Yup you’re right! Please stick to your own opinion(this makes discussing things worthwile :P)
I was dissapointed of Two Mules for Sister Sara (1970) with Clint Eastwood and directed by Don Siegel. It has a marvellous beginning and a good SW look like ending. But between a boring story between Shirley MacLain and Clint. It was watchable because of Clint, some scenes and the great music of Morricone, but overall dissapointing for me.
Funny. It’s the one post-Leone western with Clint in it that actually gave me that Man-with-no-name feel. I remember it as just being a very funny, exciting film…
Maybe I was expecting too much! But it wasn’t really funny for me and Clint has a name in this movie: Hogan.
Yeah I too was diappointed with that one. Nothing special…
that being said my biggest disappointment was Four of the Apocalypse - I have posted my reasons elsewhere on this board so I won’t bring them up again.
I said which ‘had the feel’. And in the Dollars trilogy he also got a name 
I like Two Mules For Sister Sara, it’s one of Clint’s best westerns Post - SW’s , along with High Plains Drifter. It is far superior to Joe Kidd and Pale Rider , although these are great westerns too.
I do not mind Two Mules…far better than Joe Kid and hard to imagine John Sturges directed this.
I actually think TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA is one of Eastwood’s best American efforts…and it has an outstanding score by Ennio Morricone. As others have said, it is definitely better than JOE KIDD or PALE RIDER.
Now, carrying on the topic…
I found the following Westerns to be VERY disappointing:
THE FAR SIDE OF JERICHO
SHILOH FALLS (not to be confused with SERAPHIM FALLS)
It’s got to be “The Searchers”. I know some people are going to hate me for saying this, but it was pointless and pretentious.
No one’s going to hate you. But I’ll certainly disagree with you.
Wayne’s cxharacter is one of his most layered and interesting and the questions the film poses about society are well put. Not everyone’s cup of tea of course but pointless? Not for me.
I agree with this.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:20, topic:751”]To me one of the bottom of the barrel movies is ‘4 of the Apocalypse’, but somebody already threatened to shoot me for this opinion (thank Jehovah he was man of God!) and I noticed on an other forum that Bad lieutenant is a supporter of the movie too, so I have to pick another one.
Considered by many critics and members of the Academy to be a masterpiece, Eastwood’s ‘Unforgiven’ is probably the so-called great western that dissapointed me most.
I didn’t think High Plains Drifter, Josey Wales or Pale Rider were marvellous, but their assets outweighed their shortcomings. All in all they were decent films, not perfect, but well-crafted and enjoyable.
In Unforgiven Clint seems to be worried about his own screen persona, about his own ‘violent history’ in the history of the western movie and tries to make a strong anti-violence statement. This is an interesting idea. I don’t like violence either, at least not in real life, and can understand that somebody who’s name is identified with some of the most violent characters in the history of filmmaking, is a little worried.
But watching Unforgiven I couldn’t help thinking about that old dictum:
If you want to send a message, use Western Union.
The message is written on the wall: VIOLENCE IS WRONG,! IT KILLS YOUR SOUL! IT’S A HELLOVA THING KILLIN’ A MAN!
And than there’s that young man who joins Clint and Morgan and - shaking all over - kills a man and subsequently starts moaning that the man is dead, dead, dead, and that it’s horrible, horrible, horrible …
Sorry, to me that was way over the top.[/quote]i’m going to come out here and agree with you, sherp i’ve seen this film twice and still cannot see what all the fuss and accolades are about, it’s an average western in my opinon. “Open Range” is another one that a lot of forum members like but i found it mostly boring, but just my opinon. there are others but just can’t think of them at the moment , some are spaghetti westerns for example i saw " Night Of The Serpent" last night and was disappointed with that.
To find out the reasons way I don’t like “The Seachers” click this link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049730/usercomments-372
For me the most disappointing aspect of any film is often its wasted potential - hence Cheyenne Autumn should have been more than just a plodding mea culpa, Anthony Mann’s Cimarron would have had greater narrative focus, and the black Western Posse more than just a narcissistic fantasy (I wish they’d crossed elements of that film with the pointed racial politics of Glory - that might have made for explosive entertainment).
At the other end of the spectrum, I expected the exploitation Western Machismo: 40 Guns for 40 Graves to be far trashier and gutsier in a sub-Wild Bunch way (Peckinpah’s great movie being its obvious influence) than it actually was.
And as a huge Clint fan, I’ve always been underwhelmed by Joe Kidd, though it has its moments.
Just a few random examples; I know there’ll be lots more once I actually do some research.
My turn to revive an old thread. 
Anyways, for me it’s none other than Wild Wild West with (Will Smith and Kevin Kline) a complete shit from the beginning til the end.
[quote=“Lone Gringo, post:116, topic:751”]My turn to revive an old thread.
Anyways, for me it’s none other than Wild Wild West with (Will Smith and Kevin Kline) a complete shit from the beginning til the end.[/quote]
Yep, it’s basically unwatchable in one sitting. So many wasted opportunities… The TV-show hasn’t aged very well, except for Conrad’s one-take stunts, so there was no reason to rush a half-assed plot to a ‘new’ audience. Take some time… think it through… do it right.
Don’t think I ever read that link before …
I shouldn’t mention this… 
Yes its a poor one ;).