[.ca] Hombre (Widescreen)

From Amazon.com:
Paul Newman is the blue-eyed "savage," a white man raised by the Indians who rejects so-called civilized society for his spiritual family, in Elmore Leonard's take on Stagecoach. It's not exactly Grand Hotel on wheels. The hypocrites, crooks, and racists Newman travels with cast him out of their polite company in the coach, then turn to him for salvation when outlaws hold up the stage and hunt them through the desert. It's hard to "like" Newman's cold, hard survivor, but you can't help but respect his cunning and his unsentimental directness. Fredric March is sweaty with corruption as a crooked Indian agent, and Richard Boone smiles his deadly charm as a lusty bad man. While this 1966 Western wears its social politics on its dusty sleeves, director Martin Ritt tempers the revisionist moral of the tale with a stripped-down ruthlessness befitting the rugged, unforgiving landscape. --Sean Axmaker

We all gotta die; it's only a matter of when.:
An Apache policeman John Russell (Paul Newman) inherits a boarding house and is off to sell it. He must travel by the last stage coach out of town. Naturedly we are introduces to each of his traveling companions and given the general background of their life stories. We have the standard mix of exadurated stereotypes. You guessed it the stage is held up. Luckily for the other passengers John Russell, also know as Hombre was raised by the Indians. He is cool, calm, and decisive. The others are just a tad too pansy for reality. However it makes for a good story as they start to learn or not from John what it takes to survive. What they do not realize before it is too late is that John is doing more than just surviving. What on the surface seems like John is changing his ways in reality is an extension of what he was always about. Classic tale with no surprises. But well told and well acted. There are plenty of "one liner's", quasi philosophy, and a fair amount of gun play. In all a very satisfying movie. Richard Boone's characterization of Cicero Grimes was better port raid than in his characterization "Have Gun Will Travel" series. Some actors get type cast and all I could think of when watching Margaret Blye was her character in "Waterhole #3" (1967).

One of the Great Westerns of the Modern Cinema:
This movies has most elements of a good Western. It has cowboys and Indians, a stagecoach robbery, a shootout, the man (and woman) against nature theme, and much much more. Most of all, it has a great script, strong directing, and outstanding acting. Just about all of the characters are memorable for their performances but the soul of this movie is Paul Newman. His character is that of the quiet yet strong man who shares his thoughts with no one and takes no guff from anyone. The bad guy in this movie is nearly as memorable in the person of Richard Boone. He is about as evil a character as you will find in a G rated movie. Then story is that of a man (Mr. Randall) who was raised on an Apache reservation in the Arizona Territory. He inherits some money and property and sets off to check out a different life style. On the way, he meets up with a diverse group of people on a stagecoach leaving town. Bad things happen but the only man who seemed equipped to handle things is Mr. Randall, played by Paul Newman. The movie explores the nature of good and evil which recalls the old Woody Guthrie line, "Some will rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen". The movie also contrasts the values of the "savage" with that of civilization and you can probably guess who comes out ahead. This movie does not have a happy ending which is not unusual for a modern Western. Yet there is a true feeling that Good has prevailed. This movie mixes plenty of action and thought-provoking situations and is a good movie for the whole family to enjoy.

One of the Best Westerns Ever:
Western films are not often thought to be intellectually edifying on matters of political philosophy. With the possible exception of Cormac McCarthy's Western novels, Western fiction--popular or not--has not even been designated as literature, never mind philosophically instructive. Hombre, however, deserves a serious look at its edifying possibilities. I am not interested in arguing on behalf of a literary or cinematic reassessment of the Western genre as such; rather, my intent is to simply adumbrate some of the philosophically political themes one can find in Hombre. First, there is man in the state of nature (human nature) and the instinct for self-preservation versus social responsibility (contract theories of political organization); secondly, we have imperial domination and cultural conflict versus unmitigated toleration (contemporary cosmopolitan orthodoxy grounds itself on liberal contract theories founded by Hobbes, which postulate and mythologize pre-political "rights"). These "rights" are mythologized by cosmopolitanism inasmuch as their metaphysical existence is dubious at best and more likely simply derivative of historically relative cultural norms, and therefore not cosmological or universal. Hombre should not be interpreted along Hobbesian lines wherein the state of nature for man is the status belli, nor on Kantian terms that stress toleration based on cosmopolitan law \oWeltburgerrect\c emanating from multicultural understanding whereby "the peace of the political order stands in sharp contrast with the violence of the state of nature." This multicultural cosmopolitanism, as noted above, is obviously based on the Hobbesian theory of the necessity of negating the state of nature as the status belli, simply amplified and applied on a cultural and global rather than an individual level. Even less, then, should Hombre be understood in revisionist or postmodernist terms, which are merely cheap and incoherent versions of the Kantianism described herein that lack self-knowledge regarding their own historical genesis. In contrast to these modern, liberally humanistic contract theories of equality (whether it be equality of persons \oHobbes\c or equality of cultures \oas in current neo-Kantian cosmopolitan orthodoxy\c), Hombre is best understood in Platonic political terms that affirm a hierarchy--not only of the political order but within humanity as such--in the practice of "moralities of command and obedience" as the natural disposition of humans as social and, eventually, if properly cultivated, political animals. There is a hierarchy of men within a Platonic dialogue that is rooted not in the contingencies of birth but in the natures of diverse human souls. As the narrator of Hombre tells us in Elmore Leonard's excellent novel _Hombre_, on which the film is based (with some not so slight changes, especially concerning the rapaciousness of the Apaches), "I guess we had to follow somebody" (90).

Hombre:
The blue-eyed Paul Newman as a half-breed Apache? Weren't there quite a few folks a-waiting on a stage considering that the stagecoach company was practically defunct, presumably because of a lack of customers? Why didn't most of them, 'ceptin' the women folk, ride horses rather than take the stage? Why did they leave the water in the mine shaft? If you're sure the nasty bandito is going to shoot at you, why tell the kid to "wait 'til he reaches for his gun" before shooting him? I asked a lot of questions while watching HOMBRE, and that usually ain't a good thing. Considering this was taken from a novel written by the usually reliable Elmore Leonard, it's a little mystifying as well. A cynic would say these plot pimples were necessary to make things work. Look, you ain't gonna put brown contacts on Paul Newman's eyes, for criminy sake, and in 1967 there weren't many stars with stronger box office than Newman. We had to get the folks together on a stagecoach so Barbara Rush, the wife of corrupt Indian agent Frederic March, could get the vapors and see to it that half-breed John Russell (Newman) would be asked to ride on the roof. We had to keep the boys off the horses and on the benches because we needed to see bad guy Grimes (Richard Boone, excellent as usual) stink up the coach with his boorish manners and his cigars. They had to leave the water in the mine shaft so that the corrupt Indian agent Dr. Alex Favor (March) could reunite his venal self with the group. That said, with all its question, HOMBRE is a good movie. In a beautiful opening scene a boss horse leads a group of wild horses into a corral. Director Martin Ritt is a master at sustained scenes that build with little or no dialogue. HOMBRE belongs in that herd of movies that came out in the 60s and 70s that cast a critical eye on American culture. They reflected the tensions in society - hawks versus doves, pacifists versus Joe hardhats, the silent majority versus the vocal minority. Like other movies of that ilk, HOMBRE has a quasi-religious outsider at the center of the movie, and that central character is used to reflect and magnify the failures of society. In HOMBRE the white men are venal, immature, corrupt, evil and impotent. The transitional figure, the one that links the hero to the dominant society, is the Mexican Henry Mendez (Martin Balsam.) That a movie attacking racism should cast the anything-but-latino Balsam is one of the sweet ironies of the time. Balsam is good, though, and in a pivotal scene with Russell he lays it out for him. Russell's adoptive uncle has died and leaves him a boarding house and some land. Leaves him a stake in society. He tells Russell, who is living on the reservation at the time, to get his haircut. Look like a white man. Make it easier on yourself. "A Mexican," Mendez says, " is closer to a white man than an Apache. I'll tell you that." Tune out, turn off and drop in, Hombre. Well, quasi-religious figures in a Judeo- Christian culture haven't got a lot of options left by the time they reach the end of the last reel. For some strange reason we find ritual bloodletting deeply satisfying and a road sign to Higher Meaning. So be it. Many people will love HOMBRE for its passion. For my part, I'll remember with fondest pleasure watching Richard Boone guffaw, threaten, and intimidate his bad bad self through an otherwise okay western. The only extras on this dvd are a clutch of theatrical trailers for Paul Newman movies. The trailer for THE HUSTLER has a snazzy, jazzy feel to it and I recommend it.

A mixed review:
Hombre is a very good western. Newman is cool, Boone is a great Villian, the action is well done, and there are some pretty good lines of dialoge. However, its a 60s movie and full of liberal attitudes. Paul Newman (Hombre) is the most noble, intelligent, capable native-american who ever existed on planet earth. And every white person in the movie is immoral, stupid, racist, and cowardly. (Except for Richard Boone who is brave but a murderous criminal.) Which is pretty amazing considering that the Old West was a dangerous place where almost everyone had to self-relient and know how to handle a gun. Anyone who watches the movie has to wonder why Hombre (Newman) doesn't leave these horrible honkeys to their own fate. I guess it because he's the most the noble native-american ever.