Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie's plot.



This movie will go down in history as the only movie I have ever watched accidently. My wife and I watched this movie when we were flipping channels, and it was on HBO. What I mean by having watched it accidently is that it came on, I had never heard of it and had no idea what it was, and I watched it anyway. That just never happens to me. On the odd occasion that I stumble across a movie on cable that I have never heard of, I can’t seem to sit there and watch it.

Rare is the movie that can just suck me in, and those that are good enough to do it, I’ve nearly always heard about.

To further express my endorsement of this movie I should tell you that during the first viewing we missed the first 30 minutes. I searched tirelessly for when this movie would be on again. Naturally, we came in at the tail end of the initial HBO run of the movie, and I couldn't get any information on when it would be on again. I waited anxiously for it to come out on video, and by the time it did, some two months later, I hadn't forgotten about it. That's impressive believe me.


Let’s start with what is bad about the movie. For one thing, a summary of the plot is not likely to inspire anyone to see the movie. If you take (or are given) the plot in the form of a summary, it doesn’t sound too good. Here’s what happens.

John Cusack plays Myrl Redding (points for pretty cool name by the way) who is a horse rancher in Wyoming long ago in the ‘Old West’ days, somewhere shortly before Wyoming became a state. L.Q. Jones, (who everyone will recognize but it is hard to know what to mention because he is the ultimate ‘man in the background’ actor who is everywhere, but no one ever catches his name) is the neighboring rich, big-shot rancher (read bad guy).

Our story begins with Cusack setting out to sell some horses. He has to cross over L.Q. Jones’ land, and he finds that Jones is waiting for him to require some toll from him. This is nonsense, but Cusack doesn’t have time to argue about the whole thing, nor does he have the money for the toll. Eventually, we get around to Cusack leaving two of his horses for Jones to hold until he returns from selling the horses, and thus will have money.

Cusack returns to find that his horses have been brutally treated, and are lucky to be alive. Cusack’s friend, a Crow Indian, who stayed with the horses, has also been beaten, and generally not offered the usual Wyoming hospitality. Cusack tries to go to the local authorities, but they aren’t going to do anything against rich and powerful Jones.

To cut to the chase, even more bad things happen, and eventually Cusack goes on a mission to force Jones to pay and bring his horses back to health. More than that, I don’t want to ruin things for you.

The problem, as I’m sure you can see, is that the plot has been done before. Very bad man does bad things to hero. Hero seeks revenge. Local law will not help. Hero has to go out on his own and seek justice. And, (as I am curiously fond of saying lately) ettzetara, ettzetara, ettzetara.


What makes this movie so impressive is that the plot does not allow itself to be broken down in this way. If you are forced to summarize then you have to summarize, but the story here (as unlikely as it might seem) is rich, full of life, and is beyond summary.


If you are forced to summarize a person in ten minutes or less, then, in the end, you will come up with some summary, but you won’t (very often) be misled into thinking that you’ve ‘got’ that person. Quite often you have got the movie in the summary, but not here.


It may seem even more strange, when I go on to say that the movie is clearly not trying very hard to deviate from the archetypical role that the plot summary would bring to mind. Cusack’s character is clearly defined, though he does have a few twists. The Jones evil is teetering on the edge of being too evil for the good of the movie, and quite honestly I would not argue hard against those that might say he fell over the line, but he didn’t to me. Still, the movie displays the archetypical characters with a serious edge of reality, and never turns the sharp attention to them that would result in their transcendence to the sublime.


Cusack is the best I’ve ever seen him, and I’m a fan. There has always been something about Cusack. I never thought he was the best actor out there, but there is just something about him that makes me believe him. John Goodman has a small role near the end, and he forces me to a new level of respect for him as an actor, and in his case I was largely indifferent up to this point.


The movie is extremely well put together. Given to us by director John Badham (Saturday Night Fever, WarGames, American Flyers), and looking over his entire repertoire, this is easily the feather in his cap to my mind. From the use of the camera in several scenes, to the visually stunning scenes in the wilderness (and use of these scenes to dramatic effect), to the installation in the viewer of a feeling of being immersed in the period which is almost unprecedented (at least in an Old West period).


What we have here is an incredibly engaging story of (or at least one view of) what it really means to be a man (alright person, but really man).

Sure, you say this, but when it comes down to it, what do you do? Some people are of the opinion that you do the right thing, no matter what it takes. We’ve heard that all before, but let’s be honest, we’ve heard everything before, and you’ve never heard it in quite this way.

Really more a trip through Myrl Redding’s mind, and his own analyzation of himself, than anything else, the events that make up the plot never come near being stale because the plot is almost cursory to the real story.

And, while you couldn’t call it a surprise ending exactly, you probably won’t expect it to end the way it does.


When we get everything mixed together, we have a very emotional, thought provoking encounter that is so far beyond the normal fare it is hard to explain. I hadn’t run across much worthwhile coming from the ‘made for cable’ pile until this, and I shudder to think what this movie might have been if it were given to us in theaters. I’m quite certain it would have become some summer shlock, and what we’d have ended up with would have been remarkably similar to what first entered your mind when reading the summary.




The story was written by Dick Cusack, but it isn’t as impressive as it sounds as it is based on the story 'Michael Kohlhaas' by Heinrick Von Kleist. I haven’t read the story personally, but I am led to understand that the movie is, you might say, very based on the story.



Recommended: Yes

Viewing Format: VHS