Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: cigar joe on August 17, 2003, 08:23:07 PM



Title: Open Range (2003)
Post by: cigar joe on August 17, 2003, 08:23:07 PM
Saw the new western by Kevin Costner tonight, first impression it was ok, had a great bloody large scale shoot out at the end that was done well, hardly any music and not enough atmospherics though (did have a good downpour that flooded the streets of the town), and they would have helped in my opinion. The love angle with Costner and Benning was a bit contrived though.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: Groggy on August 18, 2003, 06:27:34 AM
Saw the new western by Kevin Costner tonight, first impression it was ok, had a great bloody large scale shoot out at the end that was done well, hardly any music and not enough atmospherics though (did have a good downpour that flooded the streets of the town), and they would have helped in my opinion. The love angle with Costner and Benning was a bit contrived though.

It looks very good, but I doubt I'll be able to see it in theaters.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: cigar joe on August 25, 2003, 05:20:59 PM
I can not believe that no one has gone to see this western. First western to come along in a while and it should be a given that board members should critique it.
It has to be playing in the major cities, maybe not in Europe yet but come on what gives?


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: KERMIT on August 25, 2003, 09:56:46 PM
 went to www.imdb.com under search i typed in film's title & clicked GO!
under plot outline: i clicked  under (view trailer).
 
open range (2003) looks best seen up on the big screen now while the iorn is hot.  a costner/duvall collaboration shouldn't be missed pards.



Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: cigar joe on August 26, 2003, 05:04:45 AM
Ok Kermit, but you didn't check it out either yet huh, lol.

If I had to make a one word comment to describe the film it would be the word "Green". You'll all have to go to see what I'm driving at.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: KERMIT on August 27, 2003, 07:46:34 PM
barkeep. two whiskeys......
 wait for the  dvd/vhs and you loose the powereful cinematography.   saw  open range   on a  sultry afternoon .     i totally cracked up when duvall
serves breakfast in bed for the sheriff.
 it's unique to see money set aside for once and something much more important anted up to make a man stand and put his life on the line .


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: John Baldwin on March 22, 2004, 05:00:18 AM
I saw Open Range, the Costner's movie. I prefer Dance with wolfes...
And I really prefer Leone's westerns. Open Range is a good movie, but just if you want to kill 2 hours...It's not like Sergio Leone's movies, with emotions, great fights, marvellous score of Morricone, the master of the cinema songs (not in Mission to Mars)...


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: mackace23 on March 22, 2004, 02:03:54 PM
I thought Open Range was a well made western. It dragged it some parts . Not on the level as Leone but it was still a pretty good one. I thought the gun shot effects were the best I have ever heard in a movie. Turn it up load and listen, they will make you jump!  The bar scene and the end shootout. I  respect Costner, as least he is trying to still make movies in the genre, when others wouldn't even think of touching it.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: John Baldwin on March 23, 2004, 02:59:23 AM
I respect Costner too, he is a good actor and a good director. And it's true, the sound, the landscape...a re beautifull. And the scene in the bar is very very good; but I was not enjoying as I see a Leone western, it's just that, but I don't think it's a bad movie


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: shorty larsen on March 24, 2004, 12:35:16 PM
Hey, what's the problem with the "Mission to Mars" score?


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: John Baldwin on March 24, 2004, 01:02:32 PM
I find that it is...not very good like score. It's not  like the others score of Morricone


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: shorty larsen on March 24, 2004, 01:09:17 PM
Don't forget the guy made more than 500 movies.

Give him some rest!!!!

But hey, when you see the name and the work ot the last Oscar winner music score, even "Mission to Mars" could have done it.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: John Baldwin on March 24, 2004, 01:21:59 PM
But I like, I love Morricone; he is my favorite "scorer"; but I find that the Mission to Mars score is not the better; I find that it'is more at the end that at the begining of my favorite score. For an example, when I listen the Claudia Cardinal theme, I want to cry (I don't cry, it's an expression) such as I listen Mission to Mars, nothing appends. But I dont say I hate...


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: KERMIT on March 25, 2004, 02:58:35 AM
i liked open range. glad i saw it on the big screen.  ;D


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: deMaie on March 29, 2004, 06:48:10 PM
Kermit, I agree with you.
Many new movies don't really use the potential of the
"big" screen while every Costners movies(starting with
Dances w Wolves) did. It does relate to many of us
taking pictures, at least me for sure, always to far from
the subject, once developped, you need a magnifying
glass to recognise who on it.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: ManWithNoName on April 13, 2004, 11:08:56 PM
i enjoyed Open Range but not as much as the Leone Flicks.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: DJASh on August 05, 2004, 01:03:19 PM
A couple of Leone links I spotted in this Costner Western...

James Russo (Bugsy in OUATIA) plays a nasty bad guy , naturally.
Plus the director makes use of the enjoyment of food for dramatic effect tactic, as often used by Leone.  This time its chocolate imported to the Mid west , all the way from Switzerland.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: hailclinteastwood on August 05, 2004, 02:24:40 PM
I didn't really like it to tell you the truth, the characters were not explained enough


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: DJASh on August 05, 2004, 04:02:31 PM
There was a certain harsh realism to the gunfight which I thought was well done.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: cigar joe on August 05, 2004, 05:38:24 PM
yea it was sort of reminicent of Unforgiven a big pay off at the end


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: KERMIT on August 05, 2004, 06:29:17 PM
first i want to extend my thanks to c/j for getting me out to see this film while on the " big screen".  

i loved the way the chocolet sequence went. also the camera work was so quick and pricise during the final shootout made the slower scenes juxtapose.


btw, had no idea duvall was such a gifted
fiddle player.  :o  lol


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: hailclinteastwood on August 07, 2004, 05:18:18 AM
to tell you the truth i didn't really like this film, it wasn't what i thought it was going to be and that kind put me off. the chocolate scene was quite good but the "love interest" scenes spoiled the agression that it should have had these men were trown out of their buisnesses by an evil man, i belive that the films pace and story should have simbolised their hatred and agression


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: Tim on July 17, 2006, 11:17:23 AM
  I saw this when it was first out in theatres, but hadn't seen it again since I watched it last night on AMC.  First of all, you know a movie is beautiful to watch if you can appreciate the cinematography in dreaded pan-n-scan and with commercials every seven minutes.

  But on to my other point.  Kevin Costner is a real bad-ass in this movie.  His Charlie Waite is one of the coolest, toughest hombres I've seen in a western in quite awhile.  The way he walks toward the hired gun "Are you the one that killed my friend?" and then just blows him away, or shooting the man who has taken Annette Benning hostage. 

  That gunfight is one to behold.  If only there could have been a little more action, this movie would have been perfect.  The dialogue between Costner and cowboy great Robert Duvall is excellent, but a gunfight or two would have broken up that first 90-100 minutes.  A good movie regardless.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: Leone Admirer on July 23, 2006, 10:30:50 AM
I like this film, my respect for Costner went up a bit when you find out how ill he was during the making of the film and turning up almost everyday!


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: The Firecracker on July 23, 2006, 10:38:17 AM
The gunfight at the end is  the best I have seen. It goes on a little too long though.

I dont think it was a slow movie. It was all building up to that one gunfight. I thought the film was brilliant.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 23, 2006, 12:26:03 PM
I'm one of the few who disliked Open Range. I thought the scenes before the gunfight were long and boring. I like slow-paced movies but not if they drag out the scenes just to make the movie longer, which is what Open Range did. And the gunfight at the end was so fake. It was a cool battle but Costner had to fire a good 30 shots out of his six-shooter without reloading.

I'll try to watch the film again but I still thought it was too drawn-out.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: moviesceleton on June 06, 2007, 06:58:13 AM
7/10
A good Western. It doesn't provide anything new, but it recycles all basic elements very well. It is an American style Western, and that may be a trouble to some one; I thought it might be to me, but when I watched the film, it didn't bother me that much. Main characters are not bigger than life like in Leone's films, but more like real people. The pace is nice. It could've been faster but it's fine like this.

One thing that I have to mention is the violence. It is maybe the most realistic that I've seen in any Western. Buildups are not drawn out like in Leone's and Peckinpah's films, nor the victims spin like hell, nor fall down in slow-motion. Of course there is build up before the end fight but it's in real time. In this movie, if you get hit with a rifle it can cause you a brain damage, unlike in most of movies. The gun fight is great and very realistic.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: tucumcari bound on June 06, 2007, 11:33:17 AM
The gunfight at the end is  the best I have seen. It goes on a little too long though.

I dont think it was a slow movie. It was all building up to that one gunfight. I thought the film was brilliant.

I totally agree with you Firecracker!


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 07, 2007, 08:12:43 AM
7/10
Main characters are not bigger than life like in Leone's films, but more like real people.
"Real people" circa 2003, right?

This is a better film than I expected, and a couple things impressed me: the way the streets turned into rivers during a downpour (a routine happening before storm drains came to the West) and the final shootout. On the downside, most of the film is filled with characters talking. What is it about AWs that they are always so dialog heavy? When you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk...

Finally, for a film called "Open Range" an awful lot of it is set in town.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: mike siegel on June 08, 2007, 02:25:06 AM
I was totally surprised.  I kind of like Costner, but not his films, mosrly pretentious or bad or both..
OPEN RANGE is just great. Best western I saw in decades. I even liked it better than UNFORGIVEN, seemed more honest and 'real' to me.
Great documentary on the US R1 DVD. Boy, did he suffer...true film maker he is..


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on July 06, 2007, 03:54:15 PM
I don't think there is a thread about this film. I've reanted Open Range from the public library, along with The Proposition. I immediatly liked the film, and I think it's the best western since Unforgiven. Robert Duvall and Kevin Cosner had such great chemestry together, and the climatic gunbattle was exciting. Michael Gambon makes a superb villian.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 06, 2007, 03:59:44 PM
The only thing I liked about Open Range was the final shootout.

The rest of the film plays out like some kind of western soap opera.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on July 06, 2007, 04:15:36 PM
The final shootout made the whole film worth watching.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: moviesceleton on July 07, 2007, 01:34:14 AM
"Real people" circa 2003, right?
I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but I meant that I feel Costner and Duvall are very realistic portrays of the real cowboys.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 07, 2007, 08:48:54 PM
If you are talking about cowboys in the 19th Century, then I don't agree. Of course, I've never met a 19th Century cowboy, but then neither has Duvall or Costner, or the scriptwriters for Open Range. Somehow I don't think this held them back.....


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: moviesceleton on July 08, 2007, 03:31:52 AM
Neither have I ever met a real cowboy  ;D! But IMO there are many things the feel very real: They are very quiet, they love the open ranges, how they treat the boys. Maybe the only thing that doesn't feel realistic is the revenge and how they react to the situation before and during the gunfight. To me they look too happy or excited about the fight. It's almost like in old AWs where everyone is happily fighting in the saloon, although not as stupid or over the top. I really have to watch it again some time, but I think they make the decision to revenge too quick, taking into account how they are earlier in  the movie. MWNN or William Munny could make the decision that fast but not these cowboys.

Or maybe I'm imagining something that really isn't in the movie   :D. Maybe I should watch it again.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on July 08, 2007, 11:20:52 AM
Kevin Cosner's character use to be a ruthless killer, I don't know about Duvall's character, but he must have been a mean mofo back in his younger days. They probably became cowboys to keep a low profile.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: moviesceleton on July 08, 2007, 11:33:41 AM
Kevin Cosner's character use to be a ruthless killer, I don't know about Duvall's character, but he must have been a mean mofo back in his younger days. They probably became cowboys to keep a low profile.
Yeah, that's pretty obvious with Costner's. But I think Duvall's character has always been cowboy. Obviously he has shot people too, but not as largely as Costner.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on July 08, 2007, 11:40:24 AM
Yeah, seeing how Cosner explained what might happen before the shoot out. I loved how he went for the man with the broken arm first, which was broken by the guy he killed (and I liked his character, was sad to see him go) and shot the boy and his last words where "I really enjoyed it", and he gets shot point blank in the head. I laughed at that part.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: tucumcari bound on July 08, 2007, 11:55:22 AM
Yeah, seeing how Cosner explained what might happen before the shoot out. I loved how he went for the man with the broken arm first, which was broken by the guy he killed (and I liked his character, was sad to see him go) and shot the boy and his last words where "I really enjoyed it", and he gets shot point blank in the head. I laughed at that part.

That part is both shocking and memorable. A classic movie moment in my opinion.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 16, 2007, 01:07:37 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lq3zjTmVLbM

I sure love YouTube.

I love how they were standing there taunting each other, and then Kevin Cosner goes up to the guy and asked "You're the one who shot my friend"

"Yes, I shoot the boy too, and I quite enjoy it" and Kevin walks up to him and puts one in between the eyes. Best part of the movie.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 16, 2007, 09:51:54 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lq3zjTmVLbM

I sure love YouTube.

I love how they were standing there taunting each other, and then Kevin Cosner goes up to the guy and asked "You're the one who shot my friend"

"Yes, I shoot the boy too, and I quite enjoy it" and Kevin walks up to him and puts one in between the eyes. Best part of the movie.

That's one of the best moments in Western Film History, by far. Brilliant.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on August 16, 2007, 09:57:31 AM
That's one of the best moments in Western Film History, by far. Brilliant.

Yeah the genere is somewhat dying but still going strong.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: marmota-b on July 18, 2008, 11:20:13 AM
I bought it. I watched it. I loved it.

I have to agree with most of what has been said here. It's slow. But it somehow seems "real", there are several things, like the flood, that add to a feel of authenticity (although it's just a virtual autheticity). The scenes with chocolate and the man shot straight by Charlie Waite are superb. Costner and Duvall really had good chemistry.
And it must have been awesome on big screen.

It's not Leone for sure, but I didn't expect it to be. That's the biggest mistake one could make before watching a non-Leone western, in my opinion. It only makes you not enjoy something you might have enjoyed immensely otherwise. And I enjoyed this. Comparing back, I enjoyed it much more than the 2007 3:10 to Yuma, even though I saw 3:10 in cinema and this only on computer. I'm glad I own it.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: marmota-b on August 11, 2008, 03:13:55 AM
Update: Sister loves it, too. :D


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 11, 2008, 01:09:32 PM
Update: Sister loves it, too. :D

Well marmota, your sister has good taste as you do. "Open Range" is memorable indeed and gets better with repeated viewings. The ending may drag on a bit with the love story but it doesn't bother me all that much as it does with some people. I think its a very well made film and has many classic moments.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: marmota-b on August 11, 2008, 01:39:16 PM
She loved it so much that she bought her own copy and even bought another one for her friend. I hope her friend will like it, too. Let the love for westerns grow! They're indeed not dead yet.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 11, 2008, 03:07:18 PM
She loved it so much that she bought her own copy and even bought another one for her friend. I hope her friend will like it, too. Let the love for westerns grow! They're indeed not dead yet.

And they will never die.  :)


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: marmota-b on August 12, 2008, 12:21:24 AM
Sealed.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 12, 2008, 01:16:13 AM
Sealed.

and delivered.  ;)


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: titoli on May 08, 2009, 09:39:47 AM
 I wonder what the romance is put there for: to attract female viewers or just because american filmakers think that AW must have it because it is supposed to confer a realistic touch? And why a movie must be longer than 2 hours? I think 90' is more than enough. The Costner "Vietnam Vet" character grows with the movie, but it's Duvall who dominates the scenes.  Not as good as Broken Trail but still worth a 7\10.   I'll check Lonesome Dove asap.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: Sonny on May 08, 2009, 04:54:38 PM
I wonder what the romance is put there for: to attract female viewers or just because american filmakers think that AW must have it because it is supposed to confer a realistic touch?

That's something I find very interesting as well.

The Spaghetti western seemed to be directed for the leisure of men, primarily, but perhaps it wasn't something that was done on purpose. Most women find romance in films to be essential, at least so they can enjoy the film, which is why most women don't find spaghetti westerns to be that interesting, seeing as the romantic aspect in SWs is kept to a minimum and many SWs don't even bother with it at all (I've actually talked to some women about this and they agree). So American westerns show a contrast to that, because the film makers acknowledge that their target audience will include a large number of women, and most women who like westerns (including my mother) enjoy American westerns more than they enjoy SWs, and I know that has a lot to do with the romantic element of AWs.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: moviesceleton on May 09, 2009, 02:08:52 AM
Just an idea, but could somebody name a romantic movie where action is included just to please the male audience?


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: Sonny on May 09, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
Just an idea, but could somebody name a romantic movie where action is included just to please the male audience?

I think the question is... what films have a pre-emphasis on romance over action vs. which have a pre-emphasis on action over romance

But naming a few that might fit the first category:

Casablanca
Rear Window
Forrest Gump
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Rebecca





Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 09, 2009, 10:07:33 PM
I think the question is... what films have a pre-emphasis on romance over action vs. which have a pre-emphasis on action over romance

But naming a few that might fit the first category:

Casablanca
Rear Window
Forrest Gump
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Rebecca
I'm not sure "action" is the appropriate word for any of these, with maybe the exception of RW. Interestingly, in that case the love story and the murder detection story parallel and complement each other. But because Jimmy Stewart is temporarily indisposed, the legwork must be done by Grace Kelly. She becomes an action heroine by necessity when she goes into the dragon's lair and struggles with him for possession of the "treasure." Interestingly, Stewart's injury feminizes him in terms of his role. He is the one being threatened when Kelly returns with the police to save him.

I'd actually claim a third category for this film to occupy: one where action and romance are in perfect balance.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: The Firecracker on May 09, 2009, 11:04:50 PM
I'm not sure "action" is the appropriate word for any of these, with maybe the exception of RW.


And FG and CCOBB for the war sequences.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: marmota-b on May 15, 2009, 07:02:53 AM
because it is supposed to confer a realistic touch?

I've always thought it was the other way round...


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: O'Cangaceiro on December 05, 2010, 06:29:47 PM
This is a very well made western. I truly enjoyed watching it.  Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, Anette Bening, Abraham Benrubi, Diego Luna, etc all played great roles. O0

8/10


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 06, 2010, 12:29:44 AM
I like it too but a recent showing brought my attention to a real big problem.
When they leave their cattle out on the range... who's watching them?
They just left the herd there in the middle of a storm?
Did they at least corral them first?
I didn't see any property they had to do so.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: cigar joe on December 06, 2010, 04:11:43 PM
I like it too but a recent showing brought my attention to a real big problem.
When they leave their cattle out on the range... who's watching them?
They just left the herd there in the middle of a storm?
Did they at least corral them first?
I didn't see any property they had to do so.


I think they have a herd instinct to cluster together during storms, if I remember right the big blizzard of 98 or 89 when a lot were killed they were dead in clusters under the drifts.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: The Firecracker on December 07, 2010, 12:19:52 AM
I think they have a herd instinct to cluster together during storms, if I remember right the big blizzard of 98 or 89 when a lot were killed they were dead in clusters under the drifts.


Is it really worth leaving them out there though? Even to avenge a friend?
That was there bread and butter.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: cigar joe on December 07, 2010, 10:15:31 AM
Even on cattle drives the most they would be able to push them was 10-15 miles a day, how far could they actually wander while grazing or even stampede in a storm. I don't think you need much expertize to track a herd. But most people today would know that I suppose.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 21, 2011, 12:06:06 PM
The digital bits is reporting that there's a region free BD edition now out in France. Here's the amazon.fr link: http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001Q8UP5U


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: Spikeopath on July 01, 2017, 06:18:08 AM
Outstanding Oater.

I ain't going to meet my maker without knowing your real name.

It's purely my own opinion of course, but Open Range is a modern day genre classic that stands up to repeat viewings. It's not a flawless Western the Western historians will tell you, and some will pick out the hats or the impact of a rifle to mark the film down, but really we should be embracing a genre piece in the modern age that is clearly being directed with love and respect by the director.

It's story is of course a simply structured tale of the underdog rising up against the fat cats who want it all in the name of tyranny. But on its side is the fact that its characters are so interestingly engaging. Within a short time frame I feel that Kevin Costner manages to put us in the saddle with the main protagonists, we understand these guys without actually knowing them, and that is quite an achievement I feel. The film does flesh them out to enhance the film without boring the pants off the viewer, and it's only come the final reel that you realise you have been engaged in a very human and honest Western film.

Most of the cast do great here, both Robert Duvall & Kevin Costner bounce of each other with moody and world wise aplomb as the two main leads, while in the sole female role of note, Annette Bening is gusto beautiful personified. Sadly it's hard for me to write that Michael Gambon as the villain of the piece is not only underused, but also something of a let down. Such an accomplished actor should know better than to overdo it in the context of this particular story. Yes we get the need for villainy, but gurning and frothing doesn't quite make the grade here. It's a little surprising that director Costner didn't utilise Gambon more wisely.

Still, I say the film is a wondrous experience because it is, a film to have you cheering and booing in equal measure, and in the main the work on it is top dollar. Some of the shots are gorgeous, the framing that Costner uses in close ups is excellent, and the final reel shoot-out ranks as one of the best in Western genre history. So all in all it's a modern day genre piece that actually sits nicely with the best from the golden era. 9/10


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 01, 2017, 02:35:14 PM
I commented on this a while ago also. I really like the shootout at the end, but there's also a great scene where a rainstorm turns the town's streets into rivers. Costner and Duvall are very good.

Quote
Open Range (2003) 7/10. There's one hellacious gunfight in this film, but it takes Costner forever to get to it. And then the aftermath drags on and on. I guess Kevin loved shooting up in Alberta so much he never wanted to stop, and then, because this was a project for TV, he was allowed to cram an hour's worth of material into a two-and-a-half hour cut. Well, it does look very beautiful (although the over-reliance on reflectors becomes annoying). For PQ, the German Blu-ray is the way to go.


Title: Re: Open Range (2003)
Post by: Spikeopath on July 02, 2017, 06:10:31 AM
there's also a great scene where a rainstorm turns the town's streets into rivers.

And a dog gets saved  8)

Cheers for commenting Dave  O0