A mysterious preacher protects a humble prospector village from a greedy mining company trying to encroach on their land.A mysterious preacher protects a humble prospector village from a greedy mining company trying to encroach on their land.A mysterious preacher protects a humble prospector village from a greedy mining company trying to encroach on their land.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 2 nominations
Chris Penn
- Josh LaHood
- (as Christopher Penn)
Chuck Lafont
- Eddie Conway
- (as Chuck LaFont)
Randy Oglesby
- Elam
- (as Tom Oglesby)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe first horse assigned to Richard Kiel collapsed the first time he climbed aboard. He was then assigned a stronger horse.
- GoofsWhen Stockburn's deputies confront Spider Conway outside of LaHood's office, they fire 32 shots in the first volley. After Stockburn fires his sixth shot and Spider attempts to fire back, the deputies fire another 36 shots from the same revolvers without reloading.
- Quotes
Megan Wheeler: [Reading from the Book of Revelation] And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the fourth beast said: "Come and see." And I looked, and behold a pale horse. And his name that sat on him was Death.
[the Preacher rides up on his pale horse]
Megan Wheeler: And Hell followed with him.
- Crazy creditsThe credit for catering just says "The Caterers" (including the quotation marks in the credit).
- Alternate versionsAnother version of the 1984 Warner Bros. logo that appeared in the 1990's VHS prints does not have the word "presents" appearing underneath the Warner Communications byline.
Featured review
Well enough done in the big picture to keep it rolling through some glitches.
Pale Rider (1985)
An American Western trying (and often succeeding) at being an archetypal example of the genre. Clint Eastwood is a maturing actor and director at this point, and the movie has a kind of heft of someone who knows the ropes and has a good crew.
But Eastwood as director maybe lacks perspective on his abilities, and he overwhelms the intelligence of the excellent cinematographer (Bruce Surtees, son of the legendary Robert) and the young be competent editor. Mostly this doesn't matter--the many rough edged character actors keep an Old West authenticity to the acting, and the sets and scenery are both true and real seeming. It's more the little decisions now and then that push you from the realism, and not in a stylized way other directors make obvious.
An example right away: when one man is shot, he gets a dozen or twenty bullets in him and is still alive and responsive. It takes a final bullet to the head to put him down like a dog. This is theatrics, and it's dramatic in a cheap way. Much of the movie is not cheap, but somehow Eastwood can't avoid himself.
Other example. The first scene is a classic, intelligent case of parallel editing--two separate stories told back and forth in tandem until they meet. We see the galloping bad guys interspersed with scenes of a small settlement of innocents. Suspense builds. We see the inevitable coming, and then it comes. Mayhem death and destruction.
So why do the two women have to act like idiots? I mean, there are a dozen horses ravaging the tents and buggies and people in the village and instead of running to the trees or just hiding, the two women are running through and between the horses, oblivious to their danger, the younger one of them mindlessly looking for her dog. It's sentimentally nice, but it doesn't seem right. Or smart.
The women actually serve as props for manly expressions throughout, from the 14 year old hitting sexually on Eastwood (his ego is unbridled, but the character, flattered, avoids such obvious abuse) to her mother wanting, just once, to know what making love to this great paradigm is all about (before marrying the much nicer fellow who loves her a lot).
I don't mean to put too much emphasis on what doesn't work here. The movie overall is a masculine, beautiful western in the updated sense of later westerns, anything after "The Wild Bunch." Eastwood always enjoys playing the unorthodox hero. The enemy is a corporate kind of presence, a ruthless mining company with no environmental tenderness. The archetypes of good and bad people run wild here, and if you let them it's fine.
So really we have what is another reworking of familiar themes from the genre, well enough done to keep it afloat if you turn a blind eye now and then.
An American Western trying (and often succeeding) at being an archetypal example of the genre. Clint Eastwood is a maturing actor and director at this point, and the movie has a kind of heft of someone who knows the ropes and has a good crew.
But Eastwood as director maybe lacks perspective on his abilities, and he overwhelms the intelligence of the excellent cinematographer (Bruce Surtees, son of the legendary Robert) and the young be competent editor. Mostly this doesn't matter--the many rough edged character actors keep an Old West authenticity to the acting, and the sets and scenery are both true and real seeming. It's more the little decisions now and then that push you from the realism, and not in a stylized way other directors make obvious.
An example right away: when one man is shot, he gets a dozen or twenty bullets in him and is still alive and responsive. It takes a final bullet to the head to put him down like a dog. This is theatrics, and it's dramatic in a cheap way. Much of the movie is not cheap, but somehow Eastwood can't avoid himself.
Other example. The first scene is a classic, intelligent case of parallel editing--two separate stories told back and forth in tandem until they meet. We see the galloping bad guys interspersed with scenes of a small settlement of innocents. Suspense builds. We see the inevitable coming, and then it comes. Mayhem death and destruction.
So why do the two women have to act like idiots? I mean, there are a dozen horses ravaging the tents and buggies and people in the village and instead of running to the trees or just hiding, the two women are running through and between the horses, oblivious to their danger, the younger one of them mindlessly looking for her dog. It's sentimentally nice, but it doesn't seem right. Or smart.
The women actually serve as props for manly expressions throughout, from the 14 year old hitting sexually on Eastwood (his ego is unbridled, but the character, flattered, avoids such obvious abuse) to her mother wanting, just once, to know what making love to this great paradigm is all about (before marrying the much nicer fellow who loves her a lot).
I don't mean to put too much emphasis on what doesn't work here. The movie overall is a masculine, beautiful western in the updated sense of later westerns, anything after "The Wild Bunch." Eastwood always enjoys playing the unorthodox hero. The enemy is a corporate kind of presence, a ruthless mining company with no environmental tenderness. The archetypes of good and bad people run wild here, and if you let them it's fine.
So really we have what is another reworking of familiar themes from the genre, well enough done to keep it afloat if you turn a blind eye now and then.
helpful•82
- secondtake
- Jan 18, 2013
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Pale Rider - Der namenlose Reiter
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $6,900,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $41,410,568
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $9,119,111
- Jun 30, 1985
- Gross worldwide
- $41,410,568
- Runtime1 hour 55 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content