The Three Burials Of Melquiades Estrada

[w/o horse]

It left me lukewarm.  There were parts that I loved and then there were 'egh' parts.  The beginning didn't need to be non-linear.  It made it drag.  I agree with what Pete's saying, though I think that some of the manipulations were meant to give the film a tall-tale quality.  The subplots definitely weren't articulated.  From the ant burning scene on I loved. 

Contrary to my speculation, the strongest element was indeed Tommy Lee Jones as an actor and director.  The shot choices were as weird as the film's subject, went right along, Chris Menges did a great job.

[Alexandro]

Well, I hate to be the party pooper here, but I thought this film was beautifully written.

At the beggining, I was having my problems with the disjointed, un chronological order of things. I was like: "Fucking Arriaga, here we go again", but I get that for the film to work it was better for it to start where it did, and go from there, cause the purpose is that you know more than the characters about what's going on at that specific moment, and of what's going to happen. All that first part was time well spent cause that's where you get a sense of who these people are. I don't care that some of the subplots are not entirely, completely fleshed out, cause what they give is enough.

As a mexican who lives near the border and who's been to the us burder lots of times, I felt the actor's performances, dialogues, and all the feel and look of the film as a pretty realistic and truthfull vison of that part of the world. Totally nailed by Arriaga and Tommy Lee. It's obvious they know their shit.

And it's a pleasure to watch Tommy Lee Jones back giving some good acting. For years he's been making all sorts of crappy "mouse and cat" thrillers and whatnot, I was thinking we would never have him back. Barry Pepper was also outstanding.

[tpfkabi]

this finally came here. my experience was ruined by the audio in the theatre cutting out 3 times!!!
anywho, did i miss something - i only noticed two burials?


SPOILERs




what was the purpose of the border patrol showing up at the blind man's house?
was it only for the "did you SEE anyone..." joke?
i thought for sure the man was going to do something desperate to make them put him out of his misery.
...and it really blew my mind how they got past the border with all those patrolmen there.

[pete]

*not a spoiler at all

I thought there was only two burials as well...until I realized that the first time the hunters saw the corpse, he was already haphazardly buried by berry pepper.

[JG]

I saw this today.  Me and my friend meant to see Tsotsi, but we were a little late so we saw this instead. 

I liked it.  It was definitley a little contrived, but nothing I was concious of during the movie.   The characters never really fully developed (although they had plenty of potential), to the point where I didn't really care in the third act.  And I didn't like how the beginning was non-linear and then the rest was in order.   But I still enjoyed it.  Moments like the scene with the blind man, I couldn't help but feel something.     

The movie just is.  Nothing special.  Nothing too bad either. 

[Gold Trumpet]

SPOILERS

As already stated, much of the problem with the film is the first half. Not only did the film not have to be non linear, but the non linear style kept the film from ever finding the foundations to its character arc. The major theme is Tommy Lee Jones' obsession to give his dead friend a proper burial at all costs. Though a friendship between Jones and the dead Mexican is set up before Jones begins his suicidal journey, we never understand why Jones flips the way he does and holds the accidental killer hostage to such gruesome ends. Is it inherently within every man to right the wrong of a murder with a brutal hostage take over? I don't think so. I think in every man lies the insecurites and problems of the psyche to drive him there but this film has no interest to delve into that. Its examination of Tommy Lee Jones' is post-hostage where he goes on a nearly suicidal journey with his captive. The second half of the film is stunning for its alarming presentation of violence, but never satisfying.

The writing is the major problem of the film. Added on top of the problems of non linear style is that the writing has to introduce the 'Western' way of living. Too many scenes and shots meander at the beginning of the film to show the slow lifestyle of rural Texas living. The newly entered Cincinnati couple have to get use it. Its just the film doesn't has to show their alienation through the audience being dulled. Better dialogue and action can already do that. Also, Jones does a poor job of directing. For many scenes too many he lets the camera be stationery to the action in the scene. He never gets a consistent camera tone to justaxpose the action and allow the scenes to mesh better together. The only scene that was (as far as I could tell) really set up before hand was the falling of the horse off the clip. The slow motion work mixed with live action falling was also merely a Sam Peckinpah homage anyways. Other than that, the filmmaking is lopsided and lacking of a critical eye.

Going back to Sam Peckinpah, the entire film is really a homage to his work. The main theme going into how love can be inherently tied into one man's own violence has been delved into by Peckinpah in almost all of his serious efforts. The films of Sam Peckinpah is the work of a man trying to understand his own nature of violence and trying to reach a middle ground. In ways, Peckinpah is an evolution of many films Kurosawa did. Editing wide, Peckinpah was trying to surpass Seven Samurai with The Wild Bunch. Story-wise, Peckinpah was trying to delve deeper into the true nature of violence that Kurosawa also explored in many films. Kurosawa was just more prolific in the number of great films he made and in great subjects. Peckinpah kept the subject always close by digging into his own psyche. In Three Burials, Tommy Lee Jones' character battles his own violent identity to search for love but the portrait is incomplete. We see the actions of his violence without seeing the entire man.

Yet, I enjoyed the experience. I anticipated this film a lot and was happy to see it. Certain moments humbled the best of intentions that bad horror has these days. Its just I never got the human portrait I hoped for. Spike Lee ran into the same problem with his film, "Inside Man". A fine genre work for him but lacking in one department: We never understand why Clive Owen shows the humanitarian side he does at the end. It made the entire film empty for me. Sydney Lumet transcended the bank robbery film in Dog Day Afternoon. Spike Lee just reinforces the cliches.

[modage]

It left me lukewarm.  There were parts that I loved and then there were 'egh' parts.  The beginning didn't need to be non-linear.  It made it drag.  I agree with what Pete's saying, though I think that some of the manipulations were meant to give the film a tall-tale quality.  The subplots definitely weren't articulated.  From the ant burning scene on I loved. 

Contrary to my speculation, the strongest element was indeed Tommy Lee Jones as an actor and director.  The shot choices were as weird as the film's subject, went right along, Chris Menges did a great job.

true dat!