By all reports, the otherwise great director Richard Lester had never seen a western and he'd never seen the original Butch and Sundance film. It makes sense because there are parts of this movie that almost feel like the outrageous slapstick of A Hard Day's Night or Help, only without the humor. And whether Sundance is heisting a poker game, using one gun in a room filled with fifty opposing guns, or whether the team is robbing a train filled with United States cavalry soldiers, they act indestructible, like Superman.
Did someone forget to tell Richard that people will believe the impossible but not the improbable? Yes, Superman can fly, he can outrace the fastest train, he can bend steel and he can even turn back the world. But why should men have to pay twenty dollars and up for a barroom lady at a time when the average man's salary was seventeen dollars a month? Why were Butch and Sundance walking fifty miles roundtrip through heavy snow when the weather was perfectly fine and no one was wearing a coat at their point of origin? Why didn't O. C. continue to shoot at Butch after firing only one or two rounds? And again, why would they possibly try to rob a train, and how did they conceivably succeed, when said train was filled with skilled American soldiers?
And where did Butch's wife and sons come from? They weren't even alluded to in the original film or in any biography of Butch Cassidy that I could find. Was something needed to fill time or to give a touch more humanity and credibility to the characters? Why not just give Butch or Sundance a short term relationship with a woman and her children?
The first ten minutes of this film, along with the director's name and the connection to the original, made me feel like it had a lot of potential. The opening scenario introduces Butch in an interesting, creative way. Katt and Berrenger look, talk and act like younger versions of Newman and Redford's creations, which works well in the beginning. However, the sharp left turn to the ludicrous made me want to instantaneously sever all connections to the classic film. These are not the same characters so why should the actors look and sound similar? Why didn't they just do their own slapstick version of Butch and Sundance as younger men, without any reference to or association with the first film? It might have worked better for me on that level. Besides the lack of any kind of credibility, there were also some inconsistencies. Again, where did Butch's family suddenly come from? And did Richard Lester forget to watch the scene where older Butch and Sundance reveal their real names to each other, for the first time?
Allan Burns was a skilled TV writer of programs like My Mother the Car, Get Smart and even Bullwinkle. If this film intentionally took the tone of one of those, I might have bought into it. Trying to be consistent with the original Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid while maintaining the mood of F-Troop didn't quite do it for me. Diligent effort, which is why I just upped my star rating from three to four. Happily, the original is an eternal classic and this one is all but forgotten.
Did someone forget to tell Richard that people will believe the impossible but not the improbable? Yes, Superman can fly, he can outrace the fastest train, he can bend steel and he can even turn back the world. But why should men have to pay twenty dollars and up for a barroom lady at a time when the average man's salary was seventeen dollars a month? Why were Butch and Sundance walking fifty miles roundtrip through heavy snow when the weather was perfectly fine and no one was wearing a coat at their point of origin? Why didn't O. C. continue to shoot at Butch after firing only one or two rounds? And again, why would they possibly try to rob a train, and how did they conceivably succeed, when said train was filled with skilled American soldiers?
And where did Butch's wife and sons come from? They weren't even alluded to in the original film or in any biography of Butch Cassidy that I could find. Was something needed to fill time or to give a touch more humanity and credibility to the characters? Why not just give Butch or Sundance a short term relationship with a woman and her children?
The first ten minutes of this film, along with the director's name and the connection to the original, made me feel like it had a lot of potential. The opening scenario introduces Butch in an interesting, creative way. Katt and Berrenger look, talk and act like younger versions of Newman and Redford's creations, which works well in the beginning. However, the sharp left turn to the ludicrous made me want to instantaneously sever all connections to the classic film. These are not the same characters so why should the actors look and sound similar? Why didn't they just do their own slapstick version of Butch and Sundance as younger men, without any reference to or association with the first film? It might have worked better for me on that level. Besides the lack of any kind of credibility, there were also some inconsistencies. Again, where did Butch's family suddenly come from? And did Richard Lester forget to watch the scene where older Butch and Sundance reveal their real names to each other, for the first time?
Allan Burns was a skilled TV writer of programs like My Mother the Car, Get Smart and even Bullwinkle. If this film intentionally took the tone of one of those, I might have bought into it. Trying to be consistent with the original Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid while maintaining the mood of F-Troop didn't quite do it for me. Diligent effort, which is why I just upped my star rating from three to four. Happily, the original is an eternal classic and this one is all but forgotten.