The Bull-Slinger Review: A Dusty, Grainy Relic That Still Kicks

Is this worth your time?

If you have a soft spot for grainy, 1920s dust-fests where the hero spends half the time adjusting his belt, then yeah, The Bull-Slinger is worth a look. It is a movie for people who like to see how films used to be made before everything was green screens and perfect lighting. If you need a plot that makes total sense or fast editing, you will probably hate this and turn it off in ten minutes. 🤠

It is a silent western, which means you have to do a bit of work. You have to read the title cards and imagine the sound of the wind. I watched a pretty rough print of this, and honestly, the scratches on the film almost made it better. It felt like looking at an old ghost.

The main guy is Leo Maloney. He has a face that looks like it was carved out of a dry piece of cedar. He plays this character who is a bit of a loudmouth. He tells everyone how great he is, which is where the title comes from. He is 'slinging the bull.' It is a bit like The Fighting Guide, another Maloney flick, but this one feels a bit more scrappy.

There is a scene early on where he is sitting in a saloon and the way he leans back in his chair is so dramatic. He is trying so hard to look cool. But then someone actually challenges him, and you see his eyes go wide for just a second. It is a small moment of real acting in a movie that usually feels like a bunch of guys playing dress-up.

The horses in this movie look tired. I kept thinking about that. In modern movies, horses look like they just came out of a shampoo commercial. In The Bull-Slinger, they look like they have been working a ten-hour shift in the sun. It adds a layer of reality that you can't fake. 🐴

I noticed a few things that were probably mistakes but I liked them anyway:

• A dog wanders into the background of a serious stand-off and just starts sniffing a crate. Nobody stops the scene.
• The villain has a mustache that looks like it might fall off if he sneezes too hard.
• There is a scratch on the left side of the lens that stays there for the whole second act. It looks like a tiny hair.

The pacing is weird. Some parts go by so fast you miss who is shooting at who. Then, there is a scene of a guy riding a horse across a flat plain that feels like it lasts for five minutes. I think the cameraman was sleepig or maybe they just had extra film to burn. It is not like The Royal Family of Broadway where everything feels theatrical and planned. This feels like they just went out into the desert and started filming until they ran out of light.

There is this one reaction shot of the leading lady that lingers way too long. She is supposed to be worried, but she looks like she is trying to remember if she left the stove on. It becomes funny after about six seconds. I love that stuff. It makes the movie feel human.

The action is okay, I guess. There is a lot of dust. When they fall off the horses, you can tell it actually hurt. There were no stunt doubles doing backflips back then. Just some guy hitting the ground hard. It reminds me of the physical grit in The Brute. It is messy and unpolished.

I found myself wondering about the extras in the background. There is a guy in the town scenes who is just leaning against a wall eating an apple in almost every shot. He is the most consistent thing in the movie. I wonder if he knew he would be preserved on film forever just eating that apple. 🍎

The ending is exactly what you think it is. The 'bull-slinger' has to stop talking and start shooting. He isn't actually a bad shot, which is a bit of a letdown. I kind of wanted him to be terrible at it and win by accident. But no, he becomes a typical hero. It is a bit predictable, like On the Border.

Why do we still watch these? I think it is because they are so honest. There is no ego behind the camera trying to make a 'masterpiece.' They were just making a product for people to watch on a Saturday night. It is more better than a lot of the over-produced stuff we get now because it doesn't pretend to be more than it is.

If you are looking for something deep, go watch something else. If you want to see a guy with a tiny hat ride a tired horse through a cloud of dust, this is your movie. It is short, it is loud (in your head), and it smells like old paper.

I liked it more than Home Talent, mostly because the desert scenery is better than a cramped stage. It has that wide-open feeling. Even if the story is thin, the sky looks huge.

One last thing. The title cards have some weird typos. I think the person typing them was in a hurry. It just adds to the charm. It is a movie made by people, for people. It is imperfect. And that is why it is good.