Wow , So there was a wild Geese 2, All these years I always thought Codename was the 2nd , That is why I am loving this forum , I learn something every visit .
‘McCabe & Mrs Miller’ … great movie - kind of an anti - western.
Finally watched The Quiet Man & The Shootist. I liked the latter the best.
The Shootist is a good film. I didn’t care for The Quiet Man. Is anybody interested in trading my Quiet Man DVD for a DVD-R?
The title of Revisionist Western was added to it . Great movie. I love Altmans work.
What about HOSTILES, good movie.
I did not find Hostiles such a good movie, especially when one knows a little bit more about the background. At the time the events take place there were no fights between indians anymore and the trip they made could have been easily done by train.
The scenery and acting are fine although the terminal ill Wes Studi does not look like he is going to die very soon throughout the picture.
And the ending was a little bit too much for me.
The government could have informed the land owner that they needed some of his land for burial ground. Also the “combined family” ending is not my piece of cake either.It is too much Hollywood.
It’s a bit wrong to say there were no fights with Indians. There was actually a few skirmishes with renegade Apaches even though the Indian Wars officially ended in 1890. The Apaches raided Americans as late as 1924. There definitely no Comanche raids as depicted in the film, however. The last conflicts with Comanches ended in 1877.
Each to their own of course, gentlemen, but: Should historical authenticity be quite such a pivotal factor in determining the entertainment inherent in a fictional piece? I mean, we’re all spaghetti western fans here, aren’t we? If a movie’s entertainment value is dependent on its factual accuracy, surely every movie listed on this site is an unwatchable load of old crap, no?
One of the better sequels - I like it too
I liked it … very well made, and enjoyable enough to ignore, or not be upset by some of the historical inaccuracies mentioned previously.
One minor peeve : Rosamund Pike’s hat - wayyyy too clean and stylish for the environment.
Is it a western?: Nope … to me it’s a period drama - I’d go so far to say there haven’t been any real westerns made since the mid 1970s.
Young Guns - 3.5/5
Pale Rider - 3/5 (a remake of High Plains Drifter? What the fuck?)
Joe Kidd - 3/5
Two Mules for Sister Sara - 3.5/5
He he … well I watched a lot though …
… there are no false westerns anyway.
I don’t see how Hostiles could NOT be a western, it has all the ingredients. It’s clearly a movie not made in the 1970s but in our time (it has some typical sensitivities of our own era, as some have explained), but that doesn’t prevent it from being a western. Every decade has its own preoccupations, and his own westerns.
I don’t think there are ‘false’ westerns, but in some cases a movie belongs to a grey area. Coogan’s Bluff for example, or a few western comedies, like Blazing Saddles or Back to the Future III
Western comedies which are at first comedies are mostly about westerns, and less westerns themselves. Clucher’s Trinity films are also comedies, and only on another level also westerns.
Btw Spags were in their days also often blamed as not being real westerns. But instead fake westerns.
The word ‘fake’ suggests deliberately misleading or something of a counterfeit nature - This is not what I am implying.
When I use the word ‘real’, in this instance, it is to define a period in which western films were still popular in their own right, and the suspension of disbelief was instant.
There is for me a believability issue with movies made later than the mid 70s - They come off as novelty nostalgia projects, films like ‘Silverado’, ‘Young Guns’, even ‘Dances with Wolves’ or ‘Unforgiven’ … personally I just don’t believe in them. Watching them is seeing a troupe of actors playing western themes and action, but the soul and essence is missing.
Personally I thinks Clucher’s Trinity movies are both westerns and comedies; they are set in the West, they use typical narrative elements that belong to the western genre (basically the Shane motiv), but change a few details: the shootouts are not bloody (except for one in the beginning of the first movie). The finale offers the fisticuffs of the usual barrom brawl, but blown up to elephantine proportions. But to me it remains a genuine western (but it’s at the same time a genuine a comedy). A bit fifty-fifty so to speak. In the other movies I mentioned -, or for instance Way Out West (Laurel & Hardy) things are a bit different imo. The films feature somle typical western situations, but they’re not simply shown within a comical context. Blazing saddels has a fart concert, breaks out of its context and arrives at a sound stage of another movie, etc. Then a movie can no longer be called a real western, it’s basically a comedy, using some western elements, mainly to poke fun at them. Way Out West is simply L & H doing their routines in a slightly diffenrent context (that even doesn’t look like the West of other westerns), it’'s not a western at all, simply a comedy.
Coogan’s bluff is often called a contemporary western, the narrative is structered like a western, but the film is set in (then) contemporary New York. it’s probably both a western and a thriller.
Is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid a Western? Or just a buddy adventure movie dressed up like a Western?