To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

I can't call this a Western. Sure, it is set in the West, but it is far too dull to call a Western.The story is about a bonding between two guys we could care less about, and who are more gay towards each other than the men of Brokeback Mountain.The two aren't likable at all. No one is really likable. The story plods along, but it well acted, mostly by unknowns, although a few famous names are in this.In the end, we see how self righteous and insane both of these two guys are. I actually don't blame the younger brother for what he does later. To him, these two must be like terrorists, relentlessly attacking him for no reason. He's backed into a corner, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for the older brother or his red neck punk friend.Sadly, it seems evident that the director wants the viewer to empathize with the kill crazy hero. We can empathize with the mother, who is the lone sane character in this piece, and how she negotiates with the maniac. It's scary that there are people who think this maniac is identifiable and deserves any respect whatsoever.

I would never ask someone to not see a film based on my opinion. I think people see this movie, and then tell me how right I was...:)This movie would've been more bearable if it was cut in half. It was way too long, and with no good solid storyline, it was very boring. The characters didn't have any definition, so no matter how good the acting was, you didn't really care about them. The score was very repetitive and annoying, and sounded like it had a bit of the "Conspiracy Theory" score thrown into it.So! If you would kindly pass me a rock...

Probably lo, considering that the film runs its course over much too long a time span. The film is low on every kind of emotion that an audience member could possibly emote. *SPOILER* By the time Woody Harrelson's character is killed by his brother (something I freakishly predicted 10 minutes into the film) I didn't care and the three people I'd watched it with had fallen asleep. I had to rewind the movie to prove my prediction after they woke up. I actually dozed off for a minute or two, and I NEVER fall asleep in a film (except for Dune countless times). This movie could have been really good, as the acting is pretty much flawless across the board. Sam Elliot was born to make westerns, and no single person gives an unbelievable performance. There are some very nice shots of pre and post World War II Texas. Very authentic in its feel and atmosphere, where this film misses is in its flow. I rented this film because of the actors in it, but also because it had Scorcese's name attached to it as a producer. Scorcese didn't read the script, couldn't have, there is no way, PLEASE MARTY SAY YOU DIDN'T READ THE SCRIPT!!! Boring but not boorish.

The point of this exercise escapes me. Today, in 1999, there are probably two valid reasons for reviving a relic of a genre - to provide an old-fashioned, nostalgic, action-packed adventure, or to remould the Western in our age's image, to try to see what the form can say about us, our ideologies, and, most importantly, our relation to history. This film does neither.On the one hand, it has many of the virtues of the traditional Western - lovingly bleached landscapes; a pompous, overwrought score; cattle runs; male bonding. But it has neither a compelling narrative drive, charismatic characters, nor a mythic sensibility.On the deconstructive side, it seems to want to critique the problematic values of the West. The maverick rebel versus corporate muscle is, as has been pointed out, a theme worthy of Peckinpah, but its treatment lacks his romantic passion, violent sympathy, or dynamic self-pity.The hero, Big Boy, is, according to some, a subject of the film's censure, but the only fault I can find in him is that he is probably impotent, and if that's supposed to be an iconoclastic weakness, than the filmmakers are being rather macho. So he's a bit wild and brutal; he's also loyal, dignified and amusing, and Woody Harrelson invests him with much charm. The rest of the characters, especially Pete, with his wretched narration(there are never voiceovers in Westerns!), are dull and unreal.Jim Kitses has called the film a melodrama, and to an extent this is true - this is no quest narrative; there is no building a white US culture, no battle between the primitive and civilisation as one finds in the Fordian western. Much of the action focuses on the domestic. A recurring motif is barbed wire, suggesting that the characters are as corralled as the animals they steer, in a prison whose walls actively hurt.The film is also faintly unusual in having a woman in a pivotal role, although Patricia Arquette is, as usual, quite appaling. However, without me revealing it, the coda betrays all this, reverts twofold to the old 'Print the legend' pack of lies, and still holds out faith in the 'Go west, young man' myth, exactly as they did in the old days.Stephen Frears has been praised for adapting to the mores of the Western, but this is surely untrue. Photographing desert landscapes, however beautifully, does not make you a great Western filmmaker. You must have a critical apparatus, whether its through the use of montage, like Peckinpah, or though music and composition, like Leone. As a revisionist, Frears has actually regressed from these masters. There is very little of his stamp at all, none of the genre knowledge he showed in The Grifters, one of the great films of the 90s.He is best at revealing claustrophobic and deceitful sexual tensions and power games between small groups of (often related) people. There are some excellent examples of this here, especially when the four lovers gather after the barroom brawl; there are also a few good scenes, and gorgeous silhouettes: but mostly the thing flounders in its own insecurity and reverence.