Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

hrkepler 'Ride in the Whirlwind' is second one of the existential westerns Monte Hellman directed, this one was written by Jack Nicholson who also starred in it. It was shot back to back in location of Utah with Hellman's 'The Shooting' also starring Jack Nicholson. 'Ride in the Whirlwind' is much more action packed and traditional western than 'The Shooting', but the philosophical roots are still deep.Three cowpunchers, Vern (Cameron Mitchell), Wes (Jack Nicholson) and Otis (Tom Filer), accidentally stumble on the hideout of outlaw gang led by Blind Dick (Harry Dean Stanton). The gang had previously robbed the stagecoach and killed its driver. When the trio of unfortunate cowboys show up at their door, neither of the groups want any trouble so the outlaws allow cowboys rest a night at their land. At the morning they find themselves surrounded by vigilante hanging party and the trio of cowboys are mistaken to be part of the outlaw gang. The chase begins. At the wrong place at the wrong time till to the end.Viewer will get the taste of hopelessness when we see innocent men fleeing from lynch mob who are after blind justice and we never get to rest from the unfairness of the situations they are thrown in. The posse is not there to discuss thing out, they want blood, their own justice. 'Ride in the Whirlwind' is not meant to sentimentalize Wild West, it just expresses the cruel bleakness of frontier. Even when hiding themselves from posse, Wes and Vern start to play checkers out of boredom. Wild West wasn't exactly blazing saddles all the time. It is a tale of loneliness, unfairness and hopelessness.'Ride in the Whirlwind' does not pack as much tension as 'The Shooting' and it is much straightforward film although its abrupt ending leaves the taste of uncertainty behind. Still, it is very cool acid western that shouldn't disappoint the fans of the genre, Monte Hellman or Jack Nicholson. Style with substance.

jkm0119 I took a chance to watch a Jack Nicholson western. I was bored through the entire movie as the production was bad and the directing was bad. The story was idiotic. There is not much good to say about this movies unless if you wish to sleep watch it. To summarize this miserable western, three men are headed to Texas and none of them have a brain. They decide to rest with some outlaws who befriend them for the day and a vigilante group show up to kill the outlaws with no trial. They had been resting there and the vigilantes think they are part of the gang. They try to get out and find themselves being hunted by the vigilantes. There is no dialogue and no action in the movie. If you need to go to sleep and suffer from insomnia, this movie is your cure.

Freedom060286 This one is much better in my opinion than The Shooting, which was made about the same time, mainly because the story made sense. The screen writing by a young Jack Nicholson is surprisingly very good.This was made on a low budget, and is a good example of how movie producers can make very good films without spending many tens of millions of dollars.There are decent performances by all the cast here. The movie is set in some wisely-chosen locations, and the camera work is very good.This one for me is more realistic and down-to-earth than most westerns. The characters are all believable, as are all the events - people are behaving the way people probably would in those situations.

dougdoepke Outstanding western. In my book, it's the best of Hellman's films, maybe because the 80- minutes has a distinctive story and little of Hellman's later intellectual posturing. Three itinerant cowpokes, on their way to a drive, are mistaken for outlaws by vengeful vigilantes, and have to ride for their lives after stopping by a homesteader family. All in all, there are faint echoes here of Wellman's vigilante classic The Oxbow Incident (1943).The story's upshot amounts to a series of genuine tragedies brought about by both coincidence and an uncaring posse. I really like the fact that contrary to Hollywood expectations, neither Wes (Nicholson) nor Vern (Mitchell) makes a move on the pretty homesteader girl (Perkins). They are, after all, concerned with surviving, not with a romantic subplot. Besides, her dad (George Mitchell) looks and acts like a really tough old guy. In my book, he delivers the movie's best performance. And catch that homestead where Dad, Mom (Squire), and Abigail live. It's the most convincing primitive shack and corral I've seen in many years of movie watching. Nothing cosmetic here. Instead, a really hard life on the frontier is driven home, though costuming could have made Abigail a little less spiffy looking. Nonetheless, that segment is the real heart of the movie, and produces a genuine tragedy when you think about it.And get a load of the countryside the men have to negotiate in their flight. It's as bleak and inhospitable as a devil's playground. There's no hope of living off the land for the fleeing men. It's like they've suddenly been condemned to the Third Level of Hell in order to get away. Here, Hellman comes across as an anti-John Ford since he does nothing to prettify the West either here or in The Shooting (1965). Neither is there any Fordian style humor. The acting throughout is grim and low-key as it should be. This, of course, is before Nicholson discovered that going over the top was a lot more fun than nuance. All in all, Hellman's minimalist style works well. Wisely, he does nothing to hype the story's tragic core. Instead, the viewer is left to think about the progression of events. In short, neither director Hellman nor writer Nicholson does anything to connect the dots, but they are there. The ending, of course, is unconventional in the extreme and might be taken as posturing on Hellman's part. But I found it-- if not satisfying-- at least appropriate for what had gone before. Too bad Hellman didn't continue to combine his minimalist style with story content, instead of allowing style to replace substance as he unfortunately does in his later work. Had he done so, we might have gotten one of Hollywood's truly outstanding and innovative careers.