It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I usually read but not write reviews. Now... I needed to write. The main reason is that I did not see anyone of the reviewers have noticed how badly the character of antagonist is developed. First he is introduced to be a cruel, cold-blooded gang leader, who does not blink his eyes when killing police officers. And suddenly towards the and he becomes a coward trying to escape justice. I mean how? How exactly this could be possible in the wild west?Otherwise it is an OK movie, worth watching, though towards the end it becomes a boring mixture of revenge and love, not quite understandable.By the way, it is worth to watch the movie just to see Viggo Mortensen's stunning act!

Great set, relatively accurate, Ed and Viggo really fit extremely well together. Jeremy Irons is absolutely outstanding in this film. The casting was great except for Renèe Zellweger. My opinion is that she did not fit the role at all. She did not fit the character profile. I heard that Diane Lane was the 1st choice, but she did not do it. RZ seemed to be distracting to a great story line as well as giving a weak performance. I actually saw the movie before I read the book. RZ's character was much more fitting for the part as portrayed in the book. I would love to see Ed and Viggo team up again for another movie adaptation of a Robert B. Parker western. Great characters.

I cannot believe that so many good actors (Zellweger excepted) have put in so much effort in such hot and sweaty locations and come up with the most cliché-ridden "Western" I can remember. It took 30-minutes into the movie for me to realise that it was not a comedy and that it was actually meant to be taken seriously. Irons, Zellweger, Spall and Mortensen are the least convincing Western characters imaginable and for Ed Harris to put his name to it (as Director, screenplay writer and actor) is probably the greatest mistake(s) he's ever made. Sorry Ed, it don't get much worse than this. Never mind the worthless awards, this is rubbish of the first order. Still, locations and costumes were decent. Just a pity about everything else. The tag line was "Feelings get you killed" : whatever, beats watching the movie.

"Appaloosa" is a form of new-wave western that centers on a simple plot but with plenty of twists along the way. The story is simple but the acting is spot on. The connection between Ed and Viggo is unique, their friendship being on of the most enjoyable parts of the film. The setting is basic, but beautiful, and the villain, Jeremy Irons, is spot on (he seems to always play a good villain, except for "Dungeons and Dragons"). There really is no reason to hate this movie, but some aspects of the film lead to some negative opinions. For instance, Renée Zellweger's character was really, really unlikeable (in my opinion). Another is the storyline which seemed to jump from character to character with no sense of time and the love triangle within the story can be irritating to the viewer. This film has its moments and issues but other then that "Appaloosa" is a basic western brought to the younger audience to spark a new interest in the old genre.