[quote=“Marvin W. Bronson, post:10838, topic:141”]How many of those 500 did you enjoy?[/quote]Well, I have rated all the films I’ve seen in a scale of 1-10. Anything above 5/10 is good or at least entertaining enough. And the bad films got 4 or less. There was something like 170 films with rating 4 or less, so one third of the films I’ve seen have been quite trash. But then again, that doesn’t automatically mean I haven’t enjoyed them. For example, I don’t usually rate comedy westerns high but sometimes they can be enjoyable too.
what number was the last Spaghetti Western that you saw for the first time that you would put in your Top 100?
I saw Hossein's Taste of Violence somewhere in 450+ and that film went to my top20. Otherwise I've watched loads of Franco & Ciccio, slapstick comedies and early boredom westerns recently.
Bill: That’s understandable. I’m the same with a lot of trashy films. I find that I can enjoy them, too. And I’m with you on spaghetti oater comedies. I usually avoid them like the plague, but can discover something I dig when I do give them time in court.
For some reason, I never had seen it before at least totally.
It’s not a perfect or a specially great film, but its a good film, and for what its worth reminded me why I love Westerns
I don’t know very much about the events and the figure (and respective characters), portrait in the film, so I don’t how accurate or how much revisionism is in the film, I do know Tom Horn (from the Steve Mcqueen film) took part in the events, but he doesn’t appear in the film
Liked the acting, Duvall and Wes Studi give some outstanding performances, as Patric and Damon do, Patric always was an elusive kind of actor, he doesn’t do many films per year.
There are some amazing scenes like the one of the solo horse duel between Patric and the Apache warrior, and Damon narration wasn’t intrusive its a biopic after all, although i thin k the film was more about Patric forgotten hero character than about Geronimo.
So this leave us to what I didn’t like the film. Its a Walter hill film with a John Milius script, so i was expecting a bit more. As I watch the film I couldn’t avoid the feeling some great acting was being wasted. Milnius didn’t gave a sense of direction on message and characters study, there was no cohesion on how the story is displayed, i guess that’s a problem with historical films, its hard to find a perfect pace
In the overall I liked the film its a pleasant watch and a good cavalry/indian film, with a classic feeling, but for some reason fails to display the qualities of a great atemporal epic, just too diffuse to shine to eternity
Viewed this German western tonight from the late 70’s. A young english boy is taken from his family by Indians. His life changes at a fast rate and he soon adopts many Indian ways. The capture of the boy reminded me of the later The Emerald Forest added to the fact the boy does look like the young Charlie Boorman. Film has a dreamy quality about it alot of the time, probably enhanced by the fact we see things from the boys perspective most of the time.
Left-handed Viewer’s Digest (I watched the movies with both eyes):
Anything Else (2003, Woody Allen)
An often forgotten Woody, called his worst film by some.
I don’t think it’s bad, but it’s probably more interesting than entertaining, and more interesting to his fans than to others. Still, it has attracted the attention of some people who normally do not belong to his circle of loyal supporters, notably Quentin Tarantino. Working on a review of it.
6/10
The Left-Handed Gun (1959, Arthur Penn)
Slowly becoming a left-handed man myself, this seemed the right film to watch for me, all the more so because it was discussed on these pages a few days ago by Phil & Stanton. I’m going write about the movie and will probably adopt some of their ideas.
I agree with Phil that the dialogue and acting now and then lean towards the stagey; the film is definitely flawed, but there’s more than enough to admire in this interpretation of the legend, and the movie’s assets surely outweigh its shortcomings. This stagey style has a remarkable side-effect, making Paul Newman’s angry young Billy almost look like a Shakespearean anti-hero in some scenes. I don’t know if this was the intended effect, but it had this effect on me.
Several great moments, and what a mesmerizing scene this shooting of deputy Ollinger is!
7,5/10
The reviews may take a couple of days. I’m only allowed the use my right hand for a limited period and writing with one hand, doesn’t really feel like holding a gun, to (mis)quote another legendary western character.
Newman is at his most Brandoish in The Left-Handed Gun, this was surely modern back then, but viewed now he overdoes it. The film is also the most extreme example of packing psychological aspects in a 50s western. But at least it not all done with dialogues in which everybody explains himself like in Warlock.
John Dehner is ok, but he is not a particular great Garrett, and so can’t counterbalance Newman’s oppressed Billy. Penn was generally very good in giving the presentation of genre violence new edges. But the final scene between Garrett and Billy is for being the film’s climax a bit disappointing.
Penn said that the film was cut by the studio without him and against his wishes. Not much was cut out, but the cutter destroyed the film’s rhythm. Coming from live TV he had also a lot of problems with the crew. The DoP refused to do a lot of things he wanted to try. For the killing of Ollinger he wanted a shot in which Ollinger looks towards Billy into the sun, and all he sees is the dazzling sun, so that the shot seems to come from nowhere. But as the DoP refused to film directly into the sun, he had to made a compromise with him.
And after Warner saw the complete unedited footage of that slo mo shot they advised him not to shoot any more slo mo stuff. Which he hadn’t planned to do, but if he had wanted to do more slo mo scenes he would have found himself in another conflict.
Well, it was his first film for cinema, and he hadn’t the power yet to do his thing. But the different approach towards a genre is clearly visible. 8/10
Is the source for these info by Penn the commentary track (I haven’t listened to it yet, never listen them A-Z but plan to listen to the comment of a couple of key scenes) ? If not, can you give a link or give me the title of the book?
I see some Brando in Newman’s performance, but not too much. In some scenes it’s more visible than in others. There were of course similarities between their acting styles, but overall Newman’s style is less mannered, less hammy (which I prefer). Brando was a good actor, but often I find him quite hard to endure, even in his best period.
This is from an excellent German book and from an accompanying documentary film shown on TV about his work. It’s called The Eyes, the Light, the Film. A big career-spanning interview with Penn was used for both.
Another thing he said was that the scene with the powder battle was badly cut. Also the scene in which Billy paints on a steamy window where they will kill the deputies the next day and the film slowly crossfades to that event was hated yb the complete crew.
He said that he and the other directors who came from Live-TV to cinema changed the style of filmmaking in Hollywood.
Btw unfortunately I don’t have the DVD. It is oop and pretty expensive in used condition. I did not know that it has an audio commentary.
If imitating Brando or not, but it is heavy method acting. But good for him that he later played much more reduced. I love Newman in Hombre, Butch Cassidy and Roy Bean, but here it is too much.
“Dead In Tombstone” (2013)
-Danny Trejo, Dina Meyer, Anthony Michael Hall, Mickey Rourke
Plot: IMDB
A gang overruns a small mining town murdering their own leader Guerrero in a cold blooded power grab.Sentenced to an eternity in hell he finds himself confronted by Satan himself offering a daring proposition: deliver the six souls of his former gang and he will escape damnation. With time running out, he sets out on a brutal rampage to avenge his own death.
Phantoms Review: As I’ve said in earlier posts, I love horror movies, along with westerns, it’s my favorite genre, and whenever these two meet I’m interested, sadly, though , most of the hybrids are …well…crap.
Surprisingly, " Dead In Tombstone" is actually pretty decent. While it’s obviously done on a low budget, it’s well acted, has plenty of bloody action and a good ( if very simple) plot.
Dina Meyer is drop dead gorgeous, Danny Trejo is tough and scary looking and Anthony Michael Hall makes for a good villain. Mickey Rourke is virtually unrecognizable as the devil because ( to be blunt) he’s gotten so fat.
If your not expecting too much, it’s a fun movie.
Yeah, Dead In Tombstone is a lot better than I expected it to be, particularly when considering all the garbage movies Trejo has been starring in since his Machete fame
![http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/4s3d.jpg/[/url]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/4s3d.jpg/%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
![[url]http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/4s3d.jpg/](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/c5mn.png/){kind=link}