Starring: Paul Gross, Sienna Guillory, Tyler Mane, Dustin Milligan, Graham Greene and everybody’s favourite Cylon, Callum Keith Rennie.
Summary Judgement: Take a blender: add two parts CBC-style comedy, one part spaghetti Western, one part History Bites, a dash of Joss Whedon’s Firefly, a sprinkle of Hot Fuzz and you get Gunless.
Gunless begins like so many other spaghetti Westerns. A mysterious stranger with a noose around his neck rides into a peaceful frontier town. He is injured, tired and on the run. He has two concerns: finding some bullets for his revolver and tending to his trusty steed. Unfortunately, The Montana Kid (Paul Gross), he has crossed the border into the small town of Barclay’s Brush in the Dominion of Canada. Within minutes of arriving, The Kid finds himself offended by the local blacksmith, Jack (Tyler Mane). Like any good frontier cliché, The Kid demands satisfaction in the form of a pistol duel. Unfortunately, Jack doesn’t have a gun and The Kid won’t kill a man who brings a hammer to a gunfight.
For a movie that is barely an hour and a half long, Gunless is many things. At times, it seems like the film is a cheeky send up on the Western genre. Dramatic moments build with genuine tension before the mood is shattered with a well-timed piece of physical comedy. There are scenes where Gunless seems like a film intent on subverting the myths of “the real west” as seen on film. Unlike the remake of 3:10 to Yuma, which offered a vision of the west as a place of intense privation and misery, Barcaly’s Brush is a town – in the sense that it has half a dozen permanent structures – where people gather for Wednesday night dinner and the doctor pulls double duty as a tanner and taxidermist. While all this is happening, there are flashes of comedy fit purely for Canadian digestion vis-à-vis a general store with a line of demarcation between its French Canadian and English owners. To the film’s credit, this borderline schizophrenia is delightfully funny.
While I perceive these various quirks and nuances as integral to the film’s comedic effect, I will readily admit that this diversity will not land with all viewers, particularly those who have no taste for history. Without a historical context, some of the writing, which I will praise as pleasantly Whedonesque – so much so that I could have seen Nathan Fillion playing Paul Gross’ role without any difficulty – may come off as silly rather than tongue-in-cheek and askance. Then again, why the hell would you watch a Western if you don’t like history?
Given the recent media hoopla surrounding tax credits for Canadian films, I think film school dropouts…sub–literate daleks reviewers such as Rick Groen at the Globe and Mail are unfairly targeting this film to express their outrage at tax dollars going to something they don’t like. I won’t dignify his review with a link, or extensive deconstruction, except to say that three out of the eight paragraphs in his drunken tirade review are targeting the CBC and film production in Canada. In light of all this negative criticism for Gunless, I would offer this question: What would you like for a film that cost ten million dollars to make? Sure, if Gunless had the budget of Spider-Man 3, I would have expected to walk out the theatre feeling like I had just spent a weekend at an 1890s California bordello. But we are dealing with a low budget Canadian production that had fantastic set construction, excellent camera work and whose only discernible flaw was some dialogue that may have been out of place at the close of the nineteenth century. Oh no, their use of Telefilm dollars didn’t reinvent the Western, surely that means the film is rubbish. Come on Groen and company, how about getting off your soapbox and talking about the movie.
As a comedy, Gunless evoked more laughter than the charity titters I offered Steve Carell and Tina Fey in Date Night. As a Canadian film, Gunless stayed far enough away from the clichés of Canadiana to keep me happy. A scene with a squad of North West Mounted Police kicking the crap out of The Kid counters any Dudley Doright airs that the film may project. As a Western, Gunless shows a side of frontier history that many people ignored on their mandatory school trips to living history sites but pairs that with the clichés of the West for comedic pay dirt.
Kudos to Mr. Phillips for his fine contribution to Westerns and Canadian film.
Overall Score: 80%
Calling other reviewers names because you don’t agree with their reviews is strictly for the infantile. Plus, you need to read said review more carefully–Groen didn’t say this movie was a waste of tax dollars. He was speaking theoretically about what people _might_ have said had the movie failed to show some intelligence. Boy, did that ever go flying over your head.
Poor Adam–go have a good thumb-suck, and mebbe you’ll feel awwwwl better.
Thumb-suck, that’s funny. Say what you will about my writing, but there is a way to be critical of a movie that doesn’t involve bringing in Canada’s national broadcaster – see Lee Ferguson’s review. Groen didn’t go over my head, I just stopped caring about what he had to say once he diverged from the topic at hand and went into his little discussion about the various hypothetical thoughts of the left and right.
I’m happy you reviewed this movie since I’ve been too lazy to go and see what the company I work for has been promoting for the last couple of weeks.
Why I’m commenting is that I’m confused by Vivian. In one hand suggesting that it is infantile to call reviewers names while reviewing your review, and calling you names in the other hand. Some people aught to take their own advice or at least not be self contradictory.
Besides, for sake of reviewing, aren’t all reviewers just using their reviews to soapbox their own agendas? I have to say that in your defense, Adam, this site gives a more honest review of the media in which it reviews and soapboxes less personal agendas (aside from the one to make this the ultimate review site).
I’ll likely catch this film on DVD because I can’t stand to spend the DVD price on shitty popcorn and admission… Thanks for the review Adam! More from me soon *I swear!*
Thank you Matt. In fairness, I have no problem with somebody telling me they disagree with my review. They don’t even have to be nice about it. Although I’d like to think my audience is sufficiently erudite to realize that calling somebody a Doctor Who villain is not a serious character attack. Film school drop out might have been a bit mean but I’m a dick, what can I say?
With respect to this particular film, a lot of the reviewers did not like it. Well and good. But I walked into that film expecting a Western, which by their nature are cliche and picayune, with Unforgiven and a few others as notable exceptions. What I watched was an amusing little picture that had a lot of gags and a lot of content that students of history will find very amusing. Expecting Gunless to be high art would be folly; it simply wasn’t that kind of movie. Why it was expected to be is beyond my knowledge. I don’t recall seeing a marketing campaign deeming this film to be the Passchendale of Westerns.
I didn’t call anybody names. Just wanted to point that out.
Just got back from the movie and I thought it was a nice flick. I liked the little jokes that happened through the film and I was engaged in the story line. I felt the acting was good and the cinematography excellent.
I just figure that the point is to talk about the film not about each other view points.
At the end of the film I didn’t feel ripped off (GI Joe or that stupid end of the world film with Cusack) and I certainly wasn’t expecting some block buster. Nope ….good movie…I’d see it again.
I enjoyed seeing “Gunless” (three times!) and I enjoyed your review, but I do have one complaint. You gave away one of the charming running gags in the movie by telling The Montana Kid’s real name! Take that off and I’ll tell all my friends (some of whom haven’t seen the movie yet) to check out your review. Thanks!
You know Dee, it didn’t even occur to me that I was giving that gag away. Consider the post revised and the offending spoiler removed.
Well said all around. Litty snobs piss me right off too. Is it expecting too much from artsy fartsies to make the logical link between their being interesting in artsy movies and.. I don’t know, GOING to artsy movies?? leave the feel-good comedic films to those of us with the wherewithals to enjoy ’em.
..sorry, I don’t usually let snits out anywhere but in my own yard. Hope you don’t mind; ’tis just too rare for me to find someone with common sense.
No need to apologize, I love a good rant. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.