ajdin-marinkovic This should/could be one of the best wild west movie(if not the best),aside classic westerns.And sad thing is that just couple of simply unnecessary 'events' in the movie ruins that chance. :( .Someone did a mistake of a lifetime,screenwriter or director....or whoever it was, doesn't really matter.I do not have any intention of describing story,and i will definitely read the novel "The Last Ride" written by Thomas Eidson.For two reasons first to make sure i'm not accusing someone wrongly.Second too enjoy if i'm right,and i believe that the novel is just much batter than the movie,as is practically every book turned into movie.

Wuchak I'm a bit flabbergasted by the many low reviews for this Ron Howard Western. Did we see the same movie? The filmmaking is of the highest order and the story slowly captivates you. The characters are good and realistic: Tommy Lee Jones plays a white man gone injun who returns to his adult daughter whom he inexplicably deserted years earlier. Cate Blanchett portrays the unforgiving daughter who is an unmarried doctor and mother of two girls in the New Mexican wilderness.One of the best characters is the Apache witchdoctor who kidnaps one of Blanchett's daughters. Played by Eric Schweig, the witchdoctor -- or "brujo" -- is a fiend of the lowest depths; the incarnation of heartless evil itself. He even looks like Satan himself. Great job on this front.The last hour or so of the film takes place in some fine Southwest locations (shot in New Mexico); if you love the Southwest, be sure to check out this film.Roger Ebert criticized how unbelievable it is that Jones and Blanchett are able to outdo the Indians at being Indians. Yet anyone who watches the film will observe that their realistic plan is to simply BUY BACK the girls from the brujo and his clan, not confront them in an unwise mêlée. Secondly, other Native Americans join their cause and therefore it's not just a group of white folks trying to outdo Indians at being Indian. Thirdly, Jones lived with the Natives for years, so if anyone could outdo the Indians at being Indian it would be someone like him. Fourthly, Blanchett is portrayed as a tough-as-nails woman living a very hard life in the desolate Western wilderness; hence, she and most other non-Indian people in similar circumstances were more than formidable as opponents of the kidnapping Indians (Why is it assumed that only Indians lived a hard life in the West? ANYONE living out in the wilderness in that era had to be tough).There are two cuts to the film -- 137 minutes and 154 minutes. I saw the shorter version and felt that it was plenty long enough.BOTTOM LINE: "The Missing" is a quality modern Western that should not be missed. It's not as good as "Dances With Wolves" or the 2007 version of "3:10 to Yuma," but it's on par with Westerns like "Open Range," "Appaloosa (2008)," "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" and "Seraphim Falls." GRADE: B

secondtake The Missing (2003)A great cast, and great casting, make for the best core of the movie which eventually boils down to a rather well done Western. When you talk about a Western—as in the genre of movies known as Westerns— you probably picture a certain kind of plot, landscape, range of characters, and even morality. How do you make a Western now that avoids the clichés? Well, it's hard. That's one reason they faded away in the 1960s as they became parodies of themselves (not always on purpose) or exercises in excess (sometimes to superb effect, as in "The Wild Bunch" and "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" genre). Recent Westerns tend to heighten their realism to a level less common earlier, with more brutal violence, more vivid location shooting, and a kind of acting that pulls out all the stops. The recent "True Grit" remake shows how different movies with the same plot can be. And "The Missing" is a very well made contemporary Western that doesn't escape all these pre-qualifications. And that's it's biggest downfall. It does introduce a contemporary idea into late 19th Century society—sex slave trade across the border. I don't know if this was really going on then, but it is meant to be a comment on how it happening now. It makes it really brutal and ugly, of course, and you sympathize fully.But the movie continues some dangerous clichés—the wild Indian, the naive Mexicans, the innocent hard-working pioneer families (wearing crosses), and the loner on his horse who will save the day. The loner is at first unlikely—Tommy Lee Jones—but he's really good. The rest of the cast is fine, sometimes excellent, but trapped (as is Jones) by having to fill stereotypical roles with an added wart or twitch. It's generally watchable, but sadly old hat.There is an aspect here that's truly insulting--at least to the politically correct, or the correct (to avoid that cliché). To repeat the maligning attributes that we have to assume were common but not universal of all these kinds of people is just mean and a little dumb. It makes the movie far less that it could have been.

BigLaxFan94 The first thing I look for in Native films like these is how accurate they are. What I mean by that is how well do the actors portraying as the Native characters come across to the viewer. Ever since 1990's 'Dances with Wolves', Native films have really come a long way in that non-Natives have gotten to know how Natives ARE SUPPOSED TO BE portrayed in films and NOT as savage, ruthless heathens! That kind of ancient mentality has to go! Eric Schweig was awesome in this film. But he's great in any film since he has the natural ability to portray himself as either a hero or a villain. Anyways.. this one earns an 8 out of 10 in my books.