The Long Riders
|
List Price: Our Price: $5.96 You Save: $9.02 (60%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.75 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Long Riders
Movie Review: Very believable - but not sure historically accurate
Summary: 4 Stars
I very much enjoyed this movie; and, the fact that the actors were in real life related, added some measure of believability to this movie. Not too sure if it is historically accurate however, but, I would definitely recommend it to any one interested in mid-19th century westerns that, for the most part, have their premise on historical figures that actually existed.Movie Review: Great!
Summary: 4 Stars
This is as close to the truth as legends can ever be.Movie Review: "You're both crazy, but you do keep me amused. "
Summary: 3 Stars
I'm not much of a history buff, so I really couldn't tell you how much factual detail is contained within the film The Long Riders (1980), but in terms of a great western film, it falls a bit shy. Perhaps my expectations were too high, but given the amount of talent involved I expected a little more than what I got. Don't get me wrong, this is still a pretty good film, but it could have been better. Directed by Walter Hill (Hard Times, 48 Hrs.), the film features a number of Hollywood siblings including James and Stacy Keach (both of whom share writing credits for this film), David, Keith, and Robert Carradine, and Dennis and Randy Quaid. Also appearing is Christopher and Nicholas Guest along with Pamela Reed (Chattahoochee, Kindergarten Cop) and James Remar (The Warriors, 48 Hrs.).
The film is set shortly after the American Civil War, and follows the exploits of the James/Younger gang, comprised of Jesse (James Keach) and Frank (Stacy Keach) James, Cole (David Carradine), Jim (Keith Carradine), and Bob (Robert Carradine) Younger, and Ed (Dennis Quaid) and Clell (Randy Quaid) Miller (whew!). The film follows not so much a straightforward plot like we would normally expect in a film, but a series of what were probably actual, documented events, occurring over a decent span of time, strung together to relate the relative rise and subsequent fall (at the hands of the Pinkertons, among others) of some of the most famous outlaw (or infamous, however you look at it) figures in American history.
I thought the use of real life brothers (apparently Jeff and Beau Bridges were originally approached to play Jesse and Frank James, but couldn't due to scheduling conflicts) to depict the characters within the film was somewhat inspired, but then I couldn't help wonder if it was also a marketing tactic (it didn't feel like it)...either way, it worked, sort of...I guess I expected more `connectivity' between these real life brothers to come through on the screen. There was some of this, but not as much as I would have thought, and I think it had something to do with the limitations within the script. All the relationships seemed to be shown with a minimalist view, and not explored as much as I would have liked. I thought most of the actors did well, but James Keach seemed an unlikely choice for Jesse James...I guess I'm used to seeing him in more comedic roles, like in films like Cannonball (1976) or Moving Violations (1985). Here his serious, dramatic portrayal comes through pretty flavorless, and hardly instilled the belief that he was the brains of the operation. The story never really goes into the origins of the gang, other than they all seemed to come from Missouri, but does go into a bit of detail with regards to various crimes they committed, and the fate of each of the members. The makers of the film seemed to focus a lot of attention on detail, specifically regarding the look and feel of the film (costumes, sets, music, etc.), but I felt something missing within the characters. I think it was because the film takes place over a good period of time (in one scene we see a particular character courting a woman, another scene they're getting married, and yet another scene they have what appears to be a toddler), and doesn't delve into a great amount of specifics pertaining to particular events, instead loosely relating many events. Sometimes the passage of time is obvious, but other times its' not. One thing I did notice was that the film didn't appear to try and glamorize the outlaws, but rather tried to show them in a relatively realistic manner...it was apparent in the film that the divide between the North and the South didn't end with the war, as the Southerners generally viewed the gang with a sympathetic eye (especially since the gang seemed intent on only stealing from companies or institutions with Northern ties), and the Northerners, basically represented by the Pinkerton agents, were interested in upholding the law, with, perhaps an underlying motive of quashing any rebellious types still stinging over the South's loss, using it as a justification to commit criminal activities (that last part is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth). Overall the direction was good, but Hill made some odd choices, in my opinion. The use of `wipes' to transition from scene to scene felt out of place, and stuck out in my mind. It's not an uncommon technique, but it just didn't seem appropriate for the material (I think a `fade out, fade in' tactic would have worked better). Also, the use of slow motion in some of the action scenes might not have been my first choice, but then again it's easy to play armchair director. I guess I am just more accustomed to seeing this type of tactic used in a more modern setting. I did like the action sequences (although it seemed like an awful lot of people kept getting shot in the shoulder), and the big finale near the end is worth sticking around for, if you don't mind lengthy periods of inactivity (these periods consisted of somewhat shallow scenes showing key members of the gang pursuing aspects of a normal life, i.e. marriage, family, etc.).
The wide screen anamorphic picture (1:85.1) looks very clean and clear on this DVD, and the Dolby Digital 2.0 Mono audio comes through very well. There are Spanish and French subtitles available, but, alas, none for English...special features include a theatrical trailer and that's it...all in all this is a decent release of a very solid, slightly flawed film.
Cookieman108
Movie Review: The Brothers Grim
Summary: 3 Stars
`The Long Riders' was full of potential to be a great movie. It was the first film about the James Gang to strip them of their Robin Hood myth, and that alone was enough to make it promising. Then, it used actual sets of acting brothers to portray the James, Younger, Miller, and Ford brother - a truly intriguing touch. Its action scene were brilliantly done, and it paid scrupulous attention to all the little details of dress, equipment, and furnishings to create an authentic 19th century atmosphere. Finally, it had a truly outstanding soundtrack created by Ry Cooder. `The Long Riders" had all of this going for it, and still it managed to fall flat.
There were several reasons why this movie did not fulfill its potential. One has to do with context. The movie strips away the myth that Jesse and the boys were Robin Hoods; good boys driven to crime by the devil Yankee railroad barons and demon Yankee bankers, and only stealing to even the balances, but then does not address at all what did motivate their violent careers. The criminal career of the James/Younger gang was nearly an unbroken extension of their war time raids as Rebel Bushwhackers, and it is impossible to have any kind of an understanding of them without this context. The movie covered a broad period of time, chronicling several of their crimes, the robbery that broke the gang - all the way to Jesse's death; by not including any scenes of their war time career, it felt like the opening chapter had been jettisoned for no good reason.
The primary cause of this film's failure, however, was in its tone. The historic outlaws were wild young men - full of bravado and a love for the wild life. In the `The Long Riders' version, the actors maintained a constant grim attitude; they brought the same faces to the gambling table, bar, and brothel that they brought to a funeral. We get no sense of their joy and excitement in their youth and lawlessness. David Carradine's Cole Younger showed some genuine wildness, but it was the wildness of a man angry at the world rather than the thrill of living on the edge. James Keach as Jesse James was the very worst. History tells us that Jesse was a clever, good humored, self promoter, and that he rose above his outlaw peers in fame on the strength of his personable nature and fast talk. Jesse James as played here by Keach is dour, humorless (he went the entire movie without a smile), silent, and rather dull. There is nothing in his performance that hints at why Jesse became a legend, or why others would follow him. This grim approach to portraying the outlaws robbed the movie of the verve that might have made it gel
`The Long Riders' has enough virtues that you may still want to view it, by I strongly recommend that you rent rather than buy. File this one under "what could have been", and move on.
Theo Logos
Movie Review: Hell, no! I'm Bob Younger. Jesse James rides with the Youngers. Now, stop the damn train!
Summary: 3 Stars
I came across the Long Riders while exploring Walter Hill's more cult oriented films like Hard Times, Streets of Fire and the Warriors. I've also been exploring the western as a genre and was curious to see a more modern filmmaker take a crack at one. I was intrigued by the gimmick of casting so many groups of real life brothers (the two Keach's as the James Brothers, the two Quaids as the Millers, the three Carradine's as the Younger gang, and the unlikely Guest Brothers as the Fords), and was a little afraid that it would distract my attention from the film. In fact this stunt casting worked perfectly for me as there was an immediate shorthand between the siblings that made the characters rich without having to spend much time fleshing them out. There's also a surprising lack of ego, with all actors getting pretty equal screentime.
Walter Hill borrows some of the visual panache in the Long Riders from the unglorified anti-violence of Sam Peckinpah, but the film is much more rooted in the 80s style of filmmaking. In fact, I'd say that this flick is the cinematic forefather of films like Young Guns and Tombstone, placing an importance on revisionist history, style and a flair for an extremely entertaining narrative over sticking to genre conventions or the strict facts. That isn't to say that's a bad thing, quite the contrary. As for its impact on Young Guns, it's surprising how many of little flourishes it borrows from the Long Riders. In the final bank robbery gone bad, Hill utilizes a really striking effect in the sound effects of the bullets zipping across the screen. Whenever a shot is going to connect, there's a special zooming build up to the moment when the bullet strikes that's really stylistic and memorable. Young Guns takes this wholesale in its final sequence as well.
Al in all the film plays a little slow, but my only real complaint is that the score can be very distracting at times, drowning out the dialogue and wrecking the intended tone of some of the scenes. There's also a extraneous bit of plot that finds Cole Younger traveling down to Texas to find his on again, off again prostitute lover that ends up in a very goofy knife match between David Carradine and James Remar, complete with a sash gripped between their teeth to keep them within striking distance. It's very heavy handed and doesn't do much for fleshing out Carradine's already intriguing portrayal of Cole Younger. I think anyone who is a fan of Spaghetti Westerns, the more stylistic entries into the genre of the late 80s, early 90s, or Any of Hills more cultish work will really enjoy this flick.