Pale Rider (1985) Reviews

• You can't beat a good bit of Hickory.

  Spikeopath2008-07-27

  The opening to Pale Rider is just excellent, at first all is calm and serene, but then the peace is shattered by the thundering of hooves. A group of men employed by Coy LaHood, tear thru a small mining community, shooting guns and trampling over all in their way. During this callous act of bullying, one of the men shoots and kills young Megan's dog. When Megan buries her beloved pet, she calls to god to send someone to help them against the greedy LaHood, because LaHood is intent on stripping the locals of their claims, and he literally will stop at nothing to get them. Later on Megan is reading from the bible, she reads aloud to her mother about "beholding a pale horse and that the man who sat on it was death", we then see a lone horseman riding towards this under fire place... Behold the pale horse because the man that sat on him was Clint Eastwood! And that's all you really want to know as regards what drives the film on. It had been quite some time since the movie watching world had witnessed a damn good Western, so it is obvious that Eastwood, knowing the genre inside out, felt it time to remind all and sundry about this engrossing genre and all its little peccadilloes. Riffing on his own High Plains Drifter from 1973 and homaging Shane in the process, Eastwood again uses supernatural leanings to play out this intriguing tale. Pale Rider works well because Eastwood cares for the genre so much, no frame is wasted and the acting on show delivers the necessary amount of quality to enhance the picture's impact. From the thundering opening to the gorgeous final shot, Pale Rider is an expertly crafted Western that still holds up today as a great entry on Eastwoods CV. Pale Rider. 8/10

• a film that revived the Western genre

  TheUnknown837-12007-12-02

  During the early 80s, the Western genre was beginning to lose its position in Hollywood, and losing its impact on the audience. And the financial disaster of the Western "Heaven's Gate" did not really make very many producers any more enthusiastic about putting their money in to make Western films. But one of the producers, more famous as an actor and director, who was willing to make another Western, was Clint Eastwood. Maybe because Westerns like "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" had started his career in the 60s, he felt he owed it to at least himself to try and revive the genre before Hollywood officially threw it in the scrap pile. "Pale Rider" was, and still is, a phenomenal success of a film. After its release, the Western genre was saved and brought back to life for several more years. It has fallen down nonetheless, but has not disappeared from cinema screens. And we really owe it all to Clint Eastwood for this film. "Pale Rider" is one of his best Westerns. It is well-acted, well characterized, has plenty of action, and is overall a great achievement. As one might expect, Clint Eastwood plays a mysterious stranger in this film. Very much like in the Dollars Trilogy and "High Plains Drifter", his character is never given an actual name. The character Eastwood plays in this film, however, is different than the squinting gunslingers he played in the past. This character is more anti-violent than the previous ones and doesn't even put his hand on a six-gun until the film is more than half-over. He mingles with the bad guys plenty of times, but rarely ever with a shooting iron. He's still a man of few words, but isn't as cold and self-concerned. Along with Eastwood, we have a cast made up of fine actors such as Michael Moriarty, the late Chris Penn, Richard A. Dysart, and one of the most popular of Western villains John Russell as a corrupt marshal by the name of Stockburn. Russell's character is one of the coldest cinema villains I've seen in a long time and his limited screen time aids in his impact and appearance. Russell's cold, almost lifeless voice added with Lennie Niehaus's eerie background music score brings a spine-chilling atmosphere to the film when the character speaks some of his first dialogue in the film. Like Eastwood's character, Stockburn is a character that says little, yet still delivers an enormous impact. Scenery in "Pale Rider" was absolutely beautiful, especially when combined with the effective lighting and cinematography. Many times in the film, we see a mountain directly smack center in the background. The cinematography is most of the time, dark and eerie. Dark scenes are even darker than usual, making this vision of the Old West even dirtier and savage than in most Westerns. And yet it isn't shown as being entirely savage, for it wasn't. True, the West was a tough place to live in the 19th century, especially during feuds over gold, but it wasn't a day of just regular killing. Some people have accused "Pale Rider" was being a rip off of the classic 1953 film "Shane". I will not deny the fact that they are very similar in a lot of regards and share similar scenes. A stranger coming to a settlement in the Old West during a feud between a successful land tycoon and homesteaders on land he wants was used in "Shane". But "Pale Rider" is in no way, shape, or form a rip-off. Any similarities to "Shane" is a homage, a tribute of respect. After all, Eastwood was attempting to save the Western genre, and perhaps this was his way of reminding the audiences of the great films of the past. Yet, he could do it without copying it. He just re-visioned it.

• "Tell the preacher to meet me here tomorrow morning."

  Nazi_Fighter_David2007-11-04

  Shot on location in Sun Valley, Idaho, and to some esteem to "Shane," "Pale Rider" succeeded with sweeping landscapes and magnificent cinematography, to be an interesting Western that helps to bring back something from Eastwood's mystique… In 1850 California, a small group squatters and their families find themselves terrorized by Coy LaHood (Richard Dysart), who are standing win the way of his progress… Desperate, LaHood begins using violence in an unsuccessful attempt to run the peaceful yet determined homesteaders from their land… Leading the homesteaders is a decent man Hull Barret (Michael Moriarty), who dreams of a better life for himself, his girlfriend Sarah Wheeler (Carrie Snodgress) and her lovely daughter from a previous marriage, 14-year-old Meagan (Sydney Penny). Into the lives of these strong-willed people rides a mysterious man—tall and lean with something strange in his eyes —known only as "The Preacher" (Clint Eastwood). He says little, divulges nothing of his past, but for a man wearing a clerical collar he seems an expert at handling weapons… He pulls the miners together and gives them the confidence to defy LaHood even in the face of mounting violence... Although both Sarah and her daughter become enamored of the pale preacher, he gently rejects their advances and makes them see that Hull is a less capable but far better man… There is a good scene when Spider Conway—went into town alone and running out of steam—invited LaHood to come out and have a drink with him… But instead Stockburn and his deputies came out asking him to dance… Richard Dysart creates an all-too-believable villain, and Western veteran John Russell is well-cast as a middle-aged mercenary and his hired guns to face a legendary hero… It's an old score and it's time settle it…

• An Overlooked Gem

  tightspotkilo2005-10-09

  Clint Eastwood made this film in 1985 and at the time many people said it was the best movie that he had ever made. Some people even went further and said it was the best western ever made. But the raucous shoot-em-up Silverado came out that very same year, basically foisting Kevin Costner onto an unsuspecting world, and it ended up making a bigger splash in 1985 than did Pale Rider. Then, after that, two more things happened: Costner went on to make Dances With Wolves (1990), and Eastwood went on to make The Unforgiven (1992), and with all that Pale Rider slipped into obscurity. The Unforgiven now wears the mantle of being Clint's masterpiece, his finest western, of being maybe the best western ever. And other people marvel much the same way at Dances With Wolves. Meanwhile, nobody thinks about or even remembers Pale Rider, a sorry fate that this fine film doesn't deserve. There are two distinctly remarkable things about Pale Rider: On the one hand we have a return to The Stranger, the character Eastwood played in High Plains Drifter (1973). But, he's no longer called "The Stranger," maybe because he has evolved in life, and he's now known as "The Preacher." But he seems to be the same guy, at a different place in his life's journey. When you think about it, The Stranger from High Plains Drifter was pretty much just an Americanized presentation of the no-name character Eastwood played in the spaghetti western dollar series for Sergio Leone. And if you're going to categorize it, that's probably where this film belongs, as a part of that Sergio Leone series: A Fistful of Dollars (1964), For a Few Dollars More (1965), and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1967). Add High Plains Drifter and this, Pale Rider, into that mix and you have a complete set. And it's noteworthy that Eastwood never again returned to the character. Eastwood's The Stranger appears to be finito. All that's on the one hand. On the other hand we unmistakably see Eastwood using Pale Rider to pay homage to what was once regarded by many as being the finest western of all time, Shane (1953). In fact, it's more than mere homage that's being paid here. Pale Rider is really a full-blown retelling of Shane, updated, done in Eastwood's style, and with Eastwood's trademarked mystery man stepping into Alan Ladd's boots for the classic Shane role. Same story. Same plot dynamics. The biggest difference from Shane being that in Pale Rider the young lad is replaced by a blossoming adolescent ingénue, the gender change altering the tensions between the characters. Whereas in Shane the boy compared his father to Shane, and found his father lacking, in Pale Rider the girl competes heads up with her mother for The Preacher's attention. Another difference from Shane is that here the dirty deed is accomplished. Yes, Mama beds the manly stranger. In Shane's life and times the cowboy way was to resist that temptation --to rise above it-- and walk away. But here The Preacher takes off his boots and drops trousers. I suppose in Eastwood's view the world changed between 1953 and 1985. Of course one aspect of the story was "fixed" to make this "acceptable." While in Shane Mama was ostensibly an otherwise happily married hausfrau, here she was a widow, unremarried, thereby rendering the tryst at least technically non-adulterous, although Mama was in a semi-committed relationship with her intended. But don't misunderstand. Pale Rider is a fine film. I like it a lot. I like it as much as Shane. I like it almost as much as The Unforgiven. It ought to be remembered. It deserves to be remembered. It is a well-told western from the 1980s, and there weren't many of those made. If you like good westerns, I strongly recommend it.

• One good reason to watch it: Clint Eastwood

  philip_vanderveken2005-06-22

  I'll give you one good reason why shouldn't miss this movie: Clint Eastwood. If you are a fan of Westerns or even when you only like to watch one occasionally, than you should know more than enough. In my opinion Clint Eastwood is the one and only true Hollywood cowboy. When a mysterious preacher - no-one knows where he comes from, what his past is, they don't even know his real name - comes to a gold mining camp near a small town in the mountains, the local miners are in great danger. A ruthless landowner has decided to take their land, he doesn't mind using violence and he has the support of the sheriff. No one seems to be able to stop them. But than the preacher proves to be more than a man of God. He's a good shooter, the sheriff is afraid of him and he's the only one brave enough to rise against the landowner... If you are looking for an original movie, than you'll have to look somewhere else. This movie uses all the possible clichés that can be found in this kind of Westerns. But on the other hand I must also say that all is done in a very proper way. Eastwood is a fine director and he did what he was best in at the time: he made a Western. The story, the direction, the acting, the scenes,... it all looks professional and more than OK and especially thanks to Eastwood's acting performance in it, this movie is still a 'must-see'. I'm not a big fan of Westerns, but every time that I'm able to see one with Eastwood in it, I'll not let it pass. My advice: if you can see past the fact that it isn't very original, you will almost certainly enjoy it. I certainly did and that's why I give this movie a 7.5/10.