[quote=“SARTANA DJANGO, post:28, topic:358”]It would be a new dimension if you ever RESPECTED and REVIEWED SWs Correctly
instead of complaining that you have seen too many SWs and many are “mediocre”.
What is that ??? Each SW needs to be fully respected, discussed and reviewed :'([/quote]
Oh, I respect , but only if imo respect is deserved, but I also differentiate.
“Reviewed correctly” (means SDs view) is typical McCloudish.
NICHT ACHTUNG !! The ZERO TALENT Mediocre, wooden Directors are those I correctly
KEPT OUT of the BEST DIRECTORS Poll after you spent hours trying to doctor the poll :-\
Ha, ha, but nearly all are in.
MORE LIKELY from Stanton's WILLOW WOODEN LIST that include Subtitled Drama Art
House nonsense, ultra recent DATED non films, weird foreign drama & then he tells us :
“so many mediocre SWs with mediocre Directors” as if seeing SWs is a SUFFERING ???
I think this being a SW FORUM the sensible, balanced , rational OPINION is that the
DULL DATED Dramas/Subtitled/NON “art” obscure Film is MEDIOCRE 100% ??? NOT SWs
My Comments on Certain Peckinpah Films Like Wild Bunch, Pat Garrett, Garcia are fair,
accurate and factual. I still like Wild Bunch 69 but it has shortcomings as I explained.
giggle
Mediocre and bad films are boring and sometimes watching bad films is a form of suffering.
Denying that many Spags are only mediocre or even bad is like …, well, perhaps the earth is flat.
Ernest Borgnine is a GOD! I llike his laugh and the way he kills people. Not to mention his relationship with Pike and Angel. He’s a dirty SOB and killer but a real warrior and a man who knows his duty.
Leading lady? Why would we need leading lady in a movie about MEN and friendship? Love would destroy this movie. The Mexican whores are just enough - nice but not too important.
But man, PG&BtK isn’t badly casted! Okay, there are some people who don’t like Kris (I like him in this conception), but James Coburn is Garrett incarnate…
Kristofferson interpretes Billy in a very special way, not to everyones tastes. I love especially the fatalistic / melancholic smile on his face, with which he reacts to all the circumstances, including his death.
A perfect contrast to Garrett who has a similar smile at the beginning of the movie, but get’s gloomier the more the film develops, expressing the ongoing bitterness of his inside death.
And with all these amount of great stalwart western faces around, it’s a joke to call the film badly cast.
SD you missed the point with the leading lady. With that mentality you don’t like For A Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Death Rides A Horse… shall I continue?
And you should check out other Peckinpah films ie Iron Cross is a classic war movie that only Peckinpah could have directed… Coburn, Schell, Mason, and Warner - great cast plus great war action.
[quote=“SARTANA DJANGO, post:34, topic:358”]FACE IT : WIld Bunch 1969 is a PILE OF BORING CRAP as Radish (drugs ?) said
WHY is Wild Bunch 1969 BORING CRAPPY I tell you :
It has a cast of MEN only and very UNATTRACTIVE Borgnine pffff, Holden ufffff no lady
It is extremely LONG and tedious 2hour plus of watching Borgnine come on pfffff
The plot is extremely thin. NO MYSTERY, NO REVENGE, NO SUSPENSE, quite dull.
This Peckinpah is a director full of holes ??? He picks bad/slow casts, no women urgh
Wild Bunch 1969 is just tolerable and I have it at about number 340 in my Western List
I LOVE Good bad Ugly 66, Fustful Of $, Death Rides Horse 1968 and Max. Schell/Mason
but SORRY Peckinpah is one of the slowest most tedious directors but Straw Dogs OK[/quote]
You are a real bully SD. You completely missed my point about the leading ladies as I listed three movies with ZERO.
And seriously if you are afraid of an all male cast sounds like you have some serious issues. I also won’t bother ever recommending movies from Shaw Brothers to you as you’ll miss the point on them as well. We all have opinions but you seem to cram your’s down everyone’s throat. Stop being the SWDB goon.
[quote=“FrankTalby, post:35, topic:358”]You are a real bully SD. You completely missed my point about the leading ladies as I listed three movies with ZERO.
And seriously if you are afraid of an all male cast sounds like you have some serious issues. I also won’t bother ever recommending movies from Shaw Brothers to you as you’ll miss the point on them as well. We all have opinions but you seem to cram your’s down everyone’s throat. Stop being the SWDB goon.[/quote]
Frank Speaking of ALL Male boys only I warned you about Bill San Antonio & Bad Lt
they are both :-* :-* :-* as I said earlier so NEVER bend over to pick anything up !! ;D
I saw your point about films with no ladies but when you add that to a rather aged
rugged cast no handsome leading men and over 2 hours long see what I mean ???
Mmmm… who hates Borgnine, must be a fan of that…
I like slash, I like westerns, but I couldn’t see that thing. The boys just weren’t sexy! Worse than a Frodo/Sam fanfic. :o
[quote=“Yodlaf Peterson, post:5, topic:358”]I think “The wild bunch” is an excellent film but i do find it a little overrated.
True, the opening and ending battles are superb with their over the top violence but inbetween i don’t think that much was going on and found it a little slow.
For me Peckinpah’s best film is “Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia”, Warren Oates performance in it is awesome![/quote] It is so sad that you have totally and utterly missed the point of this film… unlike you, sam peckinpah does not believe that violence is a thing to glory in …he has seen it first hand and is thoroughly disgusted by it…
the part of the wild bunch that you find a bit slow, is the part that powerfully reveals that all of the characters are trapped in a mad process that they would be much better off if they were not… it examines the corrupting nature of glorifying war and greed, and then the end is spectacular …not just because everyone gets killed but most importantly because everyone dies in such a futile way but at least in an attempt to overthrough this futility and those people who perpetuate it.
The film starts with greed being the only thing that holds the gang together and nearly splits them apart…but slowly allows them to bond by realising higher values that it might be worth sacrificing themselves for…
[quote=“SARTANA DJANGO BALLADS, post:34, topic:358”]FACE IT : WIld Bunch 1969 is a PILE OF BORING CRAP as Radish (drugs ?) said
WHY is Wild Bunch 1969 BORING CRAPPY I tell you :
It has a cast of MEN only and very UNATTRACTIVE Borgnine pffff, Holden ufffff no lady
It is extremely LONG and tedious 2hour plus of watching Borgnine come on pfffff
The plot is extremely thin. NO MYSTERY, NO REVENGE, NO SUSPENSE, quite dull.
This Peckinpah is a director full of holes ??? He picks bad/slow casts, no women urgh
Wild Bunch 1969 is just tolerable and I have it at about number 340 in my Western List
I LOVE Good bad Ugly 66, Fustful Of $, Death Rides Horse 1968 and Max. Schell/Mason
but SORRY Peckinpah is one of the slowest most tedious directors but Straw Dogs OK[/quote] As i say in another thread, there are women very present in this film…a vital and ironic part of the background in the role of bitches and whores… like other poster … you hve totally missed the point of this film… watch it again with the volume at a level that you can hear the words and with your mind plugged in and switched on…
Wild Bunch 1969 is a film that clearly divides opinions with admirers and haters of it.
The FACTS are though that it is overlong (2 hours +) and has a middle aged men cast.
The VIOLENCE elements are handled brutally, realistically and may have a deeper side.
The DIRECTOR Sam Peckinpah comes very low down my list of western directors. :’(
Personally for me it would score overall a maximum of 10.5 out of 20 at most.
Yeah I will watch [b]CATHERINE SPAAK :-* :-* and LEE VAN CLEEF [b] all day/night
instead of those 2 “beauties” urgh Ernest Borgnine and Willy Holden !! :o
[quote=“IMMORTAL 1960s, post:44, topic:358”]Yeah I will watch [b]CATHERINE SPAAK :-* :-* and LEE VAN CLEEF [b] all day/night
instead of those 2 “beauties” urgh Ernest Borgnine and Willy Holden !! :o[/quote]
I watch this movie almost once a year and I like it a lot.
Fist time I was overwhelmed by the violence. When watched several times more you pay attention to other details and the violence is more or less present. According to me it is a movie about friendship and living a life that has no prospect. After each robbery there will be need for more money. The fun is out of their lives and it just goes on.
The beginning of the film is also the beginning of the realisation that they have outlived their time. The rule of the gun is slowly passing away and technical innovations are about to overhaul the way of living.
In Mexico they find some rest, in the village of Angel. When they ride away, they will ride to their end and somehow you can feel that in the way it is filmed and scored.
When they finally decide (“Let’s go”) to do something with their lives there are some fantastic moments: “the walk of death” and the indecisive moment after killing general Mapache. They could have walked away at that moment…
I think both in score and directing this is a wonderful movie. Also side characters are well casted and played, for instance the 2 bounty hunters (Strother Martin and LQ Jones) that argue about everything and Edmond O’Brien as the old-timer. The choreography of the violence is well chosen and new at that time of filming.
The film owes a lot to the Hollywood western (depicted by William Holden and Ben Johnson) and the Spaghetti western by the way of freedom in filming violence.
Oh yeah SDB: there is a dramatic love interest in the film ;D.
Angel finds out his girlfriend left him and shoots her when she flirts with general Mapache. There are not much films where the girlfriend is shot.
[quote=“LooneyElmerFudd, post:46, topic:358”]Oh yeah SDB: there is a dramatic love interest in the film ;D.
Angel finds out his girlfriend left him and shoots her when she flirts with general Mapache. There are not much films where the girlfriend is shot.[/quote]
There’s another dramatic love interest in the film: Pike had a dramatic affair with a (Mexican?) woman when he was young; this is revealed in a series of flashbacks, that also explain his great difficulties to mount his horse.
Those flashbacks were cut from a lot of versions, but re-installed in the recent DVD release.
They also add extra meaning to the scene in which Pike drinks from a bottle of whiskey after having had intercourse with a Mexican girl: she represents all his love interest once was and what he never had in his life.
A great, melancholic scene in a tremendous movie about middle-aged men who have outlived their time
Of course it would have foolish to cast younger men in Holden’s and Borgnine’s parts (let alone Catherine Spaak!)
And if it all came down to women, Hannie Caulder would be the greatest western of all time.
Raquel Welch has never looked better than in that movie and it’s very hard to find an actress that looks better than Raquel Welch!
I am deadly serious and I have spoken on the Wild Bunch 1969.
RAQUEL WELCH as mentioned by Scherp not only looks great/beautiful/stunning on
screen but is also one of the BEST TALENTED Actresses of the 1960s/1970s.
Despite my criticisms of the Wild Bunch 1969 and it being about number 340 on my
all time Favourite westerns list, I still enjoy the film when I see it, but nothing “special”.
I llike his laugh and the way he kills people. Not to mention his relationship with Pike and Angel. He’s a dirty SOB and killer but a real warrior and a man who knows his duty.
