made. For me the definitive version of Pat Garrett is Peckinpah's rough cut (i.e. the TCM '88 version with the scene with Garrett's wife added back in).


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Novecento on August 06, 2012, 08:44:09 PM
Not sure where I stand on the issue of the lyrics to Knocking on Heaven's Door.

Did Peckinpah originally want them in or out?


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 07, 2012, 02:08:49 AM
I also don't feel that the movie devotes enough time to Billy and Pat's past friendship. As soon as we meet them, they are already antagonistic toward each other (even though Billy says, "he's my friend," they are in the beginning stages at least of the antagonism). If the movie had seriously dedicated a large portion to their friendship, then perhaps we'd feel the depths of Pat's betrayal more. But as it is, though we are told that they're friends from the past, we never really see and feel the friendship; hence Pat's betrayal is not nearly as devastating as it can be.


I feel it.
It is not a betrayal, it is a changing of positions which Billy accepts, as he accepts his death.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 07, 2012, 02:14:03 AM
Not sure where I stand on the issue of the lyrics to Knocking on Heaven's Door.

Did Peckinpah originally want them in or out?

Nobody really knows. But for me it makes this intensive scene even more intensive. I can't watch it without the lyrics. (well I can, but it makes me a bit sad)

Don't how it would have been if I had seen the film at first in the turner cut, but I watched it in the 80sa dozen times in the theatrical version and I loved the film. The Turner cut was then a slight disappointment despite adding a lot of new stuff. The greatest thing was the new opening, a terrific scene, but some of the stuff of the theatrical version worked less good in the Turner cut.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 07, 2012, 02:19:02 AM
I agree, perhaps even more so. I've explained before my indifference towards the film's big emotional set piece, Slim Pickens' demise. It's a nice little self-contained scene, but we've only met the character about three minutes ago. Why care if he bites it?

Here also, I can. Despite he's only there for a few minutes, this scene has a great feel about loss in it.

This is one of the qualities of the film. All these minor characters began to breathe in their short appearances.

But the film is anyway only about Pat and Bill, and everything else is build around them.

For me the construction of  the film is masterful. Very different from the other Peckinpah twilight westerns, which all have the same themes, but a different approach to develop them.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: mike siegel on August 07, 2012, 02:46:15 AM
Right.
He cast those great well-known character actors because they had only short time to come alive! I mean if you don't care about Slim Pickens dying you don't care about much :)
The was supposed to be in as far as I know. But Jerry Fielding (who was against the soundtrack anyway, for obvious reasons) once commented on it, saying that the scene speaks for itself and is so strong it wouldn't need verbalizing on the soundtrack. In a different movie - he would be right. In Sam's hippie western the song fits in great.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Novecento on August 07, 2012, 05:02:43 AM
Nobody really knows. But for me it makes this intensive scene even more intensive. I can't watch it without the lyrics. (well I can, but it makes me a bit sad)
The was supposed to be in as far as I know. But Jerry Fielding (who was against the soundtrack anyway, for obvious reasons) once commented on it, saying that the scene speaks for itself and is so strong it wouldn't need verbalizing on the soundtrack. In a different movie - he would be right. In Sam's hippie western the song fits in great.

That's good to know. I've always like the lyrics in the scene too so I'm glad it was probably Peckinpah's intent. Right, my ideal cut is the the TCM version plus the scene with Garret's wife, plus the Knocking on Heaven's Door lyrics.

One of the most frustrating things about the SE DVD is the image quality of the 2005 cut is so much nicer than the TCM cut. I wish they'd showered the same love on the TCM one.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 07, 2012, 05:52:09 AM
For me the other missing scene (the Ruthie Lee scene) of the TCM cut is more important than the one with Garrett's wife.

I think btw that many people have problems with this film because they don't understand it. For most films there is one way to understand that film, and only if one understands the film works. but understanding is not only a matter of intellect. I also don't understand many films, I don't find the necessary approach to it so that i can't enjoy it the way other people do. Reasons for that are very multifarious.

Who views PG&BtK mainly as a film about the legend has probably already lost. Of course it this also somehow about the BtK legend, but it is in fact mainly about Peckinpah himself.

Many describe the story as Garrett hunting down his former friend Billy, which is completely wrong, and viewed like this of course many scenes and the film's structure don't make that much sense. It is in fact about Garrett trying to avoid to kill (to hunt) Billy as long as possible, and what it all costs him.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on August 07, 2012, 06:16:37 AM
Quote
I think btw that many people have problems with this film because they don't understand it.

I wonder if you understand that it's possible to "understand" a movie and still dislike it.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on August 07, 2012, 08:05:01 AM
y'all ever hear of something called "fan edits"?   ;)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on August 07, 2012, 08:38:49 AM
y'all ever hear of something called "fan edits"?

Yes, and they stink whether done by a film critic or a nerd who's seen Star Wars 5,000,000,000 times.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 07, 2012, 12:25:57 PM
I wonder if you understand that it's possible to "understand" a movie and still dislike it.

Of course. It was a general statement anyway.

I haven't said that understanding a film means automatically liking it. But it's difficult to like a film one does not understand. But even that happens.

My impression is simply that for Pg&BtK this happens more than for other films. Which also shall not imply that my view of the film must necessarily be the correct one. Or the only one to enjoy it.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on August 07, 2012, 12:28:25 PM
Yes, and they stink whether done by a film critic or a nerd who's seen Star Wars 5,000,000,000 times.

A beautiful idea for me. There are many films from which I would like to make my personal perfect version. Re-make, re- model ...


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Novecento on January 13, 2013, 05:08:55 PM
The was supposed to be in as far as I know. But Jerry Fielding (who was against the soundtrack anyway, for obvious reasons) once commented on it, saying that the scene speaks for itself and is so strong it wouldn't need verbalizing on the soundtrack. In a different movie - he would be right. In Sam's hippie western the song fits in great.

Going by the mantra of dialogue basically being icing on the cake (i.e. a great film should still be pretty good even when watched in a language one doesn't understand), then Fielding makes a good point. However, the reference is more oblique with song lyrics than dialogue so perhaps it's easier to get away with it. Personally I found it obtrusive even when Leone included just the single word "Yesterday" in OUATIA, but I remember quite liking the inclusion of the lyrics to "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" here. I think I'll need to watch both versions back-to-back to compare. Either way, it's one helluva great scene and I'm glad no-one actually says anything!


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on April 13, 2014, 12:16:58 PM
Short deleted scene from this masterpiece:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hFv-4c12Ig

It was only part of early TV versions, which otherwise were heavily cut.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 13, 2014, 02:40:32 PM
Way cool, thanks! O0


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on April 13, 2014, 05:20:50 PM
Awesome! O0


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 17, 2014, 02:32:24 PM
Pat Garrett's oath and voucher located in Department of Justice archives http://blogs.archives.gov/TextMessage/2011/08/01/a-few-good-lawmen/


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Groggy on May 17, 2015, 10:24:59 AM
New book by Paul Seydor on the making of this film:

http://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Death-Contentious-Afterlife-Garrett/dp/0810130564 (http://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Death-Contentious-Afterlife-Garrett/dp/0810130564)


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Novecento on May 17, 2015, 02:34:39 PM
It's definitely worth reading.

We've had a little discussion over at the sampeckinpah.com forum about it - even received a couple of posts from Seydor himself there.


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: Spikeopath on July 29, 2017, 08:55:49 AM
Adding.

Ol' Pat... Sheriff Pat Garrett. Sold out to the Santa Fe ring. How does it feel?

Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is directed by Sam Peckinpah and written by Rudy Wurlitzer. It stars James Coburn, Kris Kristofferson, Bob Dylan, Slim Pickens, Katy Jurado, Chill Wills and Barry Sullivan. Music is scored by Bob Dylan and cinematography by John Coquillon.

One time they were friends, cohorts in crime, but now Pat Garrett is the law and his objective is to bring down Billy the Kid.

It seems to be an absolute when writing about a Sam Peckinpah film that it was plagued by studio interference. Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is no exception, the back story to which tells of behind the scenes clashes, bizarre cuts and a disownment of the film by cast and crew. Thankfully through the advent of time and technological advancements, it's one of the Peckinpah movies that can now be seen in a true light. A good job, too, since it's one of Bloody Sam's finest movies. My personal preference is for the TCM Preview version, and that is what is reviewed here.

Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid finds Peckinpah at his lyrical and elegiacal best, the old west is dying and as it is told through the eyes of aging Pat Garrett (Coburn), it's meticulously played out via an unhurried narrative structure. Time is afforded the key players, helping the story unfold its bitter take on the frontier changes as greed begets violence, Peckinpah wryly observing that the newly appeared good guys are no better than the bad guys, hence The Kid's (Kristofferson) reputation as a dandy likable outlaw becomes assured in spite of his less than honourable traits as a human being, but he at least is honourable to his codes.

Film contains many memorable scenes, scenes fit to grace any Western. A shoot-out and aftermath involving Pickens and Jurado has poignancy in abundance, Dylan's Knockin' On Heaven's Door tenderly filtered over the top of it. A duel featuring Jack Elam is another that resonates highly, great character moments are plentiful, performed by a roll call of Western movie legends, Peckinpah knew how to pick a cast and then some. Moments of violence are dotted throughout, Bloody Sam's trademark, as is cross-cuts, sepia tones and slow-mo. The great director even makes a Christ allegory not come off as cheap, and a self loathing mirror sequence strikes a significant chord.

This is a film big on characterisations, it's not just a film of visual touches, be it the dual psychological conflict between Pat and Billy, or the ream of peripheral players, everything they do is detailed and designed to capture the period and atmosphere of the changing times, the environment that folk inhabit, on either side of the law, is a big issue. No frame is wasted, MGM and their head honcho James Aubrey in their ignorance failed to see this fact. While the cast turn in damn fine work and Coquillon's burnished photography is striking and perfect for the director's vision.

It's undeniably downbeat, and the slow pace isn't to everyone's liking, but this is up with the other Peckinpah Western greats, The Wild Bunch and Ride the High Country. A truly great Western crafted by a truly great director. 9/10


Title: Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)
Post by: stanton on July 29, 2017, 01:49:23 PM
Easily a 10 in the 2006 cut. If not an 11 ...