hopebuild The sloppiness I blame on the director. My friend said, "...who cares it was made for HBO...". I care and if it were my name associated with the movie I would at least make sure you couldn't see the harness cable behind the head of the man being hung. You could totally see it. They could have shot it from another angle and then we couldn't have seen it. Also in the scene in court they show women and a black man on the jury. Not even. In 1890 not even a state yet Wyoming no women were sitting on the jury. Anyway this movie is fraught with ill fitting scenes, motivations, and had lots of goofs. I saw John Cusack move his arm when they took him down from the gallows. There were many goofs. I would never put my name on something this sloppily made even if it were only for TV. I feel insulted when movies are this sloppily done.

MBunge Many modern Westerns take a whack at demythologizing the frontier, but I don't know of any other film that does it as powerfully and thoroughly as The Jack Bull. All the old, familiar themes are here, stripped of their pretense and given new and exciting life in a challenging tale that becomes more morally and ethically complex as it goes along.In the waning days of the Wyoming Territory, a horse trader named Myrl Redding (John Cusack) gets into a dispute with a land baron named Henry Ballard (L. Q. Jones) over two stallions. Myrl left them with Ballard as collateral for a toll to pass through Ballard's land on way to a horse auction. When Myrl returns for them, he finds his man left to mind the horses beaten and run off and the animals whipped, mistreated and worked near to death. Myrl demands the stallions be restored to the previous condition by Ballard's own hand, something the rich man sneeringly refuses.Myrl takes his case to the local judge (Ken Pogue), only to find him in Ballard's pocket. He tries to petition the territorial Attorney General, only to have that request end in tragedy. Unwilling to let the wrong done him go unanswered, Myrl gathers together a gang of men and rides up to Ballard's spread to get justice for himself. Ballard escapes, however, leaving Myrl to lead his men across the countryside, threatening to burn out anyone who gives aid or shelter to Ballard. This little insurrection eventually brings the conflict between Myrl and Ballard to the attention of the territorial governor (Scott Wilson), but not until people are killed and someone has to be help accountable for those deaths.Myrl Redding deserves to stand alongside Tom Doniphon and Liberty Valance in the pantheon of Wild West cinema. All three symbolize how the sort of men who made the frontier the glorious place it was, were also the sort of men who would have no place as the frontier gave way to civilization. Make no mistake, Henry Ballard is the bad guy in this story and Redding is the good guy. But most of Ballard's actions are legal and only slightly unethical. The crimes he does commit are of a petty nature. The awful events of The Jack Bull flow not from the greed or arrogance of Henry Ballard, but from the uncompromising pride and independence of Myrl Redding. Ballard makes only a little spark. It is Myrl who pours gasoline on that spark until it becomes a deadly fire.Taking the law into your own hand when you're denied justice is one of the oldest Western stories. The Jack Bull is one of the few that recognizes when you take the law into your own hands, it's like setting yourself alone in a boat across the ocean. You have nothing but your wits and your will to deal with all the forces that come against you and decisions and actions that seem right can have disastrous consequences. A corrupt justice system fails Myrl Redding, but no justice system can withstand men who pursue their own righteous satisfaction to the exclusion of all else.In addition to being smart and compelling, The Jack Bull has a marvelous cast. Strong performances abound, particularly Scott Wilson and John Goodman as another territorial judge who is committed to seeing justice done to its fullest extent. John Cusack is tremendously effective, never letting what Myrl Redding represents overwhelm the character's simply humanity. And Director John Badham does an excellent job at capturing the extremes which lived side by side in the dying days of the Wild West.The Jack Bull is an outstanding movie and is a must see of the modern Western.

Petri Pelkonen Myrl Redding is a horse trader from Wyoming.Rancher Henry Ballard becomes his worst enemy after he abuses two of Redding's horses and Billy, the Crow Indian caretaker.The local judge throws out Myrl's complaint.He tells Ballard to nurse the horses back to health.He refuses.So begins a manhunt where everybody's life is in danger.All Myrl wants is justice.The Jack Bull (1999) is a made for television western directed by John Badham.It's loosely based on Heinrich von Kleist 1811 book Michael Kohlhaas.I bought the movie as a DVD some time ago.John Cusack does terrific job as Myrl Redding.The script was written by his late father, Dick Cusack, and he really wanted to do this film.John Goodman is great as the fair judge Tolliver.L.Q. Jones makes a great villain in Henry Ballard.Miranda Otto is fantastic as Myrl's wife Cora Redding.Same thing with Drake Bell as his son Cage.Great job by John McGinley as Woody.John Savage is very good as Slater.Rodney A. Grant as Billy is marvelous.Ned Bellamy is very good as Kermit Dover.Scott Wilson is great as Governor.Byrne Piven, Jeremy's father plays Tub Weller.Dick Cusack is seen as Jury Foreman.Also Bill Cusack, John's brother is seen in the movie.The soundtrack includes "Ring Them Bells" by Bob Dylan.It looks pretty amazing when Myrl and his posse ride to the spot, terrifying the villains.The Jack Bull is pretty nice modern western.

secho ** Spoilers**Oh but I'm angry. Based on a true story or not, there's absolutely no reason for the last twenty minutes of this movie - a melodramatic hanging of its hero (some say `antihero') that does little more than leave audience mouths agape. I, myself, felt both sickened and incredulous by the almost fetishistic manner in which the movie dealt with the hanging. First there is this whiny buildup of tension. Will he be hanged? Won't he be hanged? Then the sad and dismayed son is trotted out like some kind of token ornament to provoke sympathy from the audience. As the scene tiredly plays out, everything and I mean everything seems to point to the inherent justice in sparing the condemned man's life. We demand that someone save him. But in the end, what happens? He is of course hanged -- in an orgy, I might add, of tear-jerking music and slow motion camera work. I don't mind an unconventional ending, but give me a break at least. Don't draw the thing out. The only explanation I can see for this ending is that the writers truly did not care about the audience. Whatever point was trying to be made here about the occasional unfairness of the law, taking responsibility for your own actions, and standing up for what you believe in was lost on me. And don't tell me that every movie doesn't have to have a happy ending. Yeah, no kidding, so then don't manipulate your audience to expect one. That's just bad film making.