Like Stanton said, no hate here for having an opinion. But that doesn’t mean we’ll just let it lie either. 
I’ll accept your point re length in terms of GBU and OUATITW; I know others who find them over long. But FoD and FAFDM are only around 90 minutes long. The perfect length for a genre film. And thin on story? I might accept that in comparison with a number of films, but The Hunting Party? ???
Back to school with you young man!
No, not really.
It’s an ok western which in the wake of The Wild Bunch spills more blood than for the story necessary (for which today nobody cares for anymore). And the film makes the impression that the blood spilling was for the director more important than anything else.
A typical violent western of the early 70s. Only a bit rougher than the others.
Yeah I need to watch it again, the main things I can remember from it are Oliver Reed eating peaches and the ending…
[quote=“Phil H, post:7161, topic:141”]Like Stanton said, no hate here for having an opinion. But that doesn’t mean we’ll just let it lie either. 
I’ll accept your point re length in terms of GBU and OUATITW; I know others who find them over long. But FoD and FAFDM are only around 90 minutes long. The perfect length for a genre film. And thin on story? I might accept that in comparison with a number of films, but The Hunting Party? ???
Back to school with you young man![/quote]
FOD and FAFDM aren’t overlong. When I said overlong I was mostly thinking of GBU cause I find the whole civil war part near the end completely unnecessary. OUTIW surely has some overlong scenes as well.
And the storyline: I think THP has better storyline than the Leone’s (again DYS is an exception). FAFDM has an ok storyline but GBU is about three people looking for gold, something I don’t find too interesting. FOD’s storyline really isn’t something to get crazy about either IMO. And then we have OUTIW which is about a railroad!
Then I am also not a big fan of Clint Eastwood. Looking cool aint much acting and puts not depth into his character. The Hunting Party has Gene Hackman who plays one of the most greedy, sadistic, violent and feelingless person cinema has seen and doesn’t fail with it! Oliver Reed is also great in the main role and Candice Bergen, who usually isn’t that a great actress acts pretty good here as well at the same time as looking pretty.
I don’t hate people for their opinion, so if someone thinks The Hunting Party is a better movie than The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, or that Take a Hard Ride is better than The Wild Bunch, so what?
I remember seeing The Hunting Party in cinema upon its initial release, and being very enthousiastic about it. I was about as old as Silence is now, and I understand why I was enthousiastic about it: violence, spurting blood, nasty atmosphere … as a boy, or young man, you’re very sensative to sensational content. And yes, this was … an adult movie. It was like watching a XXX movie at the age of sixteen. Verrry excciiiting oops.
Rewatching the movie some twenty, twenty-five years ago, on VHS, I saw its shortcomings better. The story isn’t much, the acting variable, the violence often a little overdone. Watching it for the third time, a week or so ago, I noticed these same things, but I also noticed that the movie, in spite of its shortcomings, worked rather well. But I’ve said that already in my review.
An okay movie, I guess most visitors of this site and forum will like it, but by no means a masterpiece.
The Hunting Party just gets better each time I see it, and must have seen at least six times now.
It’s not the storylines that have made Leone’s Westerns such enduring classics - it’s everything else. Their subversive qualities (which paved the way, of course, for movies like The Hunting Party and, indeed, The Wild Bunch), the style, the characterisations, the production design, the music… hell, I don’t need to elaborate on this board.
I like The Hunting Party for what it is, but a radical break with worn-down tradition – which is what Leone achieved – it most definitely is not.
I don’t want to seem like an intolerant oaf, so I won’t address Silence’s remarks on the Civil War segment in GBU being unnecessary… (If I was going to address them, I’d say something like, come on! It’s absolutely vital to the movie, providing a context for the characters’ exploits and Leone’s fixation with inhumanity. Without it, it really would just be “three people looking for gold”.)
Ditto OUTW being just about a railroad – if that’s the way you see it, that’s fine. (Although… have you actually watched the right film? It’s like saying The Seventh Seal is just about a chess match).
So no hating here, just a little incomprehension. 
I suppose Leone was putting some sort of Vietnam reference in the civil war part. Personally I don’t think it worked.
How is that a Vietnam reference?
Well, when ever there is a battle scene in a late sixties movie and it is quite violent and brutal, people see as a comment on the waste of Vietnam. Of course, it doesn’t mean that they’re right.
But it is still pretty likely. You rarely ever see those kind of anti-war scenes after the 70’s?
Or it could mean Leone wanted to show a Civil War battle, because the movie is set in that same time period. Be careful of reading to much into something.
But this film is made 100 years after the civil war. Why would you criticize something that happened such a long time ago and wasn’t the worst kind of massacre of human kind?
Maybe he just wanted to blow up a bridge.
Because A) the film is set during the Civil War, and it would have felt unrealistic not to see some sort of Civil War battle and B) most wars are hell, even those that are justified, so saying that one war is hell is still relevant.
But then again:
Most War films nowadays are much more technically realistic (like Saving Private Ryan) than the one made in the seventies and the more graphic and realistic the war scenes are, the more the audience realises that war is indeed hell.
But it was truly mass production in the 60’s-70’s. And not done in the same way, much more hippyish.
I think plot is irrelevant in this discussion. These films are all pretty much style over content. But a film like GBU, with it’s revolutionary sense of style and coolness, shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same sentence with a mediocre film like Hunting Party. The production design, themes, camera work, direction, acting, and cinematic impact are all much more impressive for GBU. Oliver Reed, (a favorite of mine) bless his heart does tend to overact at times. And The Hunting Party proves this. Same goes for Bergen’s performance here. And I think Hackman’s under acting was well intentioned but ineffective here.
As for the battle seqences, they are absolutley necessary. and no, they weren’t done to parallel Vietnam. They were made to parallel WWI. Look at the trenches, cannons, and machine guns (Gatling). Not to mention the great loss of life that came with fighting in the rustic fighting style. Which leads to Clint’s famous line. Also, the uS involvement in the Vietnam war was what caused the big uproar. But by 66’, the US had only been in Vietnam for little over a year and the outcry had not been large enough for it to become as big a deal as it did become. Granted though, there was always fierce public condemnation of the war. However, I doubt a leftist leaning director like Leone really gave much of a shit to comment on the war when all he wanted to make was an epic saga of the Civil War.
From a distance, GBU is just about three guys double crossing each other over a horde of gold. Just like the finale is just three guys waiting around for each other to draw first. But look up close and you have greatness. The finale, though simplistic, is a great cinematic moment full of tention and emotion. Emotion that wasn’t really there to begin with. Just one example of many.
One of the reasons I don’t like it. It’s good direction, style and coolness without much content. Imagine a pizza with just a lot of bread and no tomato or cheese.