Waterhole #3 (1967)

Too much of everything

Simply A Masterpiece

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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.

I had never heard of this until a few days ago (usually not a good sign) and found it on Encore Westerns the same week (also usually not a good sign). But it had Coburn, O'Connor, and Akins in it so I was thinking for the best. I briefly read the summary and that it was a comedy or at least kind of light hearted western so I went in to get a uplifting feel from it. I also looked at Coburn's filmography and this was released in between his Flint sequel, In Like Flint, and one of my favorite Coburn films The President's Analyst, so hey it's 1957 and it's Coburn at his peak right? THEN, I started watching this and the credits say Blake Edwards! Oh wow this is a sure thing! And Roger Miller is singing? Oh wow! Well Edwards only produced it which mean he watched the money, he didn't make it. And Roger Miller is singing way too long so thats not too good, he sounds like he's been on hard times, hard livin times. Anyway It's OK I guess but it's not really humorous or exciting. But it was OK to watch but that ending is stupid beyond belief for a film that really isn't outrageous before. I'd say watch only for a Coburn, O'Connor, or Akins completest's. I think they killed off the best character, Harry Davis, way too early at the start to make it half way interesting. And of course Timothy Carey is playing an unstable guy but really not used to great effect like he could have been. And I'm sure most of the reviews are talking about rape and I totally agree, the women in the audience must have been revolted. I mean I was and I'm a man. 6 of 10 and that's being generous. Film has little going for it outside of curiosity.

Writerascritic went on a diatribe, but he has as many "authenticity" holes as the movie. Historically, it was actually rare for a woman to be raped in the west and if she was, the man was usually killed as soon as he was located. Women were rare in the raw west and were protected accordingly.Women were not just kept barefoot and pregnant. They had children, but how many was a result of social standing. Poor farmers may have needed farm hands, but children still had to be fed and that could be tough. Few women had "dozens" of children because many died in child birth.Why gay issues were brought into his review other than the fact that writerascritic is obviously a hate monger is a mystery to me. I have read his other reviews and it's obvious that he is homophobic and his reviews should be monitored for useless, hate filled content.Poor writerascritic can't contain his hate just toward gays and women who want to be treated decently, but also religious folk. What's funny is during the era the movie was supposedly set in, 90% plus of the white population of the United States was strongly Christian and practiced the faith ardently.It's obvious that the subject matter is a reflection not of the story's time, but of the era of the movie production when Hollywood was resisting the idea that women should have rights. This was and is due to the fact that Hollywood makes far too much money exploiting women and anyone else not white male to readily change movie styles. This movie is just as mediocre as most made during the 60's, humorous at times with a weak script. Good actors put to waste with a singer narrator reiterating the existing story line.Thankfully, times have changed and if you want to see how much in the last 60 years this is the movie to see.

I liked it better than I would have once I realized that it was actually written by a film student I knew. This formerly devout, still a sweetheart guy was talking big with a typical male swagger of the mid-60s, but when I watched it with my eyes open to a certain character conflict, I could see that Billie, who in a sense is given nothing, is actually given quite a bit as a character. After the rape, she is not blissful about being raped as much as she's "imprinted", her first opportunity to fall in love. She sort of is undecided about whether she's been raped or not; she thinks so, and can't even get her father to care. She makes them pay attention by roping them in together: that's a statement they ought to pay attention to!'and they do. Since I knew the guy, I began to realize the conflicts were his own. He was caught between the expectations of the macho world and his own desire to see it go better than that, to show more love and respect for a woman. He was kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. Male society was unforgiving, not only of gay tendencies but of serious heterosexual tendencies, such as love. This guy was a secret lover of slow love songs: death to a macho reputation. I remember how they used to talk. Anyway, when I'd watch it with a little mercy on the guy, I'd see things in it that you can't say are successfully conveyed since they are so hidden in the cold-blooded bravado and bluster, but they are there if you look for them, understanding what guys were up against then. I hated rape, and I still do. As a believer in Jesus Christ, if I had been inclined to say it was OK, I'd know that it was sin, and certainly not doing unto the other as you would have them do unto you. If it makes you feel better, the guy got his own panties in a twist in a terrible, unjust situation in the latter part of the decade! So, there you go. He should have not made a movie that was even ambiguous about something so destructive to another person. But in making Billie fall in love with him, he dignifies her sort of under the typical hard-boiled movie's radar. It is not my favorite movie, but the actual screenwriter will always be one of my favorite people.

This film ranks as one of my personal, all-time favorite comedy movies. I laugh myself silly every time I watch it, but I have never known any woman who enjoyed it, or even sat through the whole thing, due to the blatant sexist script, especially the jokes about James Coburn's rape of the sheriff's daughter. For example, the line "Hell, Sheriff, it wasn't rape...it was only assault with a friendly weapon!" While there are many fantastic comedic performances by a host of actors, both famous & lesser known, the one great scene that always reduces me to uncontrollable laughter is the shoot out in the whore house with shotguns blowing everything to smithereens. That scene must be seen to be believed. The title song is funny & really sticks in your memory too..."It's the Code of the West!" (a man soaps his own saddle, brands his own cattle, and some of his neighbor's as well). To sum up...this is a movie that will reduce men to so much laughter that they will have trouble breathing, but will offend every woman who tries to sit through it. A really great comedy movie but don't watch it with your wife unless you want to be called "a sexist pig" and forced to sleep in the garage for a week.