Ever since my dad first told me about this movie, and fond memories he had of seeing it when it came out (and wanting to see it again), I too became very interested and determined to see it. This may be a period piece set in Oregon during the Great Depression, but it's definitely a 70s film through and through. It's a
tough, violent, and gritty story about survival, masculinity, and trying to do what one can to make it in an unforgiving world. It's 1933, and train conductor Shack is a cruel, sadistic man who is hell bent on keeping anyone off his train if they aren't a paying customer. It's desperate times for the railroad, so he is forced to do what he can to keep hobos from freeloading. Even then, his actions go to an extreme, and he's a real force of nature that will not listen to reason or change his ways. On the opposite end of the spectrum is A No. 1, a legend among hobos for being great at not getting kicked off trains. All of the hobos know and hate Shack, so when A No. 1 vows to take him on, ride his train and earn the right to be called the Emperor of the North Pole (a god among men, essentially), bets are placed, the news is spread, and the game is on, starting with a series of pranks and tricks, but ending in a spectacular finish as Shack's train barrels towards Portland. That's the basic premise, and it is simple, but deceptively so. Ypu could take this film at face value, but there's really more to it than that, and this is more than just a B-action movie. Complicating things is the arrival of Cigaret, a young, inexperienced, and immature bum who is not very smart, and foolishly tries to beat A No. 1 to the punch. Oddly enough, A No. 1 takes the kid under his wing (begrudgingly) and tries to teach him how to be a proper bum, but the upstart does more harm than good, but it makes for more drama, and adds to the story.This film has some moments of humor, and despite the music being rather folksy and contrasting to the events, this is a grim and serious movie. I don't think it's a full fledged horror movie, but I can see how one might look at it that way, similar to No Country for Old Men. The film appears to be rather simple and one dimensional, with the characters seeming one dimesntional, but that's not true at all. This film, I think, is rather smart. The script is economic, and the director doesn't spoonfeed the audience. Yeah, Shack seems very one note in his determination, but if one considers the historical context, his actions become a bit more justifiable. Same goes for the hobos. They are desperate to make a living too, and they are forced to hop the rails. It's not like they do it for kicks (well, to a degree). This film does a great job up being really morally ambiguous, and not painting either side as being truly right or wrong. That's not to say the characters are unlikeable though. In that regard, this is definitely a product of its time. Like I said above, it's a period piece, but it's got all the hallmarks of being made during the 1970s.The acting is great. Ernest Borgnine is a real mean S.O.B. as Shack, and his demented grin as he beats people off of his train with a hammer is chilling and unforgettable. It's awesome seeing him go toe to toe with Marvin, who brings a great sense of weariness and experience to the role of A No. 1. He's a sly one, and, despite not being a saint, he deserves his chance to do what he has to in order to make the grim situation of the Depression more tolerable. Keith Carradine is also good as Cigaret, despite the fact that his character is more of an annoyance, and he's almost as irritating as Shack. The music is good, and the location shooting and cinematography are top notch, but it's Robert Aldrich's direction that really makes this a gripping and suspenseful film. From the series of pranks and stunts that are done to ruin Shack professionally throguh the scenes of A No. 1 trying to educate Cigaret all the way to the big final confrontation aboard the moving train, this film is fileld with energy, tension, and the world being presented really comes alive in all of its unsavory detail. This is an ugly mess of a world, but it's hard to look away. I'm rather bummed out that this isn't a more well known or appreciated film. It's far better than Ebert gave it credit for. I think he just missed the point. This is a film that is not to be missed. Also, for an alternate, and better take on this film, please see the review written on here by LittleMissBloodAndGuts. Thank you, and have a great day.
January 3, 2010
Top Critic
