Rio Bravo
I realize
that I am starting to get overly negative in my reviews. My excuse is that I
try to find both good and bad sides to the movies I watch and therefore end up
with a balanced review, but I am frank enough to admit that sometimes I get
carried away and swoon over a movie or get all negative and maybe that is
beginning to tilt towards the negative. Maybe it that as I move forward in
history the bar is increased and I expect more from the movies I watch. With that
in mind I went into “Rio Bravo” thinking that this is a movie I will like, this
is a movie I should say a lot of positive things about.
It did not
take long however before I started thinking that maybe I had chosen the wrong
movie for my reform. There are so many things here that rubs me the wrong way. Yet
I should be more positive so let me start out in that mode.
“Rio Bravo”
is a pretty movie. The set is clean and iconic and is filmed with style.
Although we keep going around in the same sets they work pretty well and the
colors are nice.
Secondly,
Angie Dickinson as Feathers, a gambler girl who accidentally finds herself in
the small town of Rio Bravo, is real pretty and adds a nice decorative element
to the set.
Thirdly I
love that Dean Martin’s character is called Dude. If I was a western character
I would want to be called Dude.
That is about
it though.
A major
problem with “Rio Bravo” is that it is a backward gazing hodge-podge. It throws
together elements and styles that generally hark back rather than look forward.
As a western it is incredibly old school. A bunch of anonymous henchmen of the
bad guy (John Russell as Nathan Burdette) is laying siege to a small town to
get one of their number, an equally anonymous Joe Burdette (Claude Akins) out
of prison. The defense of the prison is in the hands of a few good and
sympathetic characters headed by John Wayne as Sheriff John T. Chance. This is
like the oldest western cliché in the world. Where “High Noon” took the basic
story and turned it around to something new and exciting, “Rio Bravo” turns it
back into something known and predictable.
“Rio Bravo”
also does not seem to take itself serious. Comedic elements are thrown in with
a very loose hand, but instead of providing release and humor it dilutes the
nerve of the movie and it is just not funny enough to be a comedy as such. For me
a western is either gritty as hell or an outright comedy. The halfway place is
a non-place.
Then there
is the element of Feathers. With or without her this would have been exactly
the same story. The romance between her and Chance is odd, but I can forgive
that. Love is a strange fish. The problem is that it is forced and
fundamentally unnecessary. The reason it is there has nothing to do with the
story, but because somebody decided the story needed a love interest, because,
well, the audience wants such a thing… or do they? Dickinson does a good job at
being a third wheel, but that is essentially what she is.
Howard
Hawks I have always held in high esteem. His back-catalogue is truly impressive.
That is why I was completely baffled by the poor direction the actors are
getting here. Wayne looks like he would rather be somewhere else, the bad guys
look like they were picked from the extra’s queue and what was that with Ricky
Nelson as Colorado, the young gunslinger? Rarely have I witnessed a worse
casting. Completely unbelievable and very poorly directed. What was Hawks
thinking? Again it feels as if somebody decided that this movie needed a teenage
idol for the girls to moan over and to hell with it if he did not fit into the
movie.
Which
brings us to the songs… come on…
A hodge-podge,
that is what it is. If you asked a computer to cook up a western from elements
producers would think the audience would like you could get something like Rio
Bravo. Disjointed and bland and insincere.
Well, all
this may be less important if I enjoyed watching it, but at 135 minutes it
creeps along too slowly to ever get me out of the chair and even the final show
down, the piece de resistance of the movie, fizzles and never really turns
interesting.
I know, I
know, I promised to be positive. I am really sorry, that will have to be next
time. I promise.
If you ever revisit this, watch High Noon with it. John Wayne intended this to be his answer to High Noon, a movie he hated.
ReplyDeleteI don't hate Rio Bravo, but it's not as good as High Noon, and isn't as good at despite being considerably longer.
It was High Noon I had in mind when I watched this and perhaps that is unfair to Rio Bravo. On almost every account that is a better movie. It is economic and to the point, everything makes sense and help explain the situation and it is clearly an intelligent movie. On all those accounts Rio Bravo falls short. There is so much unnecessary filler here, critical elements are never explained and while I would not go as far as saying it is stupid, it certainly does not convey that sense that this is a carefully thought out movie.
DeleteHigh Noon was a response to the McCarthy witchhunt and as an answer to that Rio Bravo emphasize all the values it sees as true patriotic values. The problem there is that it makes the movie look pathetic and counter intuitive.
I liked this a little more than you, but I agree about it being a throw-back. After High Noon, you can't go back. It didn't feel as cinematic as previous Westerns I've seen; not enough beautiful sweeping vistas for me!
ReplyDeleteI think I missed that too. Those big sweeps that makes you long to be there.
DeleteIt feels very conservative, very safe and thereforre ultimately dull.
We spoke on this one before, and I was surprised Rio Bravo had the look of a stage play. Tarantino's western Hateful Eight was inspired by the talky style. Both films I felt had too much dialogue.
ReplyDeleteDialogue does not bother me, really. I like talky movies. The problem for me with Rio Bravo is that it piles so much irelevant stuff onto the movie that it points in all directions and loses focus.
DeleteTo me, Rio Bravo could have benefited from a rewrite and cutting out needless dialogue. But maybe that's the charm of the film for some viewers, that the characters are verbose and there is irelevant stuff.
ReplyDeleteThat is true. I suspect the producers used a public survey on what the audience want in a movie and then tried to stuff everything in, fitting or not.
Delete