"Hostiles" /Scott Cooper

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by Babe_Ruth

Mike, Informative post; thanks.

What were your thoughts (if any) on Hostiles' entertainment value (?)

You're welcome, Babe. I live just a couple of hours away from The Valley of the Bears that was mentioned in the movie, and as a 5th generation Idahoan, that history was something I grew up hearing. I'm a big Western fan, too.

Overall, I liked the movie, although I thought the basic theme- that everyone was hostile to others- became overblown and preachy toward the end with it's displays of violence.

But there was also an underlying theme that lay below the actions- the psychological damage that's done to people when their lives are filled with violence or the anticipation of it. That theme was, to me, more powerful and well done than the shootin' and killin'.

I also found the strong characterization of the Quaid widow to be a big surprise. She's the real agent of change in this movie and all the actions actually revolve around her. This was a much bigger and more important role for a woman than is usually seen in Westerns, but in the real West, it was the women who brought civilization to the wilderness, carrying it in their souls, not their numbers.

I really liked all the actor's portrayals a lot too. While some of the emotions may have been a bit over-cooked in parts, overall I thought they were very realistic and naturalistic.

I especially liked Christian Bale and Rosamund Pike. They both turned in Academy Award-winning performances, I think, especially Bale, who is next to silent in most of the movie, but carries his character through his facial and bodily expression of his inner turmoil. Bale is a real treasure in this flick, and is very subtle. Pike's part was extremely well-done, too, and she was perfect in it.

For sure, it's a very dark movie, at times dour, almost like a noir movie in its bleakness. And it does tend to drag as it closes to the ending, which could have been both a lot better and more realistic. Except for the very ending scene, which was so good it redeemed the final confrontation to me.

I saw it twice; once at a theater, then just again on Netflix. I liked it better the second time than I did the first. It's one of those movies that a viewer thinks about afterward, for sure.

I think Hostiles could easily become a classic over time, much like 'The Searchers' became. In fact, I think 'Hostiles' was the movie John Ford wanted to make, but couldn't in the times he was in. The two are very similar in their emotions and events.

The settlement of the West is our great national myth. As a genre, it was so overdone for so long it had to fade for a while, just to regain it's strength and mythical power. While "Hostiles' and all the other new Westerns all have their weak spots and flaws, I'm really happy to see Westerns returning back to movie screens again, and in the last few years, there have been more good ones than bad ones.

I also think the New West needs more dramatic attention. The West didn't end in 1888, nor did it's mythical powers. I really like to watch Westerns like 'No Country for Old Men'. Such movies translate our myths into modern terms for a new century.

[jencam]

I guess I am not in the right mood for it. People with whom I usually share the same tastes raved to me about it, I just find it dark and depressing. Maybe I will give it a try again another time.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by jencam

I guess I am not in the right mood for it. People with whom I usually share the same tastes raved to me about it, I just find it dark and depressing. Maybe I will give it a try again another time.

It was all that, for sure. While there's redemption, it's a lot more subtle than the savagery. I'm sure a person has to be in the right mood to watch and enjoy it.

[madison999]

I love westerns but can’t imagine giving this one a second chance.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

I consulted maps before making my assertion about the railroads. Here is a map of major railroads in 1890. Looks to me like going from anywhere in New Mexico to anywhere in Montana would be best done by train, using roads to and from the train.

Of course we can recall John Ford’s reply when asked why in Stagecoach the Apaches didn’t simply shoot the coach’s horses during the chase scene. Ford replied that would end the picture.

Well, a movie is a movie. Hostiles would not have been the same movie that it was if the railroads were used.

But historically, that map says nothing about anything but the rail lines. The 1890 depression would have left the rails, but all the rolling stock in the bankrupted rail companies would have been auctioned off to the larger railroads.

As was mentioned in the first scene of the movie.

After the depression lifted, many of the short spur lines resurrected; some of the companies were able to re-capitalize, and others were sold into new management. Most flourished afterwards and increased their lines, as the westward migration really increased by the turn of the 20th century.

The areas that were settled earlier grew, and many new towns sprang up. The industrial age was in full bloom by then, and it allowed much more mechanization into the west, which in turn increased the amount of finished goods, raw materials, livestock, and crops that all needed to go east.

So the spur lines made lots of money, along with everyone else. Some of the old mining narrow-gauge routes didn't come back, though, as the camps they serviced were beginning to see their populations move on as the mines played out.
In the other, richer, mining areas, the narrow gauge roads were widened or re-routed for the modern wide gauge roads that are still in use today in some places.

The real heyday of the western railroads wasn't the 19th century. They reached the apex of their reach and power in the 20th.