[quote=“Stanton, post:11619, topic:141”]The Missouri Breaks - Arthur Penn, 1976
Just watched the DVD, which has a pretty bad image.
It’s a good film, but could have been better, actually should have been better. Penn compared the filming with passionless sex. They worked hard on it, but he did not really believe in the film. And that sometime shows. Brando’s over-acting is partly enjoyable, and partly conceptless. Despite several flaws I’m inconsequent enough to give The Missouri Breaks a 8/10
I’m just re-watching a lot of Penn’s films, which was one of the best US director’s in the 60s and 70s.[/quote]
I planned to rewatch it as well, but then chose for another movie. I think one of the problems of the movie is that Brando’s weird character and acting are so dominant, especially in retrospect. It’s not so bad when you’re actually watching the movie (he’s often funny, in a grim, bizarre way), but it spoils the memory of it.
I had never heard that Penn ddin’t really believe in the movie, but it sounds believable. The film often feels as if there’s something missing, maybe it’s just that: the true love and conviction of the director.
Still enough in it to enjoy, but 8/10 seems very generous.
Yes, the rating is probably too high. I like the film, or I try to like it, but actually it was less fun too watch than the other Penn films I have just re-watched. Especially compared to Night Moves, which gets better with every viewing.
But there is still some really strong stuff in TMB, like the the disturbing opening scene. But other potentially beautiful stuff doesn’t come across as good as it should.
Another Penn film which should be better is The Chase, but here Penn said already before it was released that it was not his film, but the producer’s. He also said it was his only true Hollywood film, all the others were independently produced, with the other notable exception being his debut The Left Handed Gun. He made it in total freedom, but then, after the filming, the studio refused him to cut it.
The others I enjoyed very much. From Little Big Man I watched so far only a few scenes, but these look still stunning, and all the ideas still make click. It is clear why LBM is much better than TMB.
I also ordered The Left Handed Gun, instead of watching my VHS recording, and will probably try to get his later films, which have remained pretty obscure. It is sad that he made only so few films in his heydays, and after the 70s hadn’t any inspirations for further films, which resulted in some ordinary films. The turning point might be 4 Friends (1982), but this is already one I can’t get much out of it.
I have seen The Chase only once, in cinema, on a rerun in the 80s or early 90s, so a long time ago.
I liked it back then and was a bit surprised to find out that it had such a bad name.
Time for a rewatch, maybe.
The Chase is a film in which everybody expresses himself with meaningful dialogues. Too much time is spent with secondary characters, it is too much about telling us something about the American society, and the characters are not really breathing, but are bound in the concept. And it feels too often like filmed theatre, and actually it is based on a novel turned into a play, and the original screenplay was written by Lillian Hellman, a famous playwright. But the screenplay was also changed by the producer Sam Spiegel against Hellman’s will, and it seems Penn had to accept this.
It was a big production, with too many crew members and too many other people on the set. Penn came to the film after many important decisions (screenplay, cast) were already made, and again he was in the end not allowed to cut it. And he said that the cutting did destroy the film, so that it is not his film, even if he directed every scene. They chose the wrong takes, did not care for the rhythm for which he shot it, left some important scenes out, and used others he would have cut. Still he shot all the scenes, and I think there are already problems with the directing. It is quite incredible that he made his landmark film Bonnie and Clyde only a year later. So completely different is Bonnie and Clyde in every respect.
I think btw that the cutting is for a film as important as the screenplay, which is for the real good films less important than many think. Films should be shot and cut, and less written. Which does not mean that a good story and good dialogues are worthless.
Good dialogue is very important, but film is another medium than theatre, that’s why screenplays written by playwrights often don’t work on the screen. I don’t remember the dialogue of The Chase, maybe it was simply too verbose. Playwrights have the idea they must fill the time with spoken words. Too many talk, talk, talk kills a movie. One of the few people able to write excellent verbose scripts and make them work, is Woody Allen. I often wonder how he does it. Is it because he is witty?
No it this mainly because of the way Allen’s dialogues are spoken.
Penn said that he leaned early that in films it is often less important what is said, but how it is said. That plays are dominated by the dialogue, but films by the images. In a film the images have to tell the story.
He said that in The Miracle Worker, which he had directed for TV and very successful as a play, he should have changed more things for the film than he already did. He even did not count it as his second film in one interview because of it’s stage origin. But actually The Miracle Worker is all in all very visual with beautiful b/w cinematography and fluid directing. The Chase is not.
Very, very fine movie. Lots of beautiful shots and amazing cinematography. My only complaint is that the final shootout between Scott and Van Cleef feels a bit rushed and anti-climatic. We can only imagine how Leone or Peckinpah would have done that part (who were both probably influenced by this movie).
Somewhat bland movie. John Wayne plays Union Colonel whose troops are sent deep in the enemy’s territory on a hazard mission. Premise with lot of potential, right? But they barely see the enemy in the movie, reach mission’s destination with no trouble, while Wayne’s Colonel is presented like the big pacifist. He makes every effort to avoid conflict and gets really upset when his men has to shoot at the enemy(?). At one point we see desperate Confederates sending children cadets to fight Wayne’s men. That part was promising big conflict and strong message and got me anticipating and fearing what will happen next with those children. But, Wayne and his union soldiers decided to turn their back and run away, so that whole episode turned rather flat and unimportant. Instead movie concentrated a lot on uninteresting conflict between Wayne and Holden’s doctor character, and on typical classic Hollywood Romeo and Juliet love story.
Somewhat bland movie. John Wayne plays Union Colonel whose troops are sent deep in the enemy’s territory on a hazard mission. Premise with lot of potential, right? But they barely see the enemy in the movie, reach mission’s destination with no trouble, while Wayne’s Colonel is presented like the big pacifist. He makes every effort to avoid conflict and gets really upset when his men has to shoot at the enemy(?). At one point we see desperate Confederates sending children cadets to fight Wayne’s men. That part was promising big conflict and strong message and got me anticipating and fearing what will happen next with those children. But, Wayne and his union soldiers decided to turn their back and run away, so that whole episode turned rather flat and unimportant. Instead movie concentrated a lot on uninteresting conflict between Wayne and Holden’s doctor character, and on typical classic Hollywood Romeo and Juliet love story.[/quote]
Yeah, it’s disappointing. I’m not sure what message director, John Ford was going-for here. The teaming of Wayne and Holden should’ve been explosive. But it just sort of fizzled-along like wet gunpowder. The cadet-scene was exactly like you described. The only scene that had Ford-realism was the amputation-scene. using the whiskey as medication.
Day Of Fury… 1956. Not much gun-action, but a very robust acting-performance by Dale Robertson as a jobless gun-for-hire who decides to take-over a town by himself. An ex-girlfriend lives there. -Who’s about to marry the Marshal. It’s fun to watch Robertson bully his way around, espousing knife-edge philosophy about this 'n that.
Is it a forerunner to High Plains Drifter ? A tiny bit, maybe.
Denver & Rio Grande, 1952… Fabulously action-packed yarn shot against spectacular Colorado locations. It’s all about Edmund O’Brien’s railroad-crew vs. Sterling Hayden’s railroad-crew, competing to lay tracks in the same canyon-pass. The explosions are vivid and sprawling, especially the head-on train-crash. It has the unique plot-dynamic of one train-riding crew raiding telegraph-stations one-by-one to block news of what’s happening… and the other train-riding crew raiding the same stations one-by-one to re-establish communication.
After encountering his bride to be and her parents murdered at their ranch and with a pocket watch that was left behind the only clue at the scene, an outraged Sheriff Durango ( Tab Hunter who IMO didn’t look that comfortable in the role, maybe his pants were on too tight or something ) is out for revenge. I mildly enjoyed this Spagh, the action was sporadic at times and it’s predictable, but i kinda liked some aspects of it. I really liked the music though.
Seven Hours of Gunfire-JR Marchent
Well, with nothing much happening in the first twenty minutes or so, I did a quick-Exit stage left on this one. The copy that i have didn’t help much either, it’s full screen and badly cropped from CG.
Fritz Lang’s western. It has a feeling of a fun b-movie. It has great Marlene Dietrich, memorable supporting cast (Jack Elam!) and some great dialogue. Funny thing is the main theme, which lyrics are literal in a Keoma/4 of the Apocalypse style (although the singer is much more convincing).
Very, very fine movie. Lots of beautiful shots and amazing cinematography. My only complaint is that the final shootout between Scott and Van Cleef feels a bit rushed and anti-climatic. We can only imagine how Leone or Peckinpah would have done that part (who were both probably influenced by this movie).[/quote]
I essentially agree… just re-watched it today. The ending feels rushed, but it’s realistic to the scene. Van Cleef had to ride forward… to verify what his eyes were seeing: his brother sitting on a horse with a noose around his neck, tied to the tree. And Scott’s character couldn’t have missed at close range.
The only odd part was when the Indians arrived at the woman’s station, and Scott has to ride out to talk to their leader. We see them from a distance… and the leader is immediately pointing back at the mountains, gesturing. Scott rides back. Roberts asks: " What do they want? "
Scott says: " They want the woman… " But she’d been standing there all the time, and the Indians never even acknowledged her.
Anyway, it’s a great film. Excellently directed, scripted, and acted.
Big Jake - Didn’t like it too much, some really bad line delivery and comical elements… the acting is so emotionless, no one seems concerned about anything … Jake finds out 10 people he knew got killed then hes laughing about something 1 minute later, none of what happened seems to bother Maureen O Hara
Bunch of characters are drawn together re their own plans and desires. Up until recent only available in not so good quality versions, up until the 2.35 directors cut came along. Film makes alot more sense, and is a mixture of art house and tradional western themes. One I am sure I think will get better now on repeat viewings, although not a perfect film.
Relentless, 1948… directed by George Sherman, starring Robert Young. -Who hasn’t starred in many westerns that I’m aware-of, but he’s modestly convincing as a racehorse-trainer escorting a prized mare in-foal, to California. But he’s framed for the robbery & murder of two gold-prospectors. And one of the baddies steals his mare after she gives birth. So the movie is essentially about him raising the colt while on a quest for revenge. There’s a handful of laudable ‘spaghetti’ elements that lift the film to a 7-out-of-10. Most notably, Young taunting the killer with a full canteen-of-water while darting-among desert boulders.
Finally watched Vengeance and was so impressed! Damn good movie. I really like Claudio Camaso. Wish he would have been in more films. This one is definitely in my alternate top 20.
