Friday, June 20, 2008
I'm pretty sure we had on Knocked Up and the original Assault on Precinct 13 on Thursday night, but I didn't pay much attention to either, so they don't count. I watched this one Friday afternoon, in between helping move stuff out to Shenan's car. It's a Clint western, with a spooky/supernatural/avenging angel kind of vibe similar to Pale Rider. This one's more fun (although I like Pale Rider more) and has a bit of an over the top, Leone-ish vibe to it. This is worth seeing... it's not a great Western, but memorably weird.
Showing posts with label Western. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Western. Show all posts
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Two days after watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, here's another movie with an absurdly long title.
This is the third and best James Gang themed movie I've watched in the last few months, after Walter Hill's The Long Riders and Samuel Fuller's I Shot Jesse James. Long Riders was really a highly fictionalized, slightly romanticized version that is basically an action movie, where Robert Ford is barely a footnote (in fact, Charlie Ford gets probably 4 times the dialogue Robert does). I Shot Jesse James, however, covers a lot of the same material as Assassination (god, even typing just the first word seems long), so it's worth comparing, because the movies could hardly be more different.
Both focus on Robert Ford as the lead character, and the build up to his murder of Jesse, and how his life subsequently falls apart. Shot is a brisk hour and twenty minutes, while Assassination is a hearty two hours and forty. Both have scenes where Ford is in a bar and someone sings a song about "the Coward Robert Ford" and he does not react well. Both movies show Ford joining a stage show where he re-enacts Jesse's murder every night, although Assassination has his brother Charlie playing the role of Jesse on-stage. But even though they tell the same stories, they aren't much alike. Shot has Jesse get killed within the first 20 minutes, and the rest of the movie is about Ford's decent into guilt. Assassination doesn't get to the shooting until about two hours in, and more focuses on the relationship between Ford and James.
The main difference in films is the treatment of Ford and James' characters. In Shot, I think Ford is maybe a little more sympathetic... he kills Jesse in a cowardly way, but he thinks he's doing it for the right reasons, and then spends the rest of his life feeling guilty. Jesse James isn't in it long, but comes off as a nice guy. In Assassination, Ford is a bizarre, awkward creep who is infatuated with James (maybe in love with him?) and tries to insinuate himself in James' life... he's the wild west version of a celebrity stalker. And James is seen as a violent, paranoid sociopath, prone to weird mood swings where one minute he's your best friend, and the next he's leading you out into the woods to shoot you. But what's really weird here is that the movie suggests that James is suicidal, or at least attracted to danger. It's clear that he sees through Ford, sees his obsession and the danger he presents, yet keeps him around any way. And then, in a subtle but unmistakable way, he more or less invites Ford to shoot him while his back is turned.
I don't want to mince words here: I thought Assassination was a great movie. It is easily the greatest western since Unforgiven, although it doesn't feel much like a western. It's dark, brooding and complex, and possibly the best looking movie that came out last year. Sure, pretty looking open landscapes are a staple in westerns, but I don't think we've ever seen a train robbery scene like the one here, where mysterious figures slowly crawl out of the dark of night, and the steam rolls out of the engine like smoke coming out of the gates of hell.
I've always liked Brad Pitt, and he gives one his best performances here, and I think we'd all be fawning over his work if it wasn't for just how great Casey Affleck is. Affleck steals the movie, and given the strength of Pitt's work, that's no mean feat. Affleck is just so unnerving and pathetic here... he has this deliberate way of speaking where you realize that Ford must practice in his head what he wants to say to Jesse ahead of time, trying to attain some sort of fantasy ideal of their life together. He's awful and creepy, but like Travis Bickle he's so helpless and pathetic that you have a sick kind of pity for him, even if he is the 1800's Mark David Chapman.
If I have one complaint, the movie may overuse its narration, which I'm guessing comes from the book. A few times the narrator basically describes things that we can clearly understand from the visuals. For the most part it works... it's even necessary, for example, during the ending, when Ford is unceremoniously murdered by a man he never met. Still, they could have cut it down in a few places, and trusted the images to tell the story. It reminded me a bit of Terrence Mallick with The New World or The Thin Red Line where you just want the narration to stop so you can focus on the beautiful images.
I think a while back I lauded 3:10 to Yuma for being a straightforward western, and complained that I was maybe a little tired of revisionist/elegiac westerns. Well, this one is certainly not a traditional western, so I'll go ahead and eat my words and say that I was wrong, this beats the pants off a typical traditional western.
Two days after watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, here's another movie with an absurdly long title.
This is the third and best James Gang themed movie I've watched in the last few months, after Walter Hill's The Long Riders and Samuel Fuller's I Shot Jesse James. Long Riders was really a highly fictionalized, slightly romanticized version that is basically an action movie, where Robert Ford is barely a footnote (in fact, Charlie Ford gets probably 4 times the dialogue Robert does). I Shot Jesse James, however, covers a lot of the same material as Assassination (god, even typing just the first word seems long), so it's worth comparing, because the movies could hardly be more different.
Both focus on Robert Ford as the lead character, and the build up to his murder of Jesse, and how his life subsequently falls apart. Shot is a brisk hour and twenty minutes, while Assassination is a hearty two hours and forty. Both have scenes where Ford is in a bar and someone sings a song about "the Coward Robert Ford" and he does not react well. Both movies show Ford joining a stage show where he re-enacts Jesse's murder every night, although Assassination has his brother Charlie playing the role of Jesse on-stage. But even though they tell the same stories, they aren't much alike. Shot has Jesse get killed within the first 20 minutes, and the rest of the movie is about Ford's decent into guilt. Assassination doesn't get to the shooting until about two hours in, and more focuses on the relationship between Ford and James.
The main difference in films is the treatment of Ford and James' characters. In Shot, I think Ford is maybe a little more sympathetic... he kills Jesse in a cowardly way, but he thinks he's doing it for the right reasons, and then spends the rest of his life feeling guilty. Jesse James isn't in it long, but comes off as a nice guy. In Assassination, Ford is a bizarre, awkward creep who is infatuated with James (maybe in love with him?) and tries to insinuate himself in James' life... he's the wild west version of a celebrity stalker. And James is seen as a violent, paranoid sociopath, prone to weird mood swings where one minute he's your best friend, and the next he's leading you out into the woods to shoot you. But what's really weird here is that the movie suggests that James is suicidal, or at least attracted to danger. It's clear that he sees through Ford, sees his obsession and the danger he presents, yet keeps him around any way. And then, in a subtle but unmistakable way, he more or less invites Ford to shoot him while his back is turned.
I don't want to mince words here: I thought Assassination was a great movie. It is easily the greatest western since Unforgiven, although it doesn't feel much like a western. It's dark, brooding and complex, and possibly the best looking movie that came out last year. Sure, pretty looking open landscapes are a staple in westerns, but I don't think we've ever seen a train robbery scene like the one here, where mysterious figures slowly crawl out of the dark of night, and the steam rolls out of the engine like smoke coming out of the gates of hell.
I've always liked Brad Pitt, and he gives one his best performances here, and I think we'd all be fawning over his work if it wasn't for just how great Casey Affleck is. Affleck steals the movie, and given the strength of Pitt's work, that's no mean feat. Affleck is just so unnerving and pathetic here... he has this deliberate way of speaking where you realize that Ford must practice in his head what he wants to say to Jesse ahead of time, trying to attain some sort of fantasy ideal of their life together. He's awful and creepy, but like Travis Bickle he's so helpless and pathetic that you have a sick kind of pity for him, even if he is the 1800's Mark David Chapman.
If I have one complaint, the movie may overuse its narration, which I'm guessing comes from the book. A few times the narrator basically describes things that we can clearly understand from the visuals. For the most part it works... it's even necessary, for example, during the ending, when Ford is unceremoniously murdered by a man he never met. Still, they could have cut it down in a few places, and trusted the images to tell the story. It reminded me a bit of Terrence Mallick with The New World or The Thin Red Line where you just want the narration to stop so you can focus on the beautiful images.
I think a while back I lauded 3:10 to Yuma for being a straightforward western, and complained that I was maybe a little tired of revisionist/elegiac westerns. Well, this one is certainly not a traditional western, so I'll go ahead and eat my words and say that I was wrong, this beats the pants off a typical traditional western.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Back to the Future Part III
Friday, May 16, 2008
My brother had, somehow, never seen the final installment of the Back to the Future trilogy. The original is pretty much my favorite movie of all time, so once I found this out I insisted that we watch it right away.
I think most folks would agree with me that this is the worst of the series (except for Shenan, who inexplicably thinks it's the best), but it's still funny, entertaining and even recaptures some of the magic and wonder of the original (albiet to a much lesser degree). Hell, I'll even cop to getting a little misty-eyed during Doc's farewell at the end, and then the train flying off into the air is pretty magical and goosebump-inducing.
The main fault here is that I just don't think the western gimmick sustains the entire running time. It's fun to see all the recurring BTTF jokes show up in a wild west context, but the joke gets a little stale after a while. The genius of Part 2 is that it was basically two films in one; one about Marty travelling to the future, and one about Marty travelling back to the events of the original. Both are great ideas, but neither could probably carry an entire film on their own. The pairing of ideas makes the movie seem filled to the brim with invention. Part 3 could have benefited from a similar structure.
Still, like I said, there's a lot to like here, and enough goodwill saved up from the earlier movies to help gloss over some of the faults. Zemeckis' work is characteristically great here, but I've always got the sense that the BTTF sequels weren't really a passion project for him and Bob Gale, that they more did it for the money/because of the demand. They brought their A-game and made the sequels better than sequels often have any right to be, but maybe there's a little less soul in them than in the original, or in something like Roger Rabbit or Forrest Gump or Contact where you feel like the movie is more personal or intimate.
My brother had, somehow, never seen the final installment of the Back to the Future trilogy. The original is pretty much my favorite movie of all time, so once I found this out I insisted that we watch it right away.
I think most folks would agree with me that this is the worst of the series (except for Shenan, who inexplicably thinks it's the best), but it's still funny, entertaining and even recaptures some of the magic and wonder of the original (albiet to a much lesser degree). Hell, I'll even cop to getting a little misty-eyed during Doc's farewell at the end, and then the train flying off into the air is pretty magical and goosebump-inducing.
The main fault here is that I just don't think the western gimmick sustains the entire running time. It's fun to see all the recurring BTTF jokes show up in a wild west context, but the joke gets a little stale after a while. The genius of Part 2 is that it was basically two films in one; one about Marty travelling to the future, and one about Marty travelling back to the events of the original. Both are great ideas, but neither could probably carry an entire film on their own. The pairing of ideas makes the movie seem filled to the brim with invention. Part 3 could have benefited from a similar structure.
Still, like I said, there's a lot to like here, and enough goodwill saved up from the earlier movies to help gloss over some of the faults. Zemeckis' work is characteristically great here, but I've always got the sense that the BTTF sequels weren't really a passion project for him and Bob Gale, that they more did it for the money/because of the demand. They brought their A-game and made the sequels better than sequels often have any right to be, but maybe there's a little less soul in them than in the original, or in something like Roger Rabbit or Forrest Gump or Contact where you feel like the movie is more personal or intimate.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
I Shot Jesse James
Monday, April 14, 2008
We have something of a theme pick here, as I watched this one as a follow up to Sam Fuller's Pickup On South Street (he directed this one) and Walter Hill's The Long Riders (also about Jesse James).
Actually, this one isn't about Jesse James; he's dead before the 30 minute mark. It's more about the life of Robert Ford after he murders Jesse. Which, if this followed the facts at all, turns out to be pretty odd. Especially when he joins a stage show where he re-enacts the shooting of Jesse.
So, this is a completely different handling of the material compared to The Long Riders, as that was a violent, highly fictionalized, maybe somewhat romanticized, western action picture where Bob Ford was barely a footnote. Hell, Charles Ford even has a bigger role than Bob. I Shot Jesse James is more of a drama about Ford's life, how he's consumed with guilt and falls apart. There's a little action here and there, but mostly it's a character study.
I'm hoping to check out The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford soon, which I think would make for a nice trilogy of blog entries.
This is the fourth Sam Fuller film I've seen, and the only one I didn't like. It has it's moments, like when Ford buys a wandering minstrel a drink in exchange for a song, and the guy picks one he says everyone likes, which turns out to be about the murder of Jesse James. Needless to say, Ford doesn't take it too well. He storms outside, where someone starts taking shots at him from the dark... and it turns out to be a little kid, who wants to become famous by killing Robert Ford.
But too much of the movie is corny and flatly staged (although there are some nice visual touches), quite probably because this was Fuller's first film.
Like, early on there are a couple of scenes where Jesse keeps turning his back on Ford, and then really melodramatic music cues up to let you know that Ford might shoot him. It's a little much. (I did like that one of these scenes takes place while Jesse is in his bathtub, adding what I would like to think is an intentional homosexual undertone.)
Compared to something like Pickup On South Street, this movie just isn't very entertaining, or energetic, or involving, not to mention the complete lack of badass-ness. I mean, there's a part in Pickup where a minor character gets executed by a bad guy, and it just rips your heart out. Here, you don't much give a shit when anyone dies, including Jesse James and Robert Ford.
Oh well. I'll still be checking out more Fuller down the line.
We have something of a theme pick here, as I watched this one as a follow up to Sam Fuller's Pickup On South Street (he directed this one) and Walter Hill's The Long Riders (also about Jesse James).
Actually, this one isn't about Jesse James; he's dead before the 30 minute mark. It's more about the life of Robert Ford after he murders Jesse. Which, if this followed the facts at all, turns out to be pretty odd. Especially when he joins a stage show where he re-enacts the shooting of Jesse.
So, this is a completely different handling of the material compared to The Long Riders, as that was a violent, highly fictionalized, maybe somewhat romanticized, western action picture where Bob Ford was barely a footnote. Hell, Charles Ford even has a bigger role than Bob. I Shot Jesse James is more of a drama about Ford's life, how he's consumed with guilt and falls apart. There's a little action here and there, but mostly it's a character study.
I'm hoping to check out The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford soon, which I think would make for a nice trilogy of blog entries.
This is the fourth Sam Fuller film I've seen, and the only one I didn't like. It has it's moments, like when Ford buys a wandering minstrel a drink in exchange for a song, and the guy picks one he says everyone likes, which turns out to be about the murder of Jesse James. Needless to say, Ford doesn't take it too well. He storms outside, where someone starts taking shots at him from the dark... and it turns out to be a little kid, who wants to become famous by killing Robert Ford.
But too much of the movie is corny and flatly staged (although there are some nice visual touches), quite probably because this was Fuller's first film.
Like, early on there are a couple of scenes where Jesse keeps turning his back on Ford, and then really melodramatic music cues up to let you know that Ford might shoot him. It's a little much. (I did like that one of these scenes takes place while Jesse is in his bathtub, adding what I would like to think is an intentional homosexual undertone.)
Compared to something like Pickup On South Street, this movie just isn't very entertaining, or energetic, or involving, not to mention the complete lack of badass-ness. I mean, there's a part in Pickup where a minor character gets executed by a bad guy, and it just rips your heart out. Here, you don't much give a shit when anyone dies, including Jesse James and Robert Ford.
Oh well. I'll still be checking out more Fuller down the line.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Long Riders
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Once again employing my Christ-like, divine, unconditional gift of forgiveness and redemption, I decided to give Walter Hill another shot with his early 80s western, The Long Riders. Diligent readers may recall that I greatly enjoyed The Warriors, but didn't care much for 48 Hrs.
My appreciation for The Warriors grew once I noticed the subtle Sergio Leone vibe it has going through it... namely, really long, complex setups with sudden, unexpected payoffs that don't last very long, but are great and afterwards you realize that the setups are most of the fun any way.
So, I figured this one, being a western, would have a Leone-ness to it. Actually, if anything, it's got a Sam Peckinpah vibe, with lots of slow motion shots of people getting blown to bits. Only it's a little crazier and more over-the-top than any of the Peckinpah I've seen.
It's a highly fictionalized telling of the James-Younger gang story, and Hill makes an interesting choice in casting real life brothers for all the related characters in the movie. So we have the Carradines, the Keaches, the Quaids and the Guests. It makes for some weird casting choices for a western. I mean, I can totally buy David Carradine as the Carradine to call in when you need a badass outlaw, but Robert and Keith? One's a nerd and one's a hippie. And yet, somehow it kinda works.
This isn't a great piece of writing, and considering the great cast the movie doesn't do much with the characters. But damn if this movie wasn't entertaining as hell. I was having a pretty good time throughout, but then the final action scene came along and completely blew my cock right out of my pants and into the toilet. And then flushed the toilet. It's gotta be one of the best action scenes I've ever seen in a western. And it's fucking crazy as hell. I mean, Leone and Peckinpah did some looney-toons shit in their movies, but I don't think they ever had a horse chase where the guys ride their horses right through a big glass window, like in a car chase or something. And it's not every day where you see a guy get shot in the cheek and the bullet goes through his mouth and out the other cheek.
So, OK, good job Walter Hill. Looks like I'll be checking out more of your stuff after all.
Once again employing my Christ-like, divine, unconditional gift of forgiveness and redemption, I decided to give Walter Hill another shot with his early 80s western, The Long Riders. Diligent readers may recall that I greatly enjoyed The Warriors, but didn't care much for 48 Hrs.
My appreciation for The Warriors grew once I noticed the subtle Sergio Leone vibe it has going through it... namely, really long, complex setups with sudden, unexpected payoffs that don't last very long, but are great and afterwards you realize that the setups are most of the fun any way.
So, I figured this one, being a western, would have a Leone-ness to it. Actually, if anything, it's got a Sam Peckinpah vibe, with lots of slow motion shots of people getting blown to bits. Only it's a little crazier and more over-the-top than any of the Peckinpah I've seen.
It's a highly fictionalized telling of the James-Younger gang story, and Hill makes an interesting choice in casting real life brothers for all the related characters in the movie. So we have the Carradines, the Keaches, the Quaids and the Guests. It makes for some weird casting choices for a western. I mean, I can totally buy David Carradine as the Carradine to call in when you need a badass outlaw, but Robert and Keith? One's a nerd and one's a hippie. And yet, somehow it kinda works.
This isn't a great piece of writing, and considering the great cast the movie doesn't do much with the characters. But damn if this movie wasn't entertaining as hell. I was having a pretty good time throughout, but then the final action scene came along and completely blew my cock right out of my pants and into the toilet. And then flushed the toilet. It's gotta be one of the best action scenes I've ever seen in a western. And it's fucking crazy as hell. I mean, Leone and Peckinpah did some looney-toons shit in their movies, but I don't think they ever had a horse chase where the guys ride their horses right through a big glass window, like in a car chase or something. And it's not every day where you see a guy get shot in the cheek and the bullet goes through his mouth and out the other cheek.
So, OK, good job Walter Hill. Looks like I'll be checking out more of your stuff after all.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Monday, March 24, 2008
Since I just watched the first two parts of Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy," I figured it was high time to pull out my old copy of his old west masterpiece, which I hadn't seen in a good 4 or 5 years.
Is this my favorite Western of all time? Quite possibly. Clint's Unforgiven would be a strong contender. Maybe Howard Hawks' El Dorado? I'd have to see it again.
I'm going to do some Leone follow up soon by watching his 3hr 45 minute Once Upon a Time in America, hopefully this weekend. I suppose the next logical step should have been to watch Once Upon a Time in the West, but I've seen it before and honestly wasn't a huge fan. It had its moments, and maybe one day I should give it another shot, but right now I think the 10 hours or so I will have dedicated to Leone over the past few weeks is Kommittment enough.
For me, GB&U is the perfect culmination of Leone's high energy, over-the-top, almost satirical style, perfectly melded with an epic scope and some moments of surprising beauty and that lyricism I like so much. For me, Once Upon a Time in the West got a little bogged down in it's more serious ambitions, and doesn't provide enough entertainment (although the moments of payoff are pretty good). GB&U strikes the perfect balance between Leone's unique sense of action and adventure with some more serious or poetic moments.
I never put much thought into the title, other than the obvious fact that it refers to the three leads. This time, I wondered if maybe it's a little ironic. Because Clint Eastwood's character isn't really a good guy when we meet him, despite what his title says during his introduction. He's just as amoral, violent, manipulative and greedy as the other characters, going after all that money. It's just that Lee Van Cleef is a little worse, and Eli Wallach isn't very good looking. They are all bad people.
I thought maybe Leone had his tongue in his cheek to a certain extent, trying to maybe make a cynical point about human nature. Because for a while, Clint is really only "the good" because he's a little cooler and better looking than the others, and because he's Clint fucking Eastwood and he's the main character. But then later, he has some moments that suggest some redemption, or at least a sense of humanity that the others are lacking. Like that little moment he has where he gives the smoke to the dying Confederate soldier. And then he does spare Eli Wallach at the end and let him keep his share of the money (although only after seriously fucking with the guy first).
As great as Clint and Van Cleef are, I suspect that most would agree with me that Eli Wallach's character Tuco is the best. Yeah, he's an amoral, hot tempered asshole, but he's just as badass as the others, he's way funnier, and he has to take a lot more shit than the others do. It's like how Daffy Duck is way better than that smug prick Bugs Bunny. OK, Daffy's a bastard, but he suffers a lot more abuse, so our sympathy is with him.
This is a great movie all the way through, but the last 20 minutes or so, once they reach the graveyard, are perfect. I can think of few films with a climax this awesome, and it's still astonishing how well Leone really build the suspense and draws things out until the final payoff. Great movie.
Since I just watched the first two parts of Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy," I figured it was high time to pull out my old copy of his old west masterpiece, which I hadn't seen in a good 4 or 5 years.
Is this my favorite Western of all time? Quite possibly. Clint's Unforgiven would be a strong contender. Maybe Howard Hawks' El Dorado? I'd have to see it again.
I'm going to do some Leone follow up soon by watching his 3hr 45 minute Once Upon a Time in America, hopefully this weekend. I suppose the next logical step should have been to watch Once Upon a Time in the West, but I've seen it before and honestly wasn't a huge fan. It had its moments, and maybe one day I should give it another shot, but right now I think the 10 hours or so I will have dedicated to Leone over the past few weeks is Kommittment enough.
For me, GB&U is the perfect culmination of Leone's high energy, over-the-top, almost satirical style, perfectly melded with an epic scope and some moments of surprising beauty and that lyricism I like so much. For me, Once Upon a Time in the West got a little bogged down in it's more serious ambitions, and doesn't provide enough entertainment (although the moments of payoff are pretty good). GB&U strikes the perfect balance between Leone's unique sense of action and adventure with some more serious or poetic moments.
I never put much thought into the title, other than the obvious fact that it refers to the three leads. This time, I wondered if maybe it's a little ironic. Because Clint Eastwood's character isn't really a good guy when we meet him, despite what his title says during his introduction. He's just as amoral, violent, manipulative and greedy as the other characters, going after all that money. It's just that Lee Van Cleef is a little worse, and Eli Wallach isn't very good looking. They are all bad people.
I thought maybe Leone had his tongue in his cheek to a certain extent, trying to maybe make a cynical point about human nature. Because for a while, Clint is really only "the good" because he's a little cooler and better looking than the others, and because he's Clint fucking Eastwood and he's the main character. But then later, he has some moments that suggest some redemption, or at least a sense of humanity that the others are lacking. Like that little moment he has where he gives the smoke to the dying Confederate soldier. And then he does spare Eli Wallach at the end and let him keep his share of the money (although only after seriously fucking with the guy first).
As great as Clint and Van Cleef are, I suspect that most would agree with me that Eli Wallach's character Tuco is the best. Yeah, he's an amoral, hot tempered asshole, but he's just as badass as the others, he's way funnier, and he has to take a lot more shit than the others do. It's like how Daffy Duck is way better than that smug prick Bugs Bunny. OK, Daffy's a bastard, but he suffers a lot more abuse, so our sympathy is with him.
This is a great movie all the way through, but the last 20 minutes or so, once they reach the graveyard, are perfect. I can think of few films with a climax this awesome, and it's still astonishing how well Leone really build the suspense and draws things out until the final payoff. Great movie.
Friday, March 14, 2008
For a Few Dollars More
Thursday, March 13, 2008
I can see that the Dollars trilogy is not unlike the Bourne series, with each entry being a marked improvement over the last. Sometimes I think of movies like this as "test run" films, experimenting with an idea or style before later perfecting it. For example, Gus Van Sant's Gerry being a test run for his Elephant and Last Days. Or Argento's The Bird with the Crystal Plumage being a test run for Deep Red (and, um, pretty much all of his movies). Or David Lynch's Lost Highway being a test run for Mulholland Drive (and then subsequently blowing the engine out on Inland Empire). This happens with actors and writers, too, but I find it most fun when applied to the auteur theory.
So For a Few Dollars More is a notable step up from A Fistful of Dollars, and in turn The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is another huge step up, to the realm of masterpiece.
What surprised me here is I assumed Lee Van Cleef was going to be the bad guy, but he's not, and actually just as much the main character as Clint Eastwood. In fact, he has a little back story, unlike Clint, and more motivation for his actions. So in some ways, he's maybe even more important. The two have a good chemistry here, and this helps underline one of the short comings of the first movie: he doesn't have a kickass partner. He has an amusing sidekick of sorts who doesn't do much, but the movies are a lot more entertaining when he has a Lee Van Cleef or an Eli Wallach to bounce off of.
I can see that the Dollars trilogy is not unlike the Bourne series, with each entry being a marked improvement over the last. Sometimes I think of movies like this as "test run" films, experimenting with an idea or style before later perfecting it. For example, Gus Van Sant's Gerry being a test run for his Elephant and Last Days. Or Argento's The Bird with the Crystal Plumage being a test run for Deep Red (and, um, pretty much all of his movies). Or David Lynch's Lost Highway being a test run for Mulholland Drive (and then subsequently blowing the engine out on Inland Empire). This happens with actors and writers, too, but I find it most fun when applied to the auteur theory.
So For a Few Dollars More is a notable step up from A Fistful of Dollars, and in turn The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is another huge step up, to the realm of masterpiece.
What surprised me here is I assumed Lee Van Cleef was going to be the bad guy, but he's not, and actually just as much the main character as Clint Eastwood. In fact, he has a little back story, unlike Clint, and more motivation for his actions. So in some ways, he's maybe even more important. The two have a good chemistry here, and this helps underline one of the short comings of the first movie: he doesn't have a kickass partner. He has an amusing sidekick of sorts who doesn't do much, but the movies are a lot more entertaining when he has a Lee Van Cleef or an Eli Wallach to bounce off of.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Rio Bravo
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
I recently picked this one up for cheap at CD Cellar, which is where most of my income is going these days. I really need to stop shopping there.
Rio Bravo is a classic Howard Hawks/John Wayne collaboration (Bad Boys 2 Soundtrack style). It has been a few years since I'd seen it.
Well, I don't like this one quite as much as El Dorado, the remake that Wayne and Hawks made a few years later (for me, Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson are no match for Robert Mitchum and James Caan), but that's not to say that this isn't one hell of an entertaining flick. My main gripe is that Hawks does a great job of setting up a hopeless situation for the heroes, but then he cops out with a lighthearted ending where none of the good guys die. I mean, you expect them to come out on top, but to disregard 2 hours and 10 minutes of suspense with 10 minutes of goofy action and throwaway one liners is a big disappointment. Not that you want a grim ending, that would be wrong too.
Anyways, good times.
I recently picked this one up for cheap at CD Cellar, which is where most of my income is going these days. I really need to stop shopping there.
Rio Bravo is a classic Howard Hawks/John Wayne collaboration (Bad Boys 2 Soundtrack style). It has been a few years since I'd seen it.
Well, I don't like this one quite as much as El Dorado, the remake that Wayne and Hawks made a few years later (for me, Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson are no match for Robert Mitchum and James Caan), but that's not to say that this isn't one hell of an entertaining flick. My main gripe is that Hawks does a great job of setting up a hopeless situation for the heroes, but then he cops out with a lighthearted ending where none of the good guys die. I mean, you expect them to come out on top, but to disregard 2 hours and 10 minutes of suspense with 10 minutes of goofy action and throwaway one liners is a big disappointment. Not that you want a grim ending, that would be wrong too.
Anyways, good times.
A Fistful of Dollars
Monday, March 10, 2008
I'm a little embarrassed that I had never seen this before, considering how much I dig The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Anyways, turns out this is a good movie, though not nearly the masterpiece that TGTBATU is. Which isn't much of a surprise. There's still a lot of classic moments, a lot of nice visual touches and a great final shootout, but it's a little slow and talky in places. Too much uninteresting plot.
I also have For a Few Dollars More Tivoed, and I plan on checking it out soon.
I'm a little embarrassed that I had never seen this before, considering how much I dig The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Anyways, turns out this is a good movie, though not nearly the masterpiece that TGTBATU is. Which isn't much of a surprise. There's still a lot of classic moments, a lot of nice visual touches and a great final shootout, but it's a little slow and talky in places. Too much uninteresting plot.
I also have For a Few Dollars More Tivoed, and I plan on checking it out soon.
Undead or Alive
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Back when I was in high school, I had an idea for a zombie western. It was going to be called The Quick and the Undead. It was going to be about Billy the Kid's gang running afoul of a zombie plague. It would be really violent, and there would be zombie cowboys and zombie horses and all that shit. At the end, Billy would get bit and ride off into the sunset slowly turning into a zombie, like some sort of zombified take on Shane. I actually believe I wrote an outline at some point. It wasn't a very unique idea, but somebody actually went and really did make a zombie western called The Quick and the Undead. I refuse to see it because of my close ties to the name.
Well, I mention all that because I don't have much to say about Undead or Alive, which is a zombie western comedy (billed as a "zombedy") . It's not particularly funny, it's forgettable and it stars Chris Kattan, but it's not painful or boring either. Just bland.
Back when I was in high school, I had an idea for a zombie western. It was going to be called The Quick and the Undead. It was going to be about Billy the Kid's gang running afoul of a zombie plague. It would be really violent, and there would be zombie cowboys and zombie horses and all that shit. At the end, Billy would get bit and ride off into the sunset slowly turning into a zombie, like some sort of zombified take on Shane. I actually believe I wrote an outline at some point. It wasn't a very unique idea, but somebody actually went and really did make a zombie western called The Quick and the Undead. I refuse to see it because of my close ties to the name.
Well, I mention all that because I don't have much to say about Undead or Alive, which is a zombie western comedy (billed as a "zombedy") . It's not particularly funny, it's forgettable and it stars Chris Kattan, but it's not painful or boring either. Just bland.
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
OK, I'm back on track with my K2K here, checking out a John Ford / John Wayne western. I had previously enjoyed The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, although didn't quite love them the way I had been lead to expect. Maybe they were hyped up too much for me. I know Ford is considered one of the greats, so I've been meaning to check out more of his stuff. I hadn't heard of this one, but it was the one with the highest recommendation on Netflix.
Well, I'll be honest. I didn't much enjoy this movie. It is visually wonderful/poetic, which I very much enjoy in westerns. But everything else pretty much sucked. Except for Wayne, the acting was painful, the dialogue was corny, it contained a lot of cringe-inducing unfunny humor (like the worst parts of The Searchers) and was just fucking boring. I could barely pay attention.
I don't know, I'd like to think that maybe this was more my problem than the movie's, and that I'd like it more if I saw it again. But I'm not sure I'd bother to give it another shot.
OK, I'm back on track with my K2K here, checking out a John Ford / John Wayne western. I had previously enjoyed The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, although didn't quite love them the way I had been lead to expect. Maybe they were hyped up too much for me. I know Ford is considered one of the greats, so I've been meaning to check out more of his stuff. I hadn't heard of this one, but it was the one with the highest recommendation on Netflix.
Well, I'll be honest. I didn't much enjoy this movie. It is visually wonderful/poetic, which I very much enjoy in westerns. But everything else pretty much sucked. Except for Wayne, the acting was painful, the dialogue was corny, it contained a lot of cringe-inducing unfunny humor (like the worst parts of The Searchers) and was just fucking boring. I could barely pay attention.
I don't know, I'd like to think that maybe this was more my problem than the movie's, and that I'd like it more if I saw it again. But I'm not sure I'd bother to give it another shot.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
3:10 to Yuma
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Nice to see a remake of a pretty good movie that actually surpasses the original.
This was my second time watching it, and I might have actually liked it a little bit more. Caught a little more nuance. It comes close to being a great movie, but I have to say, except for maybe the finale, the action is pretty disappointing here. The rest of the filmmaking/acting/writing is top notch, but when the action is such a key part of the story... it should be a little stronger than this.
I am somewhat amused by the opening action set piece, which seems to strike the attitude of a modern day car chase, but set in the old west, complete with an explosion and a big crash. But it's just not very well staged, and maybe a little too over the top.
Still, it's nice to see a modern Western that for once isn't revisionist or elegiac, but more old-fashioned and adventurous.
Nice to see a remake of a pretty good movie that actually surpasses the original.
This was my second time watching it, and I might have actually liked it a little bit more. Caught a little more nuance. It comes close to being a great movie, but I have to say, except for maybe the finale, the action is pretty disappointing here. The rest of the filmmaking/acting/writing is top notch, but when the action is such a key part of the story... it should be a little stronger than this.
I am somewhat amused by the opening action set piece, which seems to strike the attitude of a modern day car chase, but set in the old west, complete with an explosion and a big crash. But it's just not very well staged, and maybe a little too over the top.
Still, it's nice to see a modern Western that for once isn't revisionist or elegiac, but more old-fashioned and adventurous.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Red River
Thursday, January 31, 2008
I think I can count myself as a Howard Hawks fan. He makes movies that are essentially just entertainment, but his craft and visual style are so brilliant that the films become art. I can see why John Carpenter is such a big fan, they share this similar sensibility. Hawks I think is a little more skilled with his actors/writing/characters/etc. (I like Carpenter more, though... he's more subversive, he's sly in his social commentary, and most importantly he knows how to make a great horror film).
Well, when I credit the character work in the Hawks films I've seen, it's not exactly that he creates works of unparalleled empathy and insight to the human spirit... he just knows good dialogue, and how to get his actors to make it snappy and seem like god damned movie stars. When it's done this well, I love that kind of shit.
Well any way, I'm watching Red River, which is a late 40's John Wayne western that Hawks did. And I'm realizing that not only is this film as entertaining as his best stuff, but the story, characters and themes are a lot more complex. This is great. This could be a masterpiece. It has his great sense of fun and humor, it's got his great adventure. But it also has multi-faceted character relationships, and it's a genuinely dark journey into madness and obsession. It's like a cross between Hawks's El Dorado and John Huston's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. I am loving this fucker.
Which is why it's pretty damned heartbreaking that it flies off the rails on the last 30 minutes or so. To paraphrase Charlie Wilson, Hawks fucked up the endgame.
If you've seen a few Hawks movies, you know that there is this sort of Hawksian female lead character type in a lot of them. The women are these smart, sassy, willful, quick-witted types who tend to spew awesome one-liners at the male lead to throw him off his game/as foreplay. This has worked well in, I think, all the other Hawks movies I saw.
Red River, for it's first 100 minutes or so, is almost entirely about men. There is one female character at the very beginning, and she has one brief scene and then dies off screen.
Then, in this last act of the movie, almost at random we are introduced to one of those Hawksian women, who talks fast, wittily and shamelessly flirts with Montgomery Clift's character... right in the middle of a deadly Indian attack where everyone is fighting for their lives. She is, in fact, so caught up in her banter that she scarcely notices when she gets shot through the shoulder with a fucking arrow. Instead of, you know, screaming in pain or fainting, she just continues on with the blather. This scene is so out of place that the effect is surreal.
The rest of the film becomes a weird tug of rope between the darker themes and this weird, lighthearted, sassy comedy and unfortunately the bullshit wins. The movie builds to what we expect to be a dark, intense fight between two main characters, and then that's all more or less dismissed with a joke and then the woman acts all sassy and then everyone forgives each other. Already that's like "what the fuck?" but even weirder is that John Wayne coldbloodedly kills somebody right before the ending, but then the movie immediately forgets that and has this silly, happy finale.
I can't wrap my brain around any of this. Did Hawks not realize how dark the rest of the film was? Did he not think audiences would accept a darker ending? Or maybe was this some fucking brilliant avant garde thing where we follow John Wayne's madness and obsession so deep that the movie itself descends into lunacy? Maybe the surrealism was intentional.
(It's not.)
Fuck, man. This was like an inch shy of being a great film.
Final note: Despite hearing that Clash song a million times, I was completely unfamiliar with this Montgomery Clift fellow until now. I will have to check some more of his films out.
I think I can count myself as a Howard Hawks fan. He makes movies that are essentially just entertainment, but his craft and visual style are so brilliant that the films become art. I can see why John Carpenter is such a big fan, they share this similar sensibility. Hawks I think is a little more skilled with his actors/writing/characters/etc. (I like Carpenter more, though... he's more subversive, he's sly in his social commentary, and most importantly he knows how to make a great horror film).
Well, when I credit the character work in the Hawks films I've seen, it's not exactly that he creates works of unparalleled empathy and insight to the human spirit... he just knows good dialogue, and how to get his actors to make it snappy and seem like god damned movie stars. When it's done this well, I love that kind of shit.
Well any way, I'm watching Red River, which is a late 40's John Wayne western that Hawks did. And I'm realizing that not only is this film as entertaining as his best stuff, but the story, characters and themes are a lot more complex. This is great. This could be a masterpiece. It has his great sense of fun and humor, it's got his great adventure. But it also has multi-faceted character relationships, and it's a genuinely dark journey into madness and obsession. It's like a cross between Hawks's El Dorado and John Huston's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. I am loving this fucker.
Which is why it's pretty damned heartbreaking that it flies off the rails on the last 30 minutes or so. To paraphrase Charlie Wilson, Hawks fucked up the endgame.
If you've seen a few Hawks movies, you know that there is this sort of Hawksian female lead character type in a lot of them. The women are these smart, sassy, willful, quick-witted types who tend to spew awesome one-liners at the male lead to throw him off his game/as foreplay. This has worked well in, I think, all the other Hawks movies I saw.
Red River, for it's first 100 minutes or so, is almost entirely about men. There is one female character at the very beginning, and she has one brief scene and then dies off screen.
Then, in this last act of the movie, almost at random we are introduced to one of those Hawksian women, who talks fast, wittily and shamelessly flirts with Montgomery Clift's character... right in the middle of a deadly Indian attack where everyone is fighting for their lives. She is, in fact, so caught up in her banter that she scarcely notices when she gets shot through the shoulder with a fucking arrow. Instead of, you know, screaming in pain or fainting, she just continues on with the blather. This scene is so out of place that the effect is surreal.
The rest of the film becomes a weird tug of rope between the darker themes and this weird, lighthearted, sassy comedy and unfortunately the bullshit wins. The movie builds to what we expect to be a dark, intense fight between two main characters, and then that's all more or less dismissed with a joke and then the woman acts all sassy and then everyone forgives each other. Already that's like "what the fuck?" but even weirder is that John Wayne coldbloodedly kills somebody right before the ending, but then the movie immediately forgets that and has this silly, happy finale.
I can't wrap my brain around any of this. Did Hawks not realize how dark the rest of the film was? Did he not think audiences would accept a darker ending? Or maybe was this some fucking brilliant avant garde thing where we follow John Wayne's madness and obsession so deep that the movie itself descends into lunacy? Maybe the surrealism was intentional.
(It's not.)
Fuck, man. This was like an inch shy of being a great film.
Final note: Despite hearing that Clash song a million times, I was completely unfamiliar with this Montgomery Clift fellow until now. I will have to check some more of his films out.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Magnificent Seven
Monday, January 28, 2008
As promised, I watched The Magnificent Seven. It's a good western with a great cast, good writing, good action... it's pretty good, but unlike John Sturges' The Great Escape it's not pretty great. Still worth seeing.
It's not as poetic or as intensely visual as I think the best westerns are. (Jesus, did I really just type "best westerns"? Gee, I really didn't think this movie looked as good as other Holiday Inns or Motel 6's. Fuck.) I don't know if there is much of an underlying message here (other than what was carried over from Seven Samurai), it's mostly just entertainment. Good entertainment, don't get me wrong. And also, considering that this bad boy was shot in wide-ass-screen Panavision 2.35:1, you would think we'd get some more lush shots of the scenery. Not so much.
I do still like Sturges framing a lot. It's a wide frame, and he does a good job of containing a lot of characters/action/information in his shots. I like that he stays wider on a lot of the dialogue scenes, resists going close-up and instead opts to shoot all the characters together. And it really pays off in spades during the great final shootout.
Okay, I said I was going to do a little comparison with Seven Samurai and with The Great Escape. That's good, you know, to have a theme or something for these posts. Do a little more than just a thumbs up or down.
As a remake, it follows the original rather closely. Most of the major story beats are there, a lot of characters are very similar, and even a number of scenes are near identical. No one in the western is quite as badass as that one samurai that runs behind enemy lines in the middle of the night to steal a gun, but overall the gang holds up strong, and maybe are a little more distinguishable than the samurai? (Or maybe I'm just racist). They do add a much bigger role for the villain here, in this case Eli Wallach pretending to be a Mexican, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly-style. Apparently that was okay back then.
One flaw in the adaptation is how they translate the Toshiro Mifune character to the west. In Samurai, he's some drunken, hyperactive weirdo who's not really a samurai, but his will is so strong that the others can't really turn him down. It's an over the top performance, but also very easily the best part of the whole movie... so strange and funny. In MS (as I will now call it, possibly as a tribute to Multiple Sclerosis) the character is more of an inexperienced kid trying to prove his mettle... not a bad character, but more of a cliche, and much less memorable.
I think the big problem with the adaptation is that it tries to keep some of the major themes intact, but they don't really translate to the wild west. In Samurai, the heroes do what they do because their place in society makes them feel it is their duty, and because they love battle. Here, the cowboys do it because... they are nice guys, I guess?
In both movies, the villagers never fully accept or respect the heroes, even though the heroes are putting their necks on the line to save the villagers. In Samurai, this feels tragic because the samurai have been pretty much screwed over by the class system that they feel obligated too. It's truly sad and poignant at the end when the samurai realize that even though they won, they are really the losers.
In MS this class system doesn't apply, the villagers are just kind of dicks for reasons undeveloped. And then I think they try to spin the ending a little more positively... the wise old man gives them some words of encouragement, and it suggests that the Seven's nobility is their reward (or something).
One unexpected twist: late in the film, those wonderful seven fellers get ambushed by the villains and they actually stand down and admit defeat. Of course, they all feel like assholes and decide to head right back in guns ablazin', but I still didn't expect them to first run away with their tails between their legs.
As compared to The Great Escape, MS is also an inferior take on some similar themes/ideas/style/etc. We again have a cool ensemble of badasses. In addition to Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson and James Coburn, we now have Yul Brenner as the lead cowboy. The focus is on men bonding through adventure, and there aren't many women to speak of in the story. Both films believe in the idea of a noble sacrifice. The ending is ultimately happy, but perhaps darker than expected (in Escape most of the heroes end up recaptured or dead, in MS 4 of the 7 end up dead).
The big finale here is great, but the story doesn't have nearly as much going on as The Great Escape, and it meanders a bit too much. Also, for such an awesome ensemble, the characters aren't as funny or memorable as the Escape team. McQueen and Brenner have decent chemistry, but the rest of the cast isn't given much to do except scowl and rely on their natural presence (which, don't get me wrong, is considerable).
Oh and one guy's big character development is that he's secretly a pussy. I could have done without that.
So, bottom line: it's a good movie, but far from the greatness of Seven Samurai and Great Escape.
As promised, I watched The Magnificent Seven. It's a good western with a great cast, good writing, good action... it's pretty good, but unlike John Sturges' The Great Escape it's not pretty great. Still worth seeing.
It's not as poetic or as intensely visual as I think the best westerns are. (Jesus, did I really just type "best westerns"? Gee, I really didn't think this movie looked as good as other Holiday Inns or Motel 6's. Fuck.) I don't know if there is much of an underlying message here (other than what was carried over from Seven Samurai), it's mostly just entertainment. Good entertainment, don't get me wrong. And also, considering that this bad boy was shot in wide-ass-screen Panavision 2.35:1, you would think we'd get some more lush shots of the scenery. Not so much.
I do still like Sturges framing a lot. It's a wide frame, and he does a good job of containing a lot of characters/action/information in his shots. I like that he stays wider on a lot of the dialogue scenes, resists going close-up and instead opts to shoot all the characters together. And it really pays off in spades during the great final shootout.
Okay, I said I was going to do a little comparison with Seven Samurai and with The Great Escape. That's good, you know, to have a theme or something for these posts. Do a little more than just a thumbs up or down.
As a remake, it follows the original rather closely. Most of the major story beats are there, a lot of characters are very similar, and even a number of scenes are near identical. No one in the western is quite as badass as that one samurai that runs behind enemy lines in the middle of the night to steal a gun, but overall the gang holds up strong, and maybe are a little more distinguishable than the samurai? (Or maybe I'm just racist). They do add a much bigger role for the villain here, in this case Eli Wallach pretending to be a Mexican, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly-style. Apparently that was okay back then.
One flaw in the adaptation is how they translate the Toshiro Mifune character to the west. In Samurai, he's some drunken, hyperactive weirdo who's not really a samurai, but his will is so strong that the others can't really turn him down. It's an over the top performance, but also very easily the best part of the whole movie... so strange and funny. In MS (as I will now call it, possibly as a tribute to Multiple Sclerosis) the character is more of an inexperienced kid trying to prove his mettle... not a bad character, but more of a cliche, and much less memorable.
I think the big problem with the adaptation is that it tries to keep some of the major themes intact, but they don't really translate to the wild west. In Samurai, the heroes do what they do because their place in society makes them feel it is their duty, and because they love battle. Here, the cowboys do it because... they are nice guys, I guess?
In both movies, the villagers never fully accept or respect the heroes, even though the heroes are putting their necks on the line to save the villagers. In Samurai, this feels tragic because the samurai have been pretty much screwed over by the class system that they feel obligated too. It's truly sad and poignant at the end when the samurai realize that even though they won, they are really the losers.
In MS this class system doesn't apply, the villagers are just kind of dicks for reasons undeveloped. And then I think they try to spin the ending a little more positively... the wise old man gives them some words of encouragement, and it suggests that the Seven's nobility is their reward (or something).
One unexpected twist: late in the film, those wonderful seven fellers get ambushed by the villains and they actually stand down and admit defeat. Of course, they all feel like assholes and decide to head right back in guns ablazin', but I still didn't expect them to first run away with their tails between their legs.
As compared to The Great Escape, MS is also an inferior take on some similar themes/ideas/style/etc. We again have a cool ensemble of badasses. In addition to Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson and James Coburn, we now have Yul Brenner as the lead cowboy. The focus is on men bonding through adventure, and there aren't many women to speak of in the story. Both films believe in the idea of a noble sacrifice. The ending is ultimately happy, but perhaps darker than expected (in Escape most of the heroes end up recaptured or dead, in MS 4 of the 7 end up dead).
The big finale here is great, but the story doesn't have nearly as much going on as The Great Escape, and it meanders a bit too much. Also, for such an awesome ensemble, the characters aren't as funny or memorable as the Escape team. McQueen and Brenner have decent chemistry, but the rest of the cast isn't given much to do except scowl and rely on their natural presence (which, don't get me wrong, is considerable).
Oh and one guy's big character development is that he's secretly a pussy. I could have done without that.
So, bottom line: it's a good movie, but far from the greatness of Seven Samurai and Great Escape.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Shane
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Another K2K selection here.
I'm not a Western fan by nature, but I have seen a number that I thought were great. They just aren't like horror movies, where I can watch all kinds and enjoy them. The genre doesn't inherently interest me.
So I'm always amused on Netflix when I will seek out a specific western that is considered a classic, watch it, love it, give it a high rating, and then find my recommendations inundated with other, shitty looking westerns. I mean, I've only rated a small handful of westerns, but my Netflix recommendations list is full of them. Meanwhile, I watch and rate about a billion horror movies, and while I don't always give them 5 stars, they have a higher likelihood of getting at least a 3. Yet Netflix can't seem to sense that I'm a fan, and never recommends any to me.
That's what happened with Shane. And with my goal to watch more (universally considered classic) westerns, this will probably happen more.
This was a pretty great movie. Beautifully shot, entertaining but with darker themes under the surface, good acting with complex character relationships. OK, Alan Ladd may not be the most convincing tough guy in the world, but all his dramatic scenes are good. And Van Heflin is great, especially the way he slowly realizes that his wife has a thing for Shane, but is too good of a person to get nasty about it. He's a lot more likable than Shane, really, and I thought was really the heart of the film. Shane is too dark, and maybe not as noble or heroic as the little boy sees him as. And the little boy is just too fucking annoying to be the heart.
Anyway, five starts, Netflix! I look forward to hearing about a million other forgotten westerns that I don't want to see.
Another K2K selection here.
I'm not a Western fan by nature, but I have seen a number that I thought were great. They just aren't like horror movies, where I can watch all kinds and enjoy them. The genre doesn't inherently interest me.
So I'm always amused on Netflix when I will seek out a specific western that is considered a classic, watch it, love it, give it a high rating, and then find my recommendations inundated with other, shitty looking westerns. I mean, I've only rated a small handful of westerns, but my Netflix recommendations list is full of them. Meanwhile, I watch and rate about a billion horror movies, and while I don't always give them 5 stars, they have a higher likelihood of getting at least a 3. Yet Netflix can't seem to sense that I'm a fan, and never recommends any to me.
That's what happened with Shane. And with my goal to watch more (universally considered classic) westerns, this will probably happen more.
This was a pretty great movie. Beautifully shot, entertaining but with darker themes under the surface, good acting with complex character relationships. OK, Alan Ladd may not be the most convincing tough guy in the world, but all his dramatic scenes are good. And Van Heflin is great, especially the way he slowly realizes that his wife has a thing for Shane, but is too good of a person to get nasty about it. He's a lot more likable than Shane, really, and I thought was really the heart of the film. Shane is too dark, and maybe not as noble or heroic as the little boy sees him as. And the little boy is just too fucking annoying to be the heart.
Anyway, five starts, Netflix! I look forward to hearing about a million other forgotten westerns that I don't want to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)