Clint Eastwood

[Marvin the Martian]

I look at the new Magnificent Seven remake much in the same way I looked at the Psycho remake...only Antoine Fuqua is a significantly less interesting director than Gus Van Sant...or Kurosawa.

The Psycho remake was very close to an actual remake, Van Sant copied just about as much as possible from Hitchcock. Seven looks like there are a lot of differences. I am hoping I can put aside the original and judge it on its own.

Of course i decided that was impossible for Ben Hur (the Ben Hur we all know is what, the 3rd or 4th remake) and didn't see the new version. By the sound of it, that was a wise choice.

Speaking of remakes, I had a chance to watch the Raiders of the Lost Ark remake a couple weeks ago. It was like watching Plan Nine from Outer Space meets Raiders of the Lost Ark. For those that didn't know. some kids started filming a remake of Raiders shortly after it came out. It took them seven years to remake the movie, shot for shot. They finished everything but the airplane scene, where Indy fights and the plane blows up. The film was "discovered' and money found for them to remake that scene. So most of the film is in terrible quality Beta or VHS from the 1980s, one scene was done with modern equipment and processed at Skywalker Ranch.

One western neglected to be mentioned, maybe my favorite if we consider it a western, Blazing Saddles.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's always fun listening to old guys wax poetic about the misunderstood brilliance of Eastwood and Costner. Eastwood's "pussy generation" commentary is much like his directing career. Uneven and simple. And I don't mean simple as a pejorative. For every Unforgiven, there's a Bronco Billy or Space Cowboys. For every Mystic River, there's a Jersey Boys or Blood Work. Many times he totally nails it and many times he seems clumsy and utterly tone deaf. Right turn, Clyde!

Don't expect too much from the Philo Beddoe Movies

They were mostly a series of SNL skits knitted together by an orangoutang. No real story line, simple a vehicle for character actors to act like character actors. Taking Clyde to the zoo to learn about sex was genius.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Of course i decided that was impossible for Ben Hur (the Ben Hur we all know is what, the 3rd or 4th remake) and didn't see the new version. By the sound of it, that was a wise choice.

I had mixed feelings about this. I haven't seen the new Ben Hur -- but I may do so after it come out to home video. The 1959 version was, for my money, one of the top 100 films of all time -- and one of the classics that I don't mind rewatching from time to time. One part of me thinks that, if a previous version of a story can't be improved upon (with modern technology and production values and such), then leave it alone. Another part of me thinks that great stories are worth keeping alive to new audiences -- many of whom aren't going to sit through a 3+ hour film starring Charlton Heston and Jack Hawkins (who is one of my favorite actors of that era).

But, if you're going to do it, you'd better do it right -- particularly if you're going to do it big (and Ben Hur is the quintessential "big" movie -- from the slave ship scenes, to the ornate Roman Empire settings, to (of course) the chariot race). No matter how you do it, that is not going to be done cheaply....be it in 1959 or 2016. And it appears that the 2016 version is going to rank among the biggest commercial flops in film history.

Speaking of remakes, I had a chance to watch the Raiders of the Lost Ark remake a couple weeks ago. It was like watching Plan Nine from Outer Space meets Raiders of the Lost Ark. For those that didn't know. some kids started filming a remake of Raiders shortly after it came out. It took them seven years to remake the movie, shot for shot. They finished everything but the airplane scene, where Indy fights and the plane blows up. The film was "discovered' and money found for them to remake that scene. So most of the film is in terrible quality Beta or VHS from the 1980s, one scene was done with modern equipment and processed at Skywalker Ranch.

I've never heard of this. But it does make me scratch my head and wonder why anybody made the attempt to do it.

One western neglected to be mentioned, maybe my favorite if we consider it a western, Blazing Saddles.

I considered it. But just as Spaceballs isn't a science fiction film, History of the World Part I isn't historical drama, and Young Frankenstein isn't a horror film, Blazing Saddles is no western. They're all comedies (and pretty damn good ones, in most cases).

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I've never heard of this. But it does make me scratch my head and wonder why anybody made the attempt to do it.

They were 11 years old when they went to remake Raiders, they thought they could easily do it in a summer and just started filming. There is a documentary on the making of the remake. It really is a documentary on parental supervision. Kids setting themselves on fire, their basement on fire or rolling around under a moving truck should generally be frowned upon. But they succeeded with only a couple hospital visits.

 

[mjvcaj]

Dance with Wolves is my all time favorite movie. The detail of settings and costumes is beyond belief. Look at those things as the seasons changed. I've seen it countless times and every time I find something in the detail that I had never noticed before. The casting is incredible. I don't count it a "western" though.

How about an Upper Midwestern?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

BTW, speaking of movies currently out, I saw Greater this past weekend.

It's the story of Brandon Burlsworth, an overweight kid from rural Arkansas who was intent on playing football for his beloved Razorbacks. He walked on the team, lost a bunch of (fat) weight, regained it all back as muscle, earned a scholarship, and became a First Team All-American offensive lineman his senior year. He was selected by the Colts in the 3rd round of the NFL draft in 1999 and was told by Howard Mudd that he'd be starting on the line as a rookie. Shortly after his first workout with the Colts, he was killed in an automobile accident near his home in Arkansas.

I'd normally give a spoiler alert on that last part. But the film actually begins as his family is preparing for his funeral. The film bounces back and forth between episodes in Brandon's life and the day of his funeral.

Greater is a Christian film -- it focuses on Brandon's devout faith and his older brother's struggle with the age-old question of why God lets bad things happen to good people like Brandon. Most of the times I've chosen to watch a Christian film, I've found myself saying "If the filmmakers are interested in doing anything but preaching to the choir, they'd better up their game...a lot." In other words, whatever the value of their message and such, the films themselves leave a whole lot to desire. The acting, writing, editing, and directing is usually so awful as to be unwatchable.

Not so for this one. Now, I don't think it's going to be winning any Academy Awards -- even without the bias in Hollywood against Christian films. But Neal McDonough (who plays Brandon's brother Marty) is an experienced actor who does a fine job. Fredric Lehne (a familiar face from "Lost", Zero Dark Thirty, and The Dark Knight Rises) was equally great as the O-Line coach at Arkansas who at first was skeptical about Burlsworth but became his biggest advocate and mentor. Veteran character actor Nick Searcy was good as the "voice of doubt" to Marty.

And it also has the (dubious?) distinction of reuniting two cast members of the original Police Academy: Leslie Easterbrook (who plays Burlsworth's mother) and Scott Thomson (who has a small role as the local monument supplier). I wonder if I was the only one who caught that!

Brandon is played by Christopher Severio -- who has a few acting credits, but not many. He's not a great actor, but he had an infectious smile that made Burlsworth a character you couldn't help but love.

Most of all, I thought they kept the preachiness to a tolerable level. Virtually every Christian film I've seen just whacks the viewer repeatedly over the head with sermonizing. And I think that only serves to limit their appeal to the already-converted. It's probably more of a football movie with Christian themes than it is a Christian movie with a football backdrop. So I very much think it's a film that even irreligious people can enjoy -- so long, anyway, as they're not anti-religious.

 

[Rakkasan29]

Make mine Red River

Not only my favorite western, but one of my favorite movies period. As far as I am concerned, John Wayne's best performance, and that includes True Grit.

Unforgiven is very good. A cast that includes Eastwood, Hackman, Freeman and Harris must a fortiori be good. Coming back from being beaten up is a theme in several Eastwood westerns and Unforgiven is the old fart version of that. (In Pale Rider he came back from the dead). Maybe Unforgiven suffers from being one of a number of excellent Eastwoood projects. Red River, on the other hand, easily is in a class of its own.

I'm really looking forward to Sully and the new Magnicent Seven.

What? No mention of Paint Your Wagon? With Lee Marvin...?

I think you guys are overlooking this classic gem.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I think Unforgiven may be the greatest western ever produced. I'm personally partial to a couple of others - Silverado, Tombstone, e.g. - but in terms of pure artistry, I'm not sure any western film tops Unforgiven. I always liked Eastwood, but that was the film that made me love him.

I think Unforgiven is good, but I have to go with The Searcers as the all time best on my list. I will also put one of my personal favorites Nevada Smith ahead of Unforgiven. In my opinion the only reason Django isn't considered one of the best westerns is the fact that it's not set in the west. Arguably an important element. It has every other element of a great western. If you showed that movie to someone and dubbed out the names of the states they would likely think they were watching a western. Especially if they didn't know much about slavery.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I think Unforgiven may be the greatest western ever produced. I'm personally partial to a couple of others - Silverado, Tombstone, e.g. - but in terms of pure artistry, I'm not sure any western film tops Unforgiven. I always liked Eastwood, but that was the film that made me love him.

I think Unforgiven is good, but I have to go with The Searcers as the all time best on my list. I will also put one of my personal favorites Nevada Smith ahead of Unforgiven. In my opinion the only reason Django isn't considered one of the best westerns is the fact that it's not set in the west. Arguably an important element. It has every other element of a great western. If you showed that movie to someone and dubbed out the names of the states they would likely think they were watching a western. Especially if they didn't know much about slavery.

 

[Ladoga]

How about an Upper Midwestern?

Westward expansion maybe.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think Unforgiven is good, but I have to go with The Searcers as the all time best on my list. I will also put one of my personal favorites Nevada Smith ahead of Unforgiven. In my opinion the only reason Django isn't considered one of the best westerns is the fact that it's not set in the west. Arguably an important element. It has every other element of a great western. If you showed that movie to someone and dubbed out the names of the states they would likely think they were watching a western. Especially if they didn't know much about slavery.

OK, another movie I should try to watch. I have an anti-Tarantino bias. Similar to my bias against BMW and Apple. A lot of people have become total fanboys of those three and start every discussion with, "I know (BMW, Apple, Tarantino) is the greatest ever, but isn't the newest (car, phone, movie) even greater than all the others". I made the mistake of relenting and watching Inglorious and was immediately told by friends I just didn't understand his brilliance (what a horrible movie).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

OK, another movie I should try to watch. I have an anti-Tarantino bias. Similar to my bias against BMW and Apple. A lot of people have become total fanboys of those three and start every discussion with, "I know (BMW, Apple, Tarantino) is the greatest ever, but isn't the newest (car, phone, movie) even greater than all the others". I made the mistake of relenting and watching Inglorious and was immediately told by friends I just didn't understand his brilliance (what a horrible movie).

I think that QT has become kind of boring. He's made at least one great film (PF), and several very good ones (Reservoir Dogs and the Kill Bill duo). I thought Django had some great performances -- particularly by Christoph Waltz. And it had other redeeming characteristics. But mostly I thought it was the height of self-indulgence in filmmaking.

I'd love to see what Tarantino might be capable of doing if he, even just once, tried to do something that diverted from his trademark stylization. Because I think it's grown pretty predictable and stale.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In my opinion the only reason Django isn't considered one of the best westerns is the fact that it's not set in the west. Arguably an important element.

Gotta have some limits. Without the geographical requirement, you'd have accept Star Wars as a western, among other works from various genres that borrowed western themes.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

High Noon was a great western.
Grace Kelly was hot.

I liked the re-make of 3:10 to Yuma.

Rio Bravo.

Little Big Man.

Not a movie, but Lonesome Dove was great.

 

[Lucy01]

High Noon was a great western.
Grace Kelly was hot.

I liked the re-make of 3:10 to Yuma.

Rio Bravo.

Little Big Man.

Not a movie, but Lonesome Dove was great.

Open Range with Kevin Costner

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Gotta have some limits. Without the geographical requirement, you'd have accept Star Wars as a western, among other works from various genres that borrowed western themes.

The elements from Django are pretty obvious. I'm sure I could conjure up an argument that Orgazmo was a western. I mean, it did take place in California. C'mon dude.

Aw hell, every movie is a western "from a certain point of view".

 

[tigerchump]

Does anyone actually say that about Costner? Dances with Wolves was a phenomenal movie, but after that, there is a considerable fall off, right?

I agree.I would still like to know what made Costner think he could play Robin Hood.As some people have said in this thread,its a good thing Eastwood didnt speak at this years GOP convention,but he would have been better than Scott Baio.Hell,an empty chair would have been better than Baio.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The elements from Django are pretty obvious. I'm sure I could conjure up an argument that Orgazmo was a western. I mean, it did take place in California. C'mon dude.

Aw hell, every movie is a western "from a certain point of view".

Yep. One of my favorite television shows of the past 20 years is Cowboy Bebop. That was pure western, despite mostly happening near Jupiter. Truth is, people who think there should be bright line distinctions between genres are being silly.

Although, I'll admit, whoever brought up Blazing Saddles, I didn't include it in my favorites for a similar reason: because it's a satire of a western, not a western proper. So there's a little hypocrisy here on my part.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Gotta have some limits. Without the geographical requirement, you'd have accept Star Wars as a western, among other works from various genres that borrowed western themes.

More than geographical requirement is a time requirement

Do you consider No Country for Old Men a western?

The story and plot would easily fit in the 19th century.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

More than geographical requirement is a time requirement

Do you consider No Country for Old Men a western?

The story and plot would easily fit in the 19th century.

Sure. But, I was being facetious with my "gotta have some limits" comment.