Possibly the worst western I have ever seen...

[the ringo kid]

Most movies are made for entertainment only,analyze them and you will probably be disappointed. Reality is generally not very entertaining .

When I get back home, ill be watching another four hours of:Tombstone Territory.At east I know what im getting there.

 

[the ringo kid]

I've been watching the boxed set of Tombstone Territory which ran from '57 to 60 on prime time.

Im watching that now. What do you think of it? I liked it from the get go. After I finish it--ill be watching seasons II and III of: Have Gun Will Travel.

 

[Fishslayer]

Darn shame about waking the dogs. Hope ya gave 'em some bikkies...

 

[the ringo kid]

Let's not forget that Westerns are fairy tales. Anybody remember "The Comancheros"?

The Comancheros was good but,look at your first sentence above,it says it all.

 

[LMWIS]

Wow. That's pretty harsh.
I kind of liked the movie.

As with most cinematic offerings, you simply have to go with it and not look with too critical an eye, otherwise you're reduced to nature documentaries and reality TV.

Of course you shoot the horses.
Just like you walk to the back of the saloon and shoot the good guys as they try slip out the back. Or shoot the hero as he broods his way through his second bottle of rotgut whiskey prior to the big showdown.

Or you arrest the guy riding the same horse and wearing the same pants, boots, shirt, hat, and guns as the guy who robbed the stage the night before.

But you don't do that. It isn't good story telling, and it offends our sense of fair play.

In fact, there's only one western I can think of where the bad guy kept kicking the good guys butt, he never got back up after being beaten, he never got any better with a handgun, and the only thing that stopped his antagonist was a well placed shot from someone across the street. And that was 'The man who shot Liberty Valance.' Still has some holes, but a lot closer to a realistic situation than most.

 

[finesse_r]

"They Call Me Trinity"
"Trinity Is Still My Name"

Classics...

By the way, Terrence Hill's real name was Mario Girotti..

There may be no fee to join this site, but this site has really not been free for me. I have spent more than I will ever admit on guns because of this site, and I just ordered the DVD Trinity Twin Pack with the two Terrence Hill movies. I had managed to talk myself out of buying them until this thread, because they are a little expensive for older westerns. But once again being on this site has cost me money. At least it was a relatively small amount this time. LOL

 

[Watchdog]

As with most cinematic offerings, you simply have to go with it and not look with too critical an eye, otherwise you're reduced to nature documentaries and reality TV.

Why not look at film with a critical eye? Why should viewers just meekly accept whatever film makers decide to feed them? Why pay good money or waste time on an inferior product?

Russell Crowe was great in Master and Commander, but fell on his butt in 3:10 To Yuma. Christian Bale was really pretty good as Melvin Purvis in Public Enemies, but he totally sucked as Dan What's-His-Name in 3:10 To Yuma.

As for nature documentaries, at least the viewer can learn something from them now and then.

I won't even comment on so-called "reality TV".

 

[THE PILGRIM]

I was confused!
I thought it was 3:10 to Uma!
I have been to Yuma, don't need to do that again.

I liked the original 3:10, the remake, not as much.

 

[LMWIS]

I suppose.

Of course there is a drop off point between where I'm willing to just go with it and where the film makers obvious lack of ability to craft a realistic production makes the end result unwatchable.

 

[cmort666]

Quite a few of these on the thumbs down list I liked. I find any remake is on my thumbs down list as they never live up to my expectations. And what's with The Lone Ranger being a bad guy in the remake, at least the little bit I watched. Then again I'm not a stickler for accuracy in a western but couldn't handle The Lone Ranger movie.

While most recent remakes of all kinds (like the tragic "Day the Earth Stood Still") have been awful, "Tombstone" was INFINITELY better than "My Darling Clementine", and significantly better than "Gunfight at the OK Corral" and "Hour of the Gun".

 

[amazingflapjack]

Clearly you have not seen these classically awful Westerns:

Billy the Kid in Fugitive of the Plains
Billy the Kid in Texas
Billy the Kid Trapped
Billy the Kid Wanted
Billy the Kid’s Gun Justice
Billy the Kid’s Range War
Blind Man
Buddy Goes West
Cattle Stampede
Hanging for Django
The Kid Rides Again
Oath of Vengeance
Pandhandler Trail
Pistol for Django
The Return of Django
Rustler’s Hideout
Take a Hard Ride
Western Cyclone
Wild Horse Phantom

3:10 To Yuma May well be a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, but in the above list there is not one that is over a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10, and most are well below 5.

Granted 3:10 To Yuma did not live up to the hype, but it is hardly the stinker you portray it to be. LOL

But you overlooked "Bullets for Billy the Kid."

 

[cmort666]

As with most cinematic offerings, you simply have to go with it and not look with too critical an eye, otherwise you're reduced to nature documentaries and reality TV.

Actually, I DON'T have to "go with it", since I simply refuse to spend $8-10 to have my intelligence insulted. While I didn't actually get enraged at "The Thin Red Line" the way a friend did, I've been mocking it ever since I saw it. I certainly wouldn't watch it again.

Even on TV, I refuse to watch bad movies and shows. If there's nothing I want to see on TCM, I've got upwards of a thousand books I can read without ever visiting another bookstore. I certainly don't have to watch "Year of the Dragon" OR the Kardashians.

 

[Absalom]

While most recent remakes of all kinds (like the tragic "Day the Earth Stood Still") have been awful, "Tombstone" was INFINITELY better than "My Darling Clementine", and significantly better than "Gunfight at the OK Corral" and "Hour of the Gun".

I totally agree, but you're not really dealing with a re-make here, but a re-telling of a historical event, which is, I think, a different thing. I believe the term re-make is best confined to a new version of an original script, like "King Kong" (I lost count, is it still just two big-budget re-makes or more?) or the movie that started this thread.

Speaking of remakes, Michael Mann's "Last of the Mohicans" is infinitely superior to the old 1930s version off whose script his 1992 version was developed.

 

[Alpo]

Let's not forget that Westerns are fairy tales. The relationship of even the good ones to historical reality and authenticity is about the same as with Shakespeare. They've actually gotten a lot better especially about the hardware since about the 1980s.

Anybody remember "The Comancheros"? Don't get me wrong, I love The Duke, but a movie set in the 1840s, and everybody is blasting away with a Winchester 92 and a Colt SAA? I remember that rubbing me the wrong way when I first saw it back in the 1970s or so.

Everyone complains about the 1873 Colts and the 1892 Winchesters in this 1840s setting, but when Lee Marvin and Duke are boozing it up, Lee is singing "Pretty Red Wing", which wasn't written until 1907.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Wing_(song)

And that don't bother anybody.

 

[GaryS]

"Open Range" is very good, although some of the stuff in the big gunfight at the end is pretty lame.

I watched "Broken Trail" last night and it's pretty good as well. A bit long and convoluted, but enjoyable.

And the other day I watched "Open Range" for the first time in maybe two years and enjoyed it thoroughly. It may possibly be my favorite Western of all time.

Then again.....I enjoyed "Cowboys and Aliens"...it was a very different take on the genre.

 

[sigp220.45]

The new 3:10 To Yuma made $70 million bucks, so while not a blockbuster it wasn't a flop by any means.

I liked it. It took me a while to catch on that Charlie Prince, aka Princess, with the roses sewed on to his holsters was a little uh... smitten with Russell Crowe's character - watch it again with that in mind and some of those scenes take on a whole new meaning.

Its funny someone mentioned The Thin Red Line - I actually wrote out a long post the other day about how I thought it was better than that other 1998 war movie, but then deleted it because I knew all I'd hear was how anyone who saw it "wanted two hours of my life back".



If Terrence Malick's fondness for long shots of birds and spiders and dripping leaves bugs you, just fast forward to the battle scenes, which put Mr. Spielberg's effort to shame.

Based (pretty loosely) on James Jones' book of the same name, it deals with the U.S. Army's role in the battles for Guadalcanal - something Jones knew a little about since he was there.

Pardon the thread drift - back to cowboys and other cowboys.

 

[Old TexMex]

I guess y'all never been subjected to "El Topo". The existential western.


Loooooopy. You will scratch whatever hair you have left out of your head tryin to figure what the daylights is goin on....

 

[David LaPell]

It's a lot better than the Quick and the Dead with Sharon Stone. I think when the bullet hit Gene Hackman and made him do a backflip into the dirt was when I about lost it. Of course I should have known better than to expect anything more from the guy who directed Army of Darkness (great film to watch alone so you don't have to listen to the wife ask what the heck she's watching and why).

I honestly miss the western that TBS/ TNT used to put on every so often. They don't even re-run them now. Desperate Trail with Sam Elliot, most of the Tom Selleck westerns, they were all good movies and a lot better than what has been out recently although Appaloosa wasn't bad. Of course there's a remake coming out of The Magnificent Seven, and I am not sure what to make of the trailer for The Hateful Eight, but that's got Kurt Russell in it.

 

[Malpasowildlifer]

Django Unchained did it or me.

 

[cmort666]

Its funny someone mentioned The Thin Red Line - I actually wrote out a long post the other day about how I thought it was better than that other 1998 war movie, but then deleted it because I knew all I'd hear was how anyone who saw it "wanted two hours of my life back".

Being married to a Korean, and generally sympathetic to the [contemporary] Korean view of the Japanese and the war, my friend was pretty much incandescent with rage regarding the portrayal of the Japanese as "victims". I took the opposite tack that it wasn't even a "war" movie at all; an allegory, a travelogue maybe, but not a war movie. I did agree that it sucked and was a disappointment.

That movie had a few things to say... not one of them of any real relevance to the Battle of Guadalcanal, or war in general.

I consider it no more of a "war" movie than a hypothetical film about a labor dispute in a factory making track pins for Sherman tanks.