New movie: Hostiles

[FifteensAway]

Finally got to see Hostiles today.  Decent movie, decent cinematography, decent acting, decent scenery (actually, the best part of the movie), okay story.  Curious as to why so many people walked out.  Might have been the pacing, a bit slow for tastes accustomed to a barrel of gasoline blowing up every few seconds.

While I'm glad I saw it and if you like westerns definitely go see it - I'm ambivalent about whether I'd buy it to watch it many times over.  That is my basic yardstick.  I guess I have to digest it for awhile.

[bandit86]

It was just OK,  Good cast and acting but just OK

[FifteensAway]

Upon reflection, I think part of what 'bothered' me was that several highly talented cast members were barely used in the movie - Wes Studi, Adam Beach, and Q'Orianka Pilcher, especially the latter two.  Perhaps it is a sign of difficult times for real actors getting work in movies with anything 'real' about them as opposed to the vast numbers of 'cartoons' with real people in them (I'm looking at you, super hero fluff).

And there is also an issue with poorly developed story lines - or more mixed story lines - the darkly moody officer of Christian Bale and the tortured woman by Rosamund Pike gets side-tracked by the Ben Foster criminal story (another poorly used talent).

However, setting that aside, it was visually a good movie - I especially liked the realistic portrayal of the bullet belts with many loops empty of cartridges.

Though having Comanches on the warpath in the early 1890's seemed really out of place, ditto the Chiricahua.  By then, Wounded Knee was history - pretty much the last notable native American action.  And then the miners camp and mountain men - again, out of place in the 1892 setting.

Of course, the real blame probably lies with the author of the book the movie is based on (?).

I'm afraid I see this movie struggling to recover its costs.

But, for fans of westerns, again, I still say go see it.

[Hupp n at em]

I really enjoyed it.  I actually liked some of the things others have noted as shortcomings - fewer lines of dialogue, slow pace, and no drawn-out side stories.  I guess the stylistic sameness of recent Hollywood has me appreciating the differences in this one. 

I disagree about poorly developed or mixed storylines.  Too many movies these days sprawl into a three hour nonsense mess in trying to spell out some bit character's life story (cue man-babies crying about Snoke, the cartoon villain who didn't get a detailed backstory - oh, the horror!  .  I thought Ben Foster's character served his purpose perfectly - he gives us more info on the main character (Bale) and his past, and his embrace of hatred to shirk any guilt serves as a foil to Bale's reflection and inner conflict, and also galvanizes Bale's character development on those lines. Not sure how you can call that side-tracking!

[FifteensAway]

Hupp's point on Foster's character has some validity.

However!  It hit me - and hard - why this movie doesn't work so well, and probably why so many people walked out.  There is NO central antagonist for the hero to battle.  And that makes his character weaker in the eyes of the audience.  Yes, he battles various forces but there is no tangible through-line adversary.  And, sorry, his bad memories aren't adequate to sustain a movie.  Yes, the demons combat soldiers carry are very real and deserving of our attention - but bad memories don't make a villain.  

Damn, why'd it take me so long to get this!  I should know better.

For an excellent counter point, witness Appaloosa, the Jeremy Iron's character is there from the opening scene of the movie and is critical to carrying the movie through to its ending - and Viggo's character is the real hero and that is why he vanquishes the bad guy in the end.

[Hupp n at em]

However!  It hit me - and hard - why this movie doesn't work so well, and probably why so many people walked out.  There is NO central antagonist for the hero to battle.  And that makes his character weaker in the eyes of the audience.  Yes, he battles various forces but there is no tangible through-line adversary.  And, sorry, his bad memories aren't adequate to sustain a movie.  Yes, the demons combat soldiers carry are very real and deserving of our attention - but bad memories don't make a villain.  

While I don't think that is necessarily a fault of the movie, I think you're right on the money that absent a strong villain to latch onto, it will lose a lot of people.  The obvious remedy to that using the existing characters in the movie is to swap his sergeant buddy and Ben Foster's character, but I'm not sure that makes it a better or more enjoyable movie.  I think more substantial restructuring and rewriting would be necessary to get a solid villain.

[Johnno]

Its only playing at 10:10pm at my local cinema and not even at the nearby multiplex. Looks like I'll catch it sometime on Blu-Ray

[guitarheroandy]

Though having Comanches on the warpath in the early 1890's seemed really out of place, ditto the Chiricahua.  By then, Wounded Knee was history - pretty much the last notable native American action.  And then the miners camp and mountain men - again, out of place in the 1892 setting.

I didn't think of that as 'Comanches on the warpath', more like a bunch of outlaws/renegades who happened to be Comanches, just being 'outlaw-ish', killing folks and nicking stuff. Their attire, which was very much 'white man clothes' confirmed that for me. That, plus the fact that the group was very small, made it less 'Indians on the warpath' and more 'a bunch of renegades'.
While large-scale war had completely ceased on the plains and in the Southwest, who is to say that the odd renegade individual or small renegade group wouldn't cause small-scale localised trouble occasionally?

[Hupp n at em]

I didn't think of that as 'Comanches on the warpath', more like a bunch of outlaws/renegades who happened to be Comanches, just being 'outlaw-ish', killing folks and nicking stuff. Their attire, which was very much 'white man clothes' confirmed that for me. That, plus the fact that the group was very small, made it less 'Indians on the warpath' and more 'a bunch of renegades'.
While large-scale war had completely ceased on the plains and in the Southwest, who is to say that the odd renegade individual or small renegade group wouldn't cause small-scale localised trouble occasionally?

Yeah it reminded me of the game Red Dead Redemption, the villain of the last chapter has been recruiting young disgruntled natives off of the reservations into brigandry.

[MGH]

A wargaming buddy and I saw it Wednesday and both of us give it a thumbs-up. It is relentlessly grim though but the scenery and costuming are excellent, I liked all the acting and cast. No one walked out in the viewing we attended but then there were only about a dozen present, probably die hard western fans like my friend and I.

[FifteensAway]

I did find one historical Apache raid after this movie time frame in 1896 I think.  And then there was something around 1921. 

It's gaming so we can use whatever license we want for our games - but I still thing the movie was too much of a stretch in far too many ways.  Glad to see it getting improved box office numbers but it is never going to turn a profit.  Reported production cost of $50 million means it has to get to probably $120 million to reach break even, probably more depending on marketing campaign costs.  Looking like it might struggle to $20 million box office and maybe total revenue of $25 million from all sources, absolute tops will probably be $30 million - but that is a long shot.  But those credibility stretches are a huge part of the problem for the average audience who probably already is misinformed on the Old West's realities.  Thus the financial struggles of the film.  Too bad, it could have very easily been a much, much better movie.  Don't know where the fault lies, but it spent too much time on Bale's character's 'moodiness' shots, needed some but really needed more 'meat' and less 'potatoes'.

Being such a big fan of the Old West and, like others, impressed with the visual elements, I'll probably end up buying the DVD when it comes out.  But it's only going to be people like us who really care who are going to appreciate the better elements of the movie.

And because of that appreciation lies my disappointment, such a financial bust makes the next western a much harder sell in Hollywood.

[Hupp n at em]

And because of that appreciation lies my disappointment, such a financial bust makes the next western a much harder sell in Hollywood.

This is why I wouldn't have minded a more traditional "villain" opposite Bale, despite my enjoying the movie.  I want more Westerns!

[vodkafan]

This doesn't seem to have played at our local cinema at all, but I will buy this on DVD.

[guitarheroandy]

I did find one historical Apache raid after this movie time frame in 1896 I think.  And then there was something around 1921. 

There are a few incidents involving conflict between Native Americans and the USA after 1890:

1890 The Cherry Creek Campaign: It was part of a larger campaign beginning in 1889 to round up Apaches who had left the reservation, including The Apache Kid and an ex-scout called Massai. One minor skirmish resulting in the death or capture of all hostiles.

1896 Apache Campaign: Minor skirmishes with little result.
It is alleged by at least one author that violence between isolated Apaches and white American and Mexican settlers occurred into the 1930s, but the US Army didn't get involved after the 1896 campaign, with civilian posses taking the lead.

1898 Battle of Leech Point, Minnesota: US 3rd Infantry vs Chippewa renegades

1907: Four Corners Arizona. 5th Cavalry vs Navajos

1909: Crazy Snake Rebellion, Oklahoma: Creeks vs Settlers (civilian posse)

1911: Chaco canyon, Arizona: US cavalry vs Navajos

1911: Washoe County Nevada: US Posse vs Shoshone and Bannocks

1914-15: Bluff War: Utes vs Mormon colonists

1918: Battle of Bear Valley, Arizona: US Cavalry vs Yaqui Indians

1923: Posey War, Utah: Ute and Paiute Indians vs Mormon colonists

So the notion of the renegades in the movie is at least grounded in some kind of historical fact...

[FifteensAway]

Revisiting older threads and checked this one out and went to look at how much Hostiles grossed and looks to be, all told, a tad over $40 million, that is $10 million below production cost and then there was the marketing cost which would have been at least half the $50 million budget so the movie lost at least $35 million dollars or there about.  That puts it on a dubious list (but there are movies on that list I love like Sahara with Matthew McConnaghey (sp) - love that move, especially the sidekick character and the lead actress is pretty good, too.  And, yes, I did buy the dvd and watch it from time to time - even with its flaws, it kind of grows on you.