Will Penny (1967)
“Nobody stops on Flat Iron Range.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
… and tussling over the body of an elk could very well turn into a life-or-death situation, especially when dealing with unhinged individuals on the range, such as Pleasence and his daughter and three sons (Bruce Dern, Gene Rutherford, and Matt Clark).
Heston’s illiterate, hardworking Will Penny is a pragmatic and overall decent guy, as evidenced by his fair and humane treatment of Hackett and her son when he finds them camping out unlawfully on property he’s supposed to be safeguarding. The relationship he develops with them — and how this changes him (or not) — serves as the heart of the film:
… with plenty of tension and drama interspersed along the way. This film remains worthy one-time viewing. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:
Must See? Categories
Links: |
5 thoughts on “Will Penny (1967)”
First viewing (1/30/21). Not must-see – but western fans will want to check it out for its unique qualities, its sense of atmosphere and generally for the fine performances.
‘WP’ is a film of strengths and weaknesses. Writer / director Gries has set up a lot that’s rather plausible re: the overlap of disparate characters. And much of his dialogue has an authentic sound to it. In fact, just about all seems to be going well in the narrative until…
~ the appearance of Pleasence and his family – who seem to be out of a totally different film. But, even if you think they fit, their presence still defies logic. What exactly is their purpose, where are they headed? Why are they just sort of hanging around in order to periodically torture Heston? At one point, they even just… show up conveniently (when the plot seems to need more tension) to hunt Heston down in a new location… after having left him for dead: all but naked, without a horse or any kind of supplies.
How the film concludes is highly contrived and overly talky, although the script gets points for bravely avoiding a typical Hollywood ending.
Heston and Hackett are fine together and their final conversation is touching. If you can overlook the film’s flaws, it’s not that bad. It’s just not as satisfying as its potential.
So interesting – I really didn’t have any trouble buying the presence of Pleasence’s clan; they epitomize pure evil and havoc, which exists in enough places and spaces to convince me it would be hovering around the peripheries of even the wide open west (which is nonetheless constrained by boundaries and rules of its own).
My point being – I was fine with them as plausible villains! What I HATED was the closing song… One should end the movie before that begins. 😉
Well, that was my impression when I saw it – 3 1/2 years ago. Good thing I wrote my thoughts down then ’cause, thinking about the movie now, I hardly remember it at all… so I don’t think it made enough of an impression on me. ~ certainly not as a must-see.
There are a whole bunch of movies I voted as “must see” at one point which I truly believe I need to revisit, since at this point I’m not so sure anymore… (Just acknowledging your point here about what sticks in one’s memory, and why.)
As you know, to a large degree these things can be relative since people react / relate to movies in different ways.
Of course, sometimes the impact can be so strong that it cements a film as being of film fanatic-importance – i.e., once seen, who forgets De Palma’s ‘Carrie’? Decades after seeing it, it sits firmly in memory.
But I do think a reasonably strong film – even one not as startling as ‘Carrie’ – often can and should echo with its value as ‘must-see’. ~ though individual responses are factors.