Hello Westheads,
This is the 2nd entry in Project: 100 Westerns. Where I, a man with many creative responsibilities, attempt to watch 100 Westerns in about a year. Ambitious, or stupid? Both? You decide!
As stated before, there’s no particular rhyme or reason to my picks. I just scroll through one the many streaming apps and if something seems Western enough I hit “Play”. If you have suggestions on can’t-miss movies in the genre, let me know!
#4. Five For Revenge (1966)
A patient, choppy Spaghetti Western with a simple premise: After Jim Lattimore is murdered by his Mexican in-laws, a group of five men gather to enact revenge.
Guy Madison stars and Aldo Florio directs in what is a roughly edited late-bloomer of a movie. A lot of Five for Revenge, alternatively titled Five Giants from Texas, is told between the (poorly dubbed) dialogue. It’s very deliberate piece, at times forcing the viewer to stew in the nastiness of this affair, from the murders to the rapes to the torture to the severe and twangy soundtrack.
First off: the sound direction is not good. Too much stop and go, too many jolts of volume. There seems to have been an intent to create suspense with the horns and toots but coupled with some ragged jump-cuts it leaves the viewer jarred. It’s pretty apparent this is Florio’s first attempt at directing.
The then-budding Western trope of using a number to spice up your title draws you in, but what’s funny is the “”Five” are a quintet of the chillest dudes in the Old West. The Five work in relative quiet coordination, they greet each other with looks and nods, direct each other with intuition and familiarity. We have little idea of the nature of the apparent bloodpact between them all. They come in different shapes and skin tones but they’re a unit. It’s cool on paper, but nonchalant revenge-seekers taking care of biz doesn’t pop on the screen.
Despite the poster’s promise, Madison’s shirt remains on for the duration of the flick. The former Wild Bill Hickok is adequate in this, confused-looking mostly, like the character doesn’t understand the world’s violence. He sort of moves like the Terminator, completing each terrible task until the revenge mission is complete. Though he forms a little bit of chemistry with Jim’s gorgeous widow, Rosalita (Mónica Randall), it’s essentially dressing for a murderous affair.
What pulls the movie together is the bullet barrage at the end. The lulls and valleys of the first and second act set up the payoff of the finale’s mayhem. It’s not like total fireworks of blood or anything but the familiar festivity of a SW emerges when John and dem boys walk into the lair of the Gonzales Bros and start lighting up background actors. John’s showdown with the film’s big bad is probably the best bit of the whole affair.
Ultimately: It’s a movie that punishes you, then throws a big ugly, fun party at the end.
#5. El Diablo (1990)
Comedy Westerns are a hard sell. It’s already hard enough being funny, so setting a story in a certain time or place is a whole other bundle of complications. Blazing Saddles did it well but that was flash-in-the-pan success with some all-timer writing and performances. El Diablo never had a chance, in that regard.
You’ll see this movie floating around HBO (app and channel) from time to time. I never really gave it much consideration until I saw the cast list:
Louis Gossett Jr., Anthony Edwards, Joe Pantoliano, John Glover, Robert Beltran, Jim Beaver, Branscombe Richmond, Miguel Sandoval. It’s a robust lineup of guys who’ll have you shouting “Hey, it’s whatshisnuts!” at your screen.
This made-for-TV movie is actually a lot more sleek and well-produced than you’d expect. The sets and locales are authentic and there doesn’t seem to be too much of an issue with budget-related matters. The acting is more than good. When this was made the cast was probably considered second and third-tier talents, but I think most of us now understand that the career actors of TV land are some of the most skilled in the trade.
Maybe the most interesting tidbit about this movie is that it’s a rework of a John Carpenter script. That’s sort of fascinating because you can sense maybe some of the master’s fingerprints on this movie: it’s a bit morbid and matter-of-fact, the characters are seedy and action-oriented, but it’s simply unlike anything from his body of work. The script (with input from Tommy Lee Wallace and Bill Phillips) is just OK, there’s nothing surprising or fantastic going on plotwise, but it hits all the vital beats.
The real jewel is Gossett Jr. as Thomas Van Leek. A sort of bummy gunslinger, he assists the main character, Billy Ray (Edwards) in trying to take down the notorious woman-abducting El Diablo (Beltran). They (very quickly) assemble a ragtag group of ne’er-do-wells and then tumble into a final violent confrontation. Gossett is a real delight in his every scene. He’s untrustworthy but charming, clever but simple. Van Leek is well past his prime yet perfectly built for the “real” West, relating to Billy Ray, “I ain’t as fast as I was, but I cheat real good.”
The rest of the cast carries this along pretty well. Edwards struggles as the lead even though he plays the buffoonish antihero as intended. Others, like Glover as a swindling preacher, and Pantoliano, playing a dainty dime novel writer – aggressively against his career archetype – do enough to push the scenes along.
My main takeaway: There’s a few mentions to the idea that a Western “hero” like Van Leek is not palatable to the late 1800s audience Joey Pants’ character writes for, but that theme applies to this movie’s focus too. Gossett Jr. should’ve got way more screen time, he was great.
If you’re trying to milk that MAX subscription this movie may be worth the hour-forty-five runtime. Ultimately though, it’s not funny or clever enough to succeed in the Comedy Western genre, despite being a decent enough Western. Without the right tone, the savagery of the genre is hard to square with laughter. I mean, the plot impetus for this one is the abduction of a schoolgirl and the movie sort of glosses over the apparent rape and trauma perpetrated by El Diablo. Hah, crimes!
#6. The Wonderful Country (1959)
First, the movie looks incredible. Wowee. The location team earned their dollar, definitely. The vistas, valleys and views of The Wonderful Country superbly showcase the terrain of the US-Mexico border. Director Robert Parrish, a filmmaker sired by several roles, knows where to place the camera.
As much as I can tell you what I saw, I cannot really tell you what I watched. The movie is a thin broth stew of underdeveloped ideas and erratic character movement. It’s a de facto love story: expatriate Martin Brady (Robert Mitchum) enters into a flirty jig with a Major’s bored wife (Julie London)…and then moseys into something of an antihero tale. It’s murky.
Though the choice of accent is questionable, Mitchum brings some of that patented noir coolness to the role of Brady. Having fled his home country following the murder of his father’s killer, Brady is now a chillax pistolero working for power-hungry Mexican brothers. He doesn’t seem too emotionally invested in anything, but brightens when in the company of Helen Colton. Before they can get to know each other too intimately, the plot yanks him back to Mexico, putting Brady in soft peril until it appears he’s again on the path to (mild) redemption and (implied) happiness.
That’s sorta it. The spark between the two leads barely flickers as their screen time is limited by the other pieces of the plot. There’s an Army/Apache fight in there that sort of rips through a scene, and Satchel Paige (playing a soldier) saunters in randomly as well, just to give the movie a quirky footnote. This was the era of pumping out Westerns for cinema fodder, so it makes sense some came out undercooked.
The bones of a good film are in there somewhere but there’s not enough meat to really make it worth the venture. However, if you like Michum or London, it may be worth a viewing, they both give adequate performances.
#7. There Will Be Blood (2007)
For me, the Western genre can be bifurcated into two broad categories: “Actual” Westerns: Cowboys, wagons, cattle, vengeance, revolvers, vistas composed of dust, grass or snow, etc. And the counterpart, “spiritual” Western, which takes a few of these elements and imprints them onto a movie about something else. It’s a spectrum of course, more an inverted bell curve – most Westerns, actual or spiritual, are clearly defined.
So which type of Western is There Will Be Blood?
TWBB (much like its spiritual predecessor, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre) exists just inside the membrane of actual Westerns. Primarily set in 1911 California, the film is an intense examination of greed and determination in mid-American history. Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is an “oilman”, a hawkish energy magnate on a quest to tame the earth and milk her resources. As we follow the most important years of his career, we also witness his questionable parenting of an adopted son, his quirkily adversarial relationship with a small-town preacher and the terrible lengths he’ll go to acclimate wealth.
We rarely see the appearance of “robber barons” in the Western genres. Their little cousin, the “town boss”, the wealthy figure controlling a community, are a staple of the actual Western. However, the dukes of 19th century America don’t get much attention, despite names like Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Morgan shaping the nation’s history. In fact, you’ll more likely see a movie (1937’s Wells Fargo) praising these folks rather than scrutinizing them
It’s after the wildness of the West is tamed that men like Plainview swooped in and soaked the raw vitality straight from the ground. TWBB is about the exploitation of the American frontier and its denizens, swindled into social contracts under the guise of shared prosperity. Plainview knows he’s dealing with the “common clay” yet molds it unapologetically, and doesn’t meet opposition until a similarly cunning manipulator throws a few firecrackers at his feet.
It doesn’t hurt that I really love the movie, which I consider one of the finest of the ‘00s. I understand it’s not to everyone’s tastes, it’s narrowly-plotted with a noisy soundtrack, pale tones and a grouchy theme. Still, director Paul Thomas Anderson is brilliant at framing and pacing a film, and Day-Lewis is an absolute force in an all-time role (though I do prefer Bill the Butcher a tad more). Paul Dano is fantastic as well.
Why wouldn’t the Western genre want to claim this movie? It’s great, and a haunting sequel to the Wild West chapter of American history.
That is it for this 2nd entry of Project: One Hundred Westerns, see you next week with another installment, and be sure to check back February 3rd, 2025 for a new comic.
Westward!
~Jamil
