hm, and it´s 1974, that´s surprising for me, i was expecting some new film
FROM NOON TILL THREE - Not a movie for Bronson and certainly not a movie for me. I had a good laugh when he showed Jill Ireland something that was not ‘in the book’ though. Think I’ll put Chato’s Land next to straighten it up.
Jack Palance is great in Chato´s Land
True Grit (2010)
I know it has gotten mixed reviews but I quite enjoyed it. I saw Crazy Heart not too long ago as well - Jeff Bridges plays an excellent washed up cowboy type 
The Lone Hand, 1953… with Joel McCrea. The weak thing is that director-and-writer; George Sherman, Joseph Hoffman, trick the audience into believing that McCrea is an incompetent husband/father/rancher who turns outlaw. The strong thing is that McCrea plays an utterly convincing outlaw. He’s actually a Pinkerton-agent, sent to a ranching/mining area to solve a series of deadly robberies. He’s a widower, yet his kid is unaware his father is a ‘good guy’ before they arrive? That doesn’t make sense. There’s a couple other scenes that have McCrea in outlaw-mode when there’s no reason to be. It’s a satisfying adventure, however. Spectacular scenery.
[size=12pt]Guns of Diablo[/size] (1965) Boris Sagal
Cheap looking US western probably made for TV, with Charles Bronson, and with a very young Kurt Russel (almost unrecognizable in B/W) in his Walt Disney period, that has its moments.
The film is of course an assembly line product, the story pretty regular to say the least, Bronson finds an old love he though dead, but that’s not good news cause now she’s married to his old arch enemy, that rules the town with the help of his also mean brothers, yeah you can see the all thing comming from far.
In any case Bronson and the female lead (Susan Olivier) are pretty OK, the action scenes are not bad also, so not a total waste.
There’s a lot of forgetable stuff like this out there, but if you’re in a mission to see all of Bronson flicks, you have to walk this path.
Watchable and Bronson fans will surely like it
Sonora
Quite mediocre in my opinion. In my version there was this he smart-alecky TV guy suppling his wiseass comments before and after the movie. He was annoying beyond belief
Cahill, United States Marshall (1973)
A late John Wayner, and one of his weakest. Directed by Andrew V(Vhat am I doing here) McLaglen, which says enough. 4/10
Monte Walsh (2003) by Simon Wincer
starred Tom Selleck and he did a good job as a tough cowboy, also Keith Carradine as his cowhand didn´t dissapoint me
problem with this movie is that it´s TV film, which was shot in 4:3, some landscapes are not so stunning as they could be
Wincer is a good director with special touch regarding action scenes (who saw Quigley Down Under knows what i´m talking about)
but this is not actioner, some harsh shootouts were only towards the end
now, Monte with Palance stayed on a watchlist
Rio Grande - John Ford 1950
A more simple John Ford film with too much stupid gags, too much singing of the yaaawn type, too much naive heroism.
Otherwise a good looking actioner (even if there is also a lot of talk) with a good John Wayne. Might be called a racist film by some, but it ain’t one.
Entertaining 6/10
Finger On The Trigger.
Civil war has ended but some still think the war is not over. Soldiers fight it out, even amongst there own ranks for some hidden Gold from the war. Making things more interesting the local indians get a sniff of what’s going on.
Never boring this one and alot better than I was expecting. Nice action towards the end of the film. The best euro western I have viewed in a while.
[quote=“Stanton, post:9050, topic:141”]Rio Grande - John Ford 1950
A more simple John Ford film with too much stupid gags, too much singing of the yaaawn type, too much naive heroism.
Otherwise a good looking actioner (even if there is also a lot of talk) with a good John Wayne. Might be called a racist film by some, but it ain’t one.
Entertaining 6/10[/quote]
I like it too, perhaps more than you do, although I haven’t seen it in a few years now. I like the dynamic between Wayne and his wife in the film.
Rio Lobo - Howard Hawks 1970
Done in the typical relaxed Hawks style Rio Lobo is an enjoyable western, but no match for its two predecessors Rio Bravo and El Dorado. Wayne is good again, but not as great as in those 2, and the other actors are also no match for their counterparts in the earlier films.
Only Jack Elam, in one of his rare bigger roles and for a change as one of the goodies, as a trigger happy old-timer is nearly on par. But I surely liked beautiful Jennifer O’Neal as the self-reliant Hawksian girl.
It was Hawks last film and his 5th film with the Duke. 7/10
Watched my favorite American western recently:
High Plains Drifter - I cannot say one bad thing about it… perfect from start to finish, love the atmosphere and the setting is perfect
[quote=“Frank Talby, post:9054, topic:141”]Watched my favorite American western recently:
High Plains Drifter - I cannot say one bad thing about it… perfect from start to finish, love the atmosphere and the setting is perfect[/quote]
Do you like this “rape scene” Frank?
I don’t dislike the movie (don’t love it either), but that scene is hard to swallow
I said this about it (obviously trying to rationalize it) in an essay:
High Plains Drifter seems in line with some of the other films Eastwood made in the early seventies, notably Don Siegel’s Dirty Harry and some of the movies it spawned, like Michael Winner’s Death Wish. Like Harry Callaghan, the drifter is a genuine iconoclast: he appoints a dwarf as mayor, takes whatever he wants from the stores without paying, humiliates the citizens and paints their town red, as if he’s underlining the idea that they all belong in hell. Like Dirty Harry – the movie that is - and the vigilante movie Death Wish (let’s only consider the original and forget the sequels), High Plains Drifter seems a clear indictment of some of the sensitivities of the sixties; these films strongly reject the atmosphere of indolence and easy-going tolerance the previous decade was identified with. In the case of High Plains Drifter, there also seems to be some denunciation of the sexual debauchery often related to the infamous decade. There is one scene in High Plains Drifter that is so obnoxious, so gross, that it can only be understood as a kind of deconstruction of Clint’s screen persona. Probably against his will (after all he is a republican and a conservative), Eastwood had become an icon of the sixties himself as the unshaven, poncho clad adventurer without a name and (more significant) a roof above his head. Although he showed no real interest in sex on-screen, it may be clear that No Name wasn’t the married type. At least two sex scenes - involving the hotel lady (For a Few Dollars More) and a prostitute (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) - had ended up on the cutting-room floor, most probably because they would, in Leone’s terms, ‘only slow down the film’. In High Plains Drifter Eastwood is provoked by a woman, who walks into him in the street and starts insulting him; he then literally grabs her and forces her to have sex with him. When he’s accused of rape afterwards, he says she seemed to have enjoyed the sex and was, more or less, asking for it (which seems to be the case, at least in the movie). Most critics have interpreted the scene as degrading for women, and of course not without reason, but it’s also degrading for the drifter, or the kind of opportunist characters Eastwood had played in the previous decade, in a genre that more often showed this kind of approach towards women. Note also that he is a ghost (and has been away for a while), so most probably comes from the previous decade, when this kind of behaviour was bon ton.
(The full essay can be found here, in three parts:
GHOSTS AND AVENGERS, from Shakespeare & Leone, to Eastwood & Garrone - The Spaghetti Western Database )
I’ve always found that scene impossible to take. Ruins the rest of the film for me. Which is a shame, as there is plenty in the rest of it that I like.
Later on in the film the woman of course has a meal with Eastwood at her own free will, so is this particular woman really bothered about the rape I often ask myself.
As the film progresses we find out alot of the town folk have not been nice in the past. Characters in the film will do anything to get what they want. Whether this be kill or rape etc. It’s part of the tone of the film for me, re these characters who just do not care what they do.
That scene was not needed.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:9055, topic:141”]Do you like this “rape scene” Frank?
I don’t dislike the movie (don’t love it either), but that scene is hard to swallow
I said this about it (obviously trying to rationalize it) in an essay:
High Plains Drifter seems in line with some of the other films Eastwood made in the early seventies, notably Don Siegel’s Dirty Harry and some of the movies it spawned, like Michael Winner’s Death Wish. Like Harry Callaghan, the drifter is a genuine iconoclast: he appoints a dwarf as mayor, takes whatever he wants from the stores without paying, humiliates the citizens and paints their town red, as if he’s underlining the idea that they all belong in hell. Like Dirty Harry – the movie that is - and the vigilante movie Death Wish (let’s only consider the original and forget the sequels), High Plains Drifter seems a clear indictment of some of the sensitivities of the sixties; these films strongly reject the atmosphere of indolence and easy-going tolerance the previous decade was identified with. In the case of High Plains Drifter, there also seems to be some denunciation of the sexual debauchery often related to the infamous decade. There is one scene in High Plains Drifter that is so obnoxious, so gross, that it can only be understood as a kind of deconstruction of Clint’s screen persona. Probably against his will (after all he is a republican and a conservative), Eastwood had become an icon of the sixties himself as the unshaven, poncho clad adventurer without a name and (more significant) a roof above his head. Although he showed no real interest in sex on-screen, it may be clear that No Name wasn’t the married type. At least two sex scenes - involving the hotel lady (For a Few Dollars More) and a prostitute (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) - had ended up on the cutting-room floor, most probably because they would, in Leone’s terms, ‘only slow down the film’. In High Plains Drifter Eastwood is provoked by a woman, who walks into him in the street and starts insulting him; he then literally grabs her and forces her to have sex with him. When he’s accused of rape afterwards, he says she seemed to have enjoyed the sex and was, more or less, asking for it (which seems to be the case, at least in the movie). Most critics have interpreted the scene as degrading for women, and of course not without reason, but it’s also degrading for the drifter, or the kind of opportunist characters Eastwood had played in the previous decade, in a genre that more often showed this kind of approach towards women. Note also that he is a ghost (and has been away for a while), so most probably comes from the previous decade, when this kind of behaviour was bon ton.
(The full essay can be found here, in three parts:
GHOSTS AND AVENGERS, from Shakespeare & Leone, to Eastwood & Garrone - The Spaghetti Western Database )[/quote]
Una Bala Marcada
with Peter Lee Lawrence
very good from beginning but towards the end it lost its breath
but surely one of better PLL flicks
fine camerawork and editing in some scenes accompanied by Nicolai´s music,
for instance, when PLL comes to town and is engaged in fight with local badguys, due to this scene i was expecting some better ideas for a finale
but finale was quite a letdown
That scene was not needed. <
I agree…That one scene ruined the movie for me also. Just watched Forgotten Pistolero and enjoyed it much more than I remembered. Excellent movie. Very well made SW!