|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 3, 2021 2:25:25 GMT
A Western about a lawman, if you didn't guess.
Lancaster plays the title character. Robert Ryan plays another lawman.
Some cowboys whoop it up, and one mean cowboy kills someone. The entire group is hunted down by Lancaster.
It sounds a bit like HANG EM HIGH, except it's the total opposite. HANG EM HIGH had a great script with totally motivated characters in an all big name star cast.
LAWMAN has a ridiculously poor script with absolutely no motivated characters aside from a few cowboys, in an all big name star cast.
And that's the big problem. The script and the lack of motivation. There is zero motivation for anything the protagonist does. But this isn't unusual for Lancaster. He's been in some decent movies, but when you look at his roles, you see a total lack of any motivation. There just isn't any motivation except for reading of poor lines in over half of Lancaster's movies. I won't be controversial about his, but there's no way to deny that's the case in Castle Keep, Ulzana's Raid, The Hallelujah Trail, and Vera Cruz. He just plays thugs reading lines. You would think a big star would have more say in his roles.
But in most of those other movies, he's surrounded by motivated characters. Here, the only motivation seems to be in Robert Duvall's character, and maybe two or three others. Robert Ryan emotes, but there's nothing in his lines to emote. It's just a pathetic Hollywood script that takes no risks and gives us nothing fresh. It defines "formula". It's tedious and it's trite, especially for 1971 when all we got was this motif of forcing dull, unmotivated, uninspired thugs down our throats.
The plot is total Hollywood, so there's entertainment, but it's quite empty. The ending is a groaner in the way we're supposed to accept some really trite Hollywood contrivances. If you haven't seen it, be prepared for the most ridiculous and contrived ending you will ever see. There is no credibility of character in the five biggest roles.
Not overly depressing, not overly dull, just stupid. The dialog is stupid and the characters have no credibility. This is how not to write a script. 3/10
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Sept 3, 2021 2:35:24 GMT
It does just plod along but the presence of Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan, and Lee J Cobb make it a 5/10 for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Sept 3, 2021 9:47:06 GMT
This is a great film. I don’t know why you say there is a lack of character motivation. This is nothing but character motivation. It is a complex, perceptive character study.
Lee J Cobb, Robert Ryan, Albert Salmi and Richard Jordan all had very real characters, among about twenty more. I don’t know what you’re smoking.
8.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 3, 2021 22:52:54 GMT
This is a great film. I don’t know why you say there is a lack of character motivation. This is nothing but character motivation. It is a complex, perceptive character study. Lee J Cobb, Robert Ryan, Albert Salmi and Richard Jordan all had very real characters, among about twenty more. I don’t know what you’re smoking. 8.5/10 I don't know why you say there is character motivation where there is none. I'll grant Duvall's character is motivated. And the poor coward is motivated, Maybe a few townspeople and cowhands, but there's none in Lancaster or Ryan whatsoever. It's just reading lines. Ryan is a good enough actor to fool the ignorant masses with an attempt to sell his character, but Lancaster does nothing to make his character interesting or motivated. Cotton (Ryan) gets upset when a man tries to shoot Lancaster in the back. He goes ballistic. Something about back shooting disturbs him. Like that's worse than being a professional gun hand who kills face to face. Makes no sense at all. Nothing complex about that. It's just rambling. Then, at the end, Cotton does nothing when Lancaster murders a man by shooting him in the back while he's running away. Cotton just looks on. He went nuts when someone was going to shoot a man in the back who was looking for gun play, but not when it was someone who was running from guns. You can be unreal and say that's complex all you want, but it's not complex, just totally unmotivated. It can only be attributed to Tourette's Syndrome as a motivation, so we have a bunch of characters with Tourette's syndrome. That's the only possible explanation. They're as credibly motivated as Donald Trump firing one woman for not speaking up and then a second one for speaking up. There's no "complexity". Just irrational mumbo jumbo for the crack heads who want to enforce the rule of "uninspired is cool". Heck, if we just call every irrational, unprovoked line or action "complex", we may as well call everything "complex". There's no "character" in the rambling of LAWMAN.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Sept 3, 2021 22:55:30 GMT
Great movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Sept 4, 2021 3:26:20 GMT
This is a great film. I don’t know why you say there is a lack of character motivation. This is nothing but character motivation. It is a complex, perceptive character study. Lee J Cobb, Robert Ryan, Albert Salmi and Richard Jordan all had very real characters, among about twenty more. I don’t know what you’re smoking. 8.5/10 I don't know why you say there is character motivation where there is none. I'll grant Duvall's character is motivated. And the poor coward is motivated, Maybe a few townspeople and cowhands, but there's none in Lancaster or Ryan whatsoever. It's just reading lines. Ryan is a good enough actor to fool the ignorant masses with an attempt to sell his character, but Lancaster does nothing to make his character interesting or motivated. Cotton (Ryan) gets upset when a man tries to shoot Lancaster in the back. He goes ballistic. Something about back shooting disturbs him. Like that's worse than being a professional gun hand who kills face to face. Makes no sense at all. Nothing complex about that. It's just rambling. Then, at the end, Cotton does nothing when Lancaster murders a man by shooting him in the back while he's running away. Cotton just looks on. He went nuts when someone was going to shoot a man in the back who was looking for gun play, but not when it was someone who was running from guns. You can be unreal and say that's complex all you want, but it's not complex, just totally unmotivated. It can only be attributed to Tourette's Syndrome as a motivation, so we have a bunch of characters with Tourette's syndrome. That's the only possible explanation. They're as credibly motivated as Donald Trump firing one woman for not speaking up and then a second one for speaking up. There's no "complexity". Just irrational mumbo jumbo for the crack heads who want to enforce the rule of "uninspired is cool". Heck, if we just call every irrational, unprovoked line or action "complex", we may as well call everything "complex". There's no "character" in the rambling of LAWMAN. Yeah, back shooting is considered an extremely low act. It’s perfectly understandable. But several men against one also defies the code. Ryan wouldn’t have approved of Maddox’ backshooting anyway but to be as upset about it in the final showdown compared to someone shooting from a hotel room at someone during a quiet night? Big difference. I think it was good to show Maddox backshooting that guy. It shows Maddox’ infallibility. I also think it invites debate as to why he did it and the implications. Ryan’s motivations are realistic. He is a talented gunman who lost the stomach for it. He grew up. It is after all a very distasteful business. Lancaster’s Maddox is the only character who can kill consistently. Much dialogue in the film provides various perspectives on why this is. I say the film is complex because I genuinely think it merits further discussion. Only one of the men would have shot the old man at the beginning of the film. Should they all really go back with the Sheriff? What of Lee J Cobb and Albert Salmi, who were sober and not partaking in the shooting? What of Cobb’s son and his friend, Richard Jordan, who weren’t even there? Have you never met somebody be like Maddox? You may say his motivation isn’t expanded but it’s because he’s already relatable. Someone who will do what is tasked to them dutifully even when it becomes impractical? Maybe you can relate to Maddox a little. He is also a western trope, or an inversion of one. A sheriff who is dogged in his fight for justice. He is hated for this too. This seems very realistic. Shoot outs in the old west weren’t as common as cinema makes it out to be. A sheriff who behave like Maddox are going to be viewed with revulsion. It’s an interesting take on a lawman who is just doing his job. It’s probably not an original take, but as I’m only familiar with 70’s westerns, it is for me. There is substance there. It’s not a Tarantino film in which case your arguments would have merit. But if you view Lawman in that way, I understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Hurdy Gurdy Man on Sept 4, 2021 3:53:06 GMT
An entire post without a single reference to Beavis and Butthead?? You ought to watch it or you will lose your silken touch, dry.
|
|
|
|
Post by darksidebeadle on Sept 4, 2021 4:37:10 GMT
7/10
|
|
