40th anniversary of Blazing Saddles. I’ve always loved this movie.
Mel Brooks was on Tavis Smiley last night and was saying how this movie couldn’t be made today. The PC police would stop it.
What a shame. If you haven’t watched the entire movie you really should.
[quote]silverblood wrote:
40th anniversary of Blazing Saddles. I’ve always loved this movie.
Mel Brooks was on Tavis Smiley last night and was saying how this movie couldn’t be made today. The PC police would stop it.
What a shame. If you haven’t watched the entire movie you really should.[/quote]
I agree. If Mel Brooks attempted to make the same movie today, the suits would castrate it.
Fantastic movie.
Also, great call on Yojimbo last week. Still on the hunt for Hidden Fortress. Thanks very much!
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
Your defense of Gene Hackman’s character is one I disagree with. The fact that he was a piss-poor carpenter is the screenwriter’s attempt to flesh him out, IMO. Here was this sadistic sheriff, the king in town, showing some semblance of vulnerability with his inability to build a decent home. Yet his penchant for violence doesn’t appear to have any boundary. He’s not much more than a sociopath with a badge and poor woodworking skills. And this supposed law keeper does nothing to apprehend the cowboy who disfigured the young prostitute.
And I realize the audience members are supposed to sympathize with Eastwood and Freeman’s characters. I specifically stated so in my write up. And I never stated they were saints. So you may have misinterpreted what I wrote.
Yes, Eastwood and Freeman kill. Let’s not forget what one of the cowboys did to the prostitute. I do conceded that one of them was just in the wrong place at the wrong time (after all, it was his friend who committed the hideous crime). So yes, I agree that his death stains Eastwood and Freeman’s characters.
One character I didn’t bother mentioning in my write up is the young gun who tags along with Eastwood and Freeman. He’s essentially a prop, a two dimensional artifice that serves to delineate fact from fiction when discussing Western lore. He has these grand ideas of going on a man hunt. Eastwood and Freeman repeatedly show a tired annoyance with him. Just as Gene Hackman’s sheriff had the doting writer following him like some puppy, Eastwood and Freeman had this kid who harbored ridiculous ideas.
Here is the distinction and why I prefer The Proposition. The main characters in that movie (with the exception of Emily Watson’s) elicit both admiration and disgust. In The Unforgiven, it’s obvious the viewer doesn’t have to struggle with such moral tug-o-wars. Sure, there is the collateral tragedy when the cowboy who did not attack the prostitute is killed. Yet, the way the story is weaved, it’s obvious Eastwood and Freeman (even with his whoring) are likeable from the get go. And Hackman is detestable from the get go (the attempt at showing his vulnerable side with poor carpentry skills felt clumsy to me, like an add-on).
Huston, the sociopath in The Propostion, has to be admired for risking his life to save his younger brother. It’s his other actions that makes him so disgusting. Pierce, the more likeable of the two, still has the moral dilemma to deal with; and his final act damns him one way or the other. And what man in his right mind can’t help but feel some sympathy for Winstone towards the end.
Yes, Hackman’s sheriff is killed at the end. In some respects, this was presenting him with the easy way out of his miserable existence. And it’s definitely cathartic. The audience loves it when the villain with no redeeming qualities gets it in the end. This is screen writing 101. But it’s often simplistic.
Where is the similar catharsis when Pierce finally makes his decision? It’s not nearly as Hollywood, not nearly as tidy, and therefore more resonant to me. All survivors in The Proposition will bear permanent emotional scars. And this, to me, is great drama.
[/quote]
Nothing better than wasting time on a Friday work day debating movies.
Hackman was not detestable from the get-go. He was definitely morally ambiguous. He did not have to catch the cowboy who cut up the prostitute because the pimp had already caught him. His brand of justice was strange, compensation for the pimp, nothing to the woman, but presumably that was in line with the time period and location. He savagely beat English Bob, but English Bob was a known assassin, “killing Chinamen for the railroads” as well as shooting unarmed cowboys with big dicks. Like I said, he’s not much different from many protagonists in other movies. Beating a confession out of a murderer to the point that he dies? In other movies, audiences might have applauded.
My point on the sympathy thing was, I don’t think lack of a clear protagonist is necessarily a sign of quality storytelling and is often quite the opposite. There’s a reason the classic structure of a protagonist struggling towards a goal and an antagonist opposing him is classic: because it works.
Unforgiven is often described as the anti-Western, since it shatters a lot of the myths of the wild west. Death was painful and unglamorous, guys couldn’t shoot straight in a fire fight, and nobody is clean. I thought the ending was fitting. Munny, friendless and drunk, succumbs to his basest nature and transforms from gentle father to the murderer he tried to bury in the past. Yes the ending is satisfying but I tend to think satisfying endings are synonymous with quality.
It’s difficult for me to comment extensively on the Proposition since I only saw it once. I just remember being somewhat disappointed. Was it Guy Pearce’s story or Ray Winstone’s story? And I seem to recall tangential monologues. Like I said, I thought it lacked focus.
As for movie recommendations, some that you may not have seen:
The Skin I Live In: Antonio Banderas
Proof: Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith from Matrix) and Russell Crowe
A Simple Plan: Bill Paxton
What’s Eating Gilbert Grape: Johnny Depp
Requiem for a Dream: Jared Leto
The Orphanage: scary-ass Spanish movie
Side note: Is there another actor anywhere as good at playing a cold hearted bastard as Danny Huston? He was extremely terrifying in 30 days of Night and just made me legitimately uncomfortable on Magic City (which was devastating to me to find out it was cancelled)
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Side note: Is there another actor anywhere as good at playing a cold hearted bastard as Danny Huston? He was extremely terrifying in 30 days of Night and just made me legitimately uncomfortable on Magic City (which was devastating to me to find out it was cancelled)[/quote]
He’s one of my favorite actors. It’s cliche to talk about an actor’s range but man, just look at his resume that includes:
a vampire in 30 Days of Night (as you mentioned)
the Machiavellian leader in X-Men
the lecherous bureaucrat in The Constant Gardner
I haven’t seen all his movies but he’s impressed me in the ones I have.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
Your defense of Gene Hackman’s character is one I disagree with. The fact that he was a piss-poor carpenter is the screenwriter’s attempt to flesh him out, IMO. Here was this sadistic sheriff, the king in town, showing some semblance of vulnerability with his inability to build a decent home. Yet his penchant for violence doesn’t appear to have any boundary. He’s not much more than a sociopath with a badge and poor woodworking skills. And this supposed law keeper does nothing to apprehend the cowboy who disfigured the young prostitute.
And I realize the audience members are supposed to sympathize with Eastwood and Freeman’s characters. I specifically stated so in my write up. And I never stated they were saints. So you may have misinterpreted what I wrote.
Yes, Eastwood and Freeman kill. Let’s not forget what one of the cowboys did to the prostitute. I do conceded that one of them was just in the wrong place at the wrong time (after all, it was his friend who committed the hideous crime). So yes, I agree that his death stains Eastwood and Freeman’s characters.
One character I didn’t bother mentioning in my write up is the young gun who tags along with Eastwood and Freeman. He’s essentially a prop, a two dimensional artifice that serves to delineate fact from fiction when discussing Western lore. He has these grand ideas of going on a man hunt. Eastwood and Freeman repeatedly show a tired annoyance with him. Just as Gene Hackman’s sheriff had the doting writer following him like some puppy, Eastwood and Freeman had this kid who harbored ridiculous ideas.
Here is the distinction and why I prefer The Proposition. The main characters in that movie (with the exception of Emily Watson’s) elicit both admiration and disgust. In The Unforgiven, it’s obvious the viewer doesn’t have to struggle with such moral tug-o-wars. Sure, there is the collateral tragedy when the cowboy who did not attack the prostitute is killed. Yet, the way the story is weaved, it’s obvious Eastwood and Freeman (even with his whoring) are likeable from the get go. And Hackman is detestable from the get go (the attempt at showing his vulnerable side with poor carpentry skills felt clumsy to me, like an add-on).
Huston, the sociopath in The Propostion, has to be admired for risking his life to save his younger brother. It’s his other actions that makes him so disgusting. Pierce, the more likeable of the two, still has the moral dilemma to deal with; and his final act damns him one way or the other. And what man in his right mind can’t help but feel some sympathy for Winstone towards the end.
Yes, Hackman’s sheriff is killed at the end. In some respects, this was presenting him with the easy way out of his miserable existence. And it’s definitely cathartic. The audience loves it when the villain with no redeeming qualities gets it in the end. This is screen writing 101. But it’s often simplistic.
Where is the similar catharsis when Pierce finally makes his decision? It’s not nearly as Hollywood, not nearly as tidy, and therefore more resonant to me. All survivors in The Proposition will bear permanent emotional scars. And this, to me, is great drama.
[/quote]
Nothing better than wasting time on a Friday work day debating movies.
Hackman was not detestable from the get-go. He was definitely morally ambiguous. He did not have to catch the cowboy who cut up the prostitute because the pimp had already caught him. His brand of justice was strange, compensation for the pimp, nothing to the woman, but presumably that was in line with the time period and location. He savagely beat English Bob, but English Bob was a known assassin, “killing Chinamen for the railroads” as well as shooting unarmed cowboys with big dicks. Like I said, he’s not much different from many protagonists in other movies. Beating a confession out of a murderer to the point that he dies? In other movies, audiences might have applauded.
My point on the sympathy thing was, I don’t think lack of a clear protagonist is necessarily a sign of quality storytelling and is often quite the opposite. There’s a reason the classic structure of a protagonist struggling towards a goal and an antagonist opposing him is classic: because it works.
Unforgiven is often described as the anti-Western, since it shatters a lot of the myths of the wild west. Death was painful and unglamorous, guys couldn’t shoot straight in a fire fight, and nobody is clean. I thought the ending was fitting. Munny, friendless and drunk, succumbs to his basest nature and transforms from gentle father to the murderer he tried to bury in the past. Yes the ending is satisfying but I tend to think satisfying endings are synonymous with quality.
It’s difficult for me to comment extensively on the Proposition since I only saw it once. I just remember being somewhat disappointed. Was it Guy Pearce’s story or Ray Winstone’s story? And I seem to recall tangential monologues. Like I said, I thought it lacked focus.
As for movie recommendations, some that you may not have seen:
The Skin I Live In: Antonio Banderas
Proof: Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith from Matrix) and Russell Crowe
A Simple Plan: Bill Paxton
What’s Eating Gilbert Grape: Johnny Depp
Requiem for a Dream: Jared Leto
The Orphanage: scary-ass Spanish movie
[/quote]
Interesting points. Here’s my take on your interpretation.
I’ll preface all this by stating that, ultimately, it’s apples vs oranges and my intention is NOT to trivialize your interpretation but explain my own preference.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
His brand of justice was strange, compensation for the pimp, nothing to the woman, but presumably that was in line with the time period and location.
[/quote]
One can argue that a law keeper in an old West town can interpret justice how sees fit. Therefore, Hackman had the choice to beat the cowboy to a pulp. And no compensation for the woman but just her pimp? Whether or not this action is accurate for the society at the time, the screen writer specifically chose Hackman to NOT do the right thing. And thus Hackman’s character remains two dimensional.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
He savagely beat English Bob, but English Bob was a known assassin, “killing Chinamen for the railroads” as well as shooting unarmed cowboys with big dicks.
[/quote]
English Bob challenged Hackman for Alpha status. One thug beating another to assert himself doesn’t necessarily make the winning thug more complex.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
My point on the sympathy thing was, I don’t think lack of a clear protagonist is necessarily a sign of quality storytelling and is often quite the opposite. There’s a reason the classic structure of a protagonist struggling towards a goal and an antagonist opposing him is classic: because it works.
[/quote]
No arguments here. As I stated in my earlier post, this is screen writing 101. It does work in the same manner the classic burger and fries will always be satisfying. However, when a writer and director take a risk and depart from this formula AND manage to pull it off, I have to give them respect. The Proposition, IMO, does so exceedingly well.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
I thought the ending was fitting.
[/quote]
Based on the foundation set by the screen writer, the ending is the only logical one. Had the screen play taken a slightly different direction from the beginning, the ending could have differed.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
Yes the ending is satisfying but I tend to think satisfying endings are synonymous with quality.
[/quote]
And most often I agree. I’m no different than anyone else in that I use movies as escape. It’s reassuring when evil is put to death. It’s reassuring when the hero (a little worse for the wear) rides off into the proverbial sunset.
However, reality often differs as we know. So when a film maker is unafraid to present this uncomfortable truth (and by doing so he knows he’s jeopardizing box office success) I can’t help but applaud his courage - especially when it works.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
It’s difficult for me to comment extensively on the Proposition since I only saw it once. I just remember being somewhat disappointed. Was it Guy Pearce’s story or Ray Winstone’s story? And I seem to recall tangential monologues. Like I said, I thought it lacked focus.
[/quote]
As I stated earlier, I’ve seen both several times. This doesn’t make my interpretation better than yours. I knew Eastwood had a great movie based on his earlier works such as The Outlaw Josey Wales and The Pale Rider. One can argue that these earlier works were the genesis for the anti Western themes in The Unforgiven. And if you read my very first post in this thread, I do rate it as one of my favorites.
I went into The Proposition not knowing what to expect other than it was a western. It was much more a tabula rasa mindset. When the first viewing was over, I knew I had watched superb film making. Few years passed and I watched both again, this time burdened with the memory of my initial reactions. And that’s when I decided The Proposition takes a few more risks and each shot was framed cleaner. This is simply my opinion - no more or no less.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
The Skin I Live In: Antonio Banderas
Proof: Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith from Matrix) and Russell Crowe
A Simple Plan: Bill Paxton
What’s Eating Gilbert Grape: Johnny Depp
Requiem for a Dream: Jared Leto
The Orphanage: scary-ass Spanish movie
[/quote]
I’ve seen Gilbert Grape. I’ve also seen Requiem - which I describe as brutally poetic. Haven’t seen the others and will add to my list. Thanks.
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Side note: Is there another actor anywhere as good at playing a cold hearted bastard as Danny Huston? He was extremely terrifying in 30 days of Night and just made me legitimately uncomfortable on Magic City (which was devastating to me to find out it was cancelled)[/quote]
He’s one of my favorite actors. It’s cliche to talk about an actor’s range but man, just look at his resume that includes:
a vampire in 30 Days of Night (as you mentioned)
the Machiavellian leader in X-Men
the lecherous bureaucrat in The Constant Gardner
I haven’t seen all his movies but he’s impressed me in the ones I have. [/quote]
His role as The Butcher in Magic City is probably my favorite thing that I have seen him in. Like you, he is one my favorites because you just know that you are going to get a quality performance (usually a quality antagonist) whenever he is involved.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Side note: Is there another actor anywhere as good at playing a cold hearted bastard as Danny Huston? He was extremely terrifying in 30 days of Night and just made me legitimately uncomfortable on Magic City (which was devastating to me to find out it was cancelled)[/quote]
He’s one of my favorite actors. It’s cliche to talk about an actor’s range but man, just look at his resume that includes:
a vampire in 30 Days of Night (as you mentioned)
the Machiavellian leader in X-Men
the lecherous bureaucrat in The Constant Gardner
I haven’t seen all his movies but he’s impressed me in the ones I have. [/quote]
His role as The Butcher in Magic City is probably my favorite thing that I have seen him in. Like you, he is one my favorites because you just know that you are going to get a quality performance (usually a quality antagonist) whenever he is involved.
[/quote]
Haven’t seen Magic City. Added. Thanks.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
It’s difficult for me to comment extensively on the Proposition since I only saw it once. I just remember being somewhat disappointed. Was it Guy Pearce’s story or Ray Winstone’s story? And I seem to recall tangential monologues. Like I said, I thought it lacked focus.
[/quote]
I added this part in the Aug 8 response but guess it didn’t go through.
Pierce is the protagonist. And Winstone does take up enough screen time where it may be confusing who the movie centers on. I don’t believe this was an accident.
I don’t want to give away any spoilers so I’ll say only this: there is a key scene which, to me, shows Pierce as a man who wants to put his criminal life behind him and settle down. Winstone also wants to establish a new life for him and his wife. This is a common denominator between the two.
The Unforgiven attempts something similar with Hackman building (albeit clumsily) a home. And towards the beginning, we see Eastwood at his home with his son and daughter. Yet it’s clear the story was designed so Eastwood is the main focus. Nothing wrong with the screen writer’s intent. This was the specific design he had in mind: Eastwood the more complex character.
There is more balance, something closer to symmetry between Pierce and Winstone in The Proposition. And this another example in my stance it takes the risk of presenting characters that are more layered and complex. I submit that some viewers will mistake this for a lack of focus. It’s actually a different design in the story architecture.
I, for one, prefer this method - AS LONG AS the writer and director keep it from meandering. And I strongly feel The Proposition doesn’t fall victim to this.
As stated before, my comments are not meant to trivialize or marginalize your opinions. I wanted to clarify why I’d rate The Unforgiven a 4.5 and The Proposition 4.75. Doesn’t make me right and doesn’t mean everyone else will agree. But I do appreciate the debate on why your interpretation differs.
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]Yogi wrote:
I liked Big Kahuna[/quote]
Based on his profile, he might be in the military by now. Some of his posts on cinema are insightful and it would be nice to have him chime in. [/quote]
He’s too busy being military.
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
And on 7-19-2014 I wrote about The Red Shoes, another one I give 5. I doubt this Big Kahuna is even aware of that one, although ironically both he and the movie are British.
[/quote]
You’ve just invented meta-criticism. Fuck me. You’re a genius. [/quote]
Meta criticism has been around for a while.
btw, do you EVER have anything constructive to contribute to ANY thread?
[/quote]
'Meta-criticism ’ means ‘self-criticism’. / constructive contribution .
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Side note: Is there another actor anywhere as good at playing a cold hearted bastard as Danny Huston? He was extremely terrifying in 30 days of Night and just made me legitimately uncomfortable on Magic City (which was devastating to me to find out it was cancelled)[/quote]
He’s one of my favorite actors. It’s cliche to talk about an actor’s range but man, just look at his resume that includes:
a vampire in 30 Days of Night (as you mentioned)
the Machiavellian leader in X-Men
the lecherous bureaucrat in The Constant Gardner
I haven’t seen all his movies but he’s impressed me in the ones I have. [/quote]
His role as The Butcher in Magic City is probably my favorite thing that I have seen him in. Like you, he is one my favorites because you just know that you are going to get a quality performance (usually a quality antagonist) whenever he is involved.
[/quote]
Utterly terrifying in X-Men Oranges: Tangerine.
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
Some critics have drawn parallels to Clint Eastwood’s The Unforgiven. Both films deal with similar themes: heroes and absolutes are a mirage and god help anyone naive enough to believe otherwise.
IMO, The Proposition ranks a notch higher.
Gene Hackman’s sheriff in The Unforgiven is little more than a caricature. Winstone’s captain is three dimensional. He’s not against violence and cruelty but has a thresh hold.
Although Eastwood and Morgan Freeman portray hired killers in The Unforgiven, it’s obvious the viewer is led to sympathize with them. Morality isn’t as neat and tidy in The Proposition. The main characters elicit, in turns, admiration and disgust. The lone decent person, portrayed by Emily Watson, is a symbol for what humanity can and should be. If anyone thinks this interpretation is far fetched, I encourage them to watch the movie first.
[/quote]
Gonna have to take issue with your characterization of Unforgiven. Hackman’s character, Little Bill, was not a caricature. He was an ostensibly decent guy who just wanted to build his own house but was a shitty carpenter. He believed in law and order but could take it too far. And he was a real tough guy, not a made up one like English Bob. If he were a caricature, he would have been the corrupt sheriff who was irredeemably evil. But instead he was a guy trying to keep order in his town who had an unfortunate temper. Easily a protagonist in another movie (a cop who plays by his own rules – see Russell Crowe in LA Confidential) but Unforgiven instead makes him a powerful antagonist.
And yes, you’re supposed to sympathize with Clint and Freeman’s characters. Generally audience members like pulling for the protagonist. But they were far from pure. Freeman’s character fucks whores even though he’s married, Munny has killed women and children. And they’re killing men for money, men who didn’t actually kill anyone (one of whom is pretty remorseful about the way his friend acted).
Can you tell that I think Unforgiven is a great movie?
Proposition was a decent movie, the director has problems with pacing and sticking to his narrative.
[/quote]
STFU and watch the Japanese remake of Unforgiven starring Ken Watanabe:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]Yogi wrote:
I liked Big Kahuna[/quote]
Based on his profile, he might be in the military by now. Some of his posts on cinema are insightful and it would be nice to have him chime in. [/quote]
He’s too busy being military. [/quote]
IF he did end up joining as he stated. Unless you’re privy to that info, maybe he just decided to move on from T-Nation forum discussions.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
And on 7-19-2014 I wrote about The Red Shoes, another one I give 5. I doubt this Big Kahuna is even aware of that one, although ironically both he and the movie are British.
[/quote]
You’ve just invented meta-criticism. Fuck me. You’re a genius. [/quote]
Meta criticism has been around for a while.
btw, do you EVER have anything constructive to contribute to ANY thread?
[/quote]
'Meta-criticism ’ means ‘self-criticism’. / constructive contribution .
[/quote]
Yeah, I know what it means.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
Some critics have drawn parallels to Clint Eastwood’s The Unforgiven. Both films deal with similar themes: heroes and absolutes are a mirage and god help anyone naive enough to believe otherwise.
IMO, The Proposition ranks a notch higher.
Gene Hackman’s sheriff in The Unforgiven is little more than a caricature. Winstone’s captain is three dimensional. He’s not against violence and cruelty but has a thresh hold.
Although Eastwood and Morgan Freeman portray hired killers in The Unforgiven, it’s obvious the viewer is led to sympathize with them. Morality isn’t as neat and tidy in The Proposition. The main characters elicit, in turns, admiration and disgust. The lone decent person, portrayed by Emily Watson, is a symbol for what humanity can and should be. If anyone thinks this interpretation is far fetched, I encourage them to watch the movie first.
[/quote]
Gonna have to take issue with your characterization of Unforgiven. Hackman’s character, Little Bill, was not a caricature. He was an ostensibly decent guy who just wanted to build his own house but was a shitty carpenter. He believed in law and order but could take it too far. And he was a real tough guy, not a made up one like English Bob. If he were a caricature, he would have been the corrupt sheriff who was irredeemably evil. But instead he was a guy trying to keep order in his town who had an unfortunate temper. Easily a protagonist in another movie (a cop who plays by his own rules – see Russell Crowe in LA Confidential) but Unforgiven instead makes him a powerful antagonist.
And yes, you’re supposed to sympathize with Clint and Freeman’s characters. Generally audience members like pulling for the protagonist. But they were far from pure. Freeman’s character fucks whores even though he’s married, Munny has killed women and children. And they’re killing men for money, men who didn’t actually kill anyone (one of whom is pretty remorseful about the way his friend acted).
Can you tell that I think Unforgiven is a great movie?
Proposition was a decent movie, the director has problems with pacing and sticking to his narrative.
[/quote]
STFU and watch the Japanese remake of Unforgiven starring Ken Watanabe:
[/quote]
Pantherhare clearly is impressed with the Eastwood version.
Why not explain your implied preference for the Japanese remake?
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Pantherhare wrote:
[quote]MinotaurXXX wrote:
Some critics have drawn parallels to Clint Eastwood’s The Unforgiven. Both films deal with similar themes: heroes and absolutes are a mirage and god help anyone naive enough to believe otherwise.
IMO, The Proposition ranks a notch higher.
Gene Hackman’s sheriff in The Unforgiven is little more than a caricature. Winstone’s captain is three dimensional. He’s not against violence and cruelty but has a thresh hold.
Although Eastwood and Morgan Freeman portray hired killers in The Unforgiven, it’s obvious the viewer is led to sympathize with them. Morality isn’t as neat and tidy in The Proposition. The main characters elicit, in turns, admiration and disgust. The lone decent person, portrayed by Emily Watson, is a symbol for what humanity can and should be. If anyone thinks this interpretation is far fetched, I encourage them to watch the movie first.
[/quote]
Gonna have to take issue with your characterization of Unforgiven. Hackman’s character, Little Bill, was not a caricature. He was an ostensibly decent guy who just wanted to build his own house but was a shitty carpenter. He believed in law and order but could take it too far. And he was a real tough guy, not a made up one like English Bob. If he were a caricature, he would have been the corrupt sheriff who was irredeemably evil. But instead he was a guy trying to keep order in his town who had an unfortunate temper. Easily a protagonist in another movie (a cop who plays by his own rules – see Russell Crowe in LA Confidential) but Unforgiven instead makes him a powerful antagonist.
And yes, you’re supposed to sympathize with Clint and Freeman’s characters. Generally audience members like pulling for the protagonist. But they were far from pure. Freeman’s character fucks whores even though he’s married, Munny has killed women and children. And they’re killing men for money, men who didn’t actually kill anyone (one of whom is pretty remorseful about the way his friend acted).
Can you tell that I think Unforgiven is a great movie?
Proposition was a decent movie, the director has problems with pacing and sticking to his narrative.
[/quote]
STFU and watch the Japanese remake of Unforgiven starring Ken Watanabe:
[/quote]
And if it’s just a remake with little or no substance, I won’t be tripping over myself to see this for the same reason I’m in no rush - none whatsoever - to see the American remake of Old Boy.
How does the Japanese version of The Unforgiven improve upon the original? It’s not enough to mention some foreign remake in an attempt at sophistication.
Due to the recent tragic death of Robin Williams, I want to pay my respect to this gifted comedian and actor.
Dead Poets Society is a 1989 American drama that takes place at an exclusive prep school during the late 50’s. Williams portrays the new English teacher on campus who inspires his students with poetry. His methods are unconventional to say the least, and not surprisingly ruffles the feathers on the old guard.
For some viewers, myself included, the film drifts back and forth between engaging drama and maudlin excess. No matter; this is one of the more noble characters Williams has portrayed and it’s how I’d like to remember him.
Rotten Tomatoes: 85%
MinotaurXXX rating: I don’t think it’s appropriate to give a rating under the circumstance.
The Big Sleep (1946 version)
The world lost a Hollywood and Broadway icon with the passing of Lauren Bacall.
Although she initially became famous by marrying Humphrey Bogart, Bacall was an immense talent in her own right. On two separate occasions, she won the Tony award for best leading actress in a musical. She won the National Book Award. She won both the Screen Actors Guild and Golden Globe for best supporting actress. She was awarded the lifetime achievement from the Stockholm International Film Festival and the Norwegian International Film Festival. She received the Kennedy Center Honors as well as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the Oscar) Honorary Award. How’s that for a resume…?
She was in several memorable films. Among my favorites is The Big Sleep, an American film noir. Based on the novel by Raymond Chandler, and directed by Howard Hawks, it included among its screen writers William Faulkner. Yes, that Faulkner, the Nobel laureate.
Some have excoriated the film for its convoluted plot. I’ll be the first to agree this is a blemish that’s hard to ignore.
Legend has it the three screenwriters, William Faulkner, Jules Furthman, and Leigh Brackett, approached Chandler to find out just what the hell is supposed to take place. And legend has it Chandler was less than cooperative because he wanted the film to be about the process of trying to solve a mystery.
I’ll accept that. It’s a fair trade off to hear dialogue so sharp a scalpel appears dull in comparison. And it’s a fair trade off to witness undeniable chemistry between Bogart and Bacall.
For those who demand action action action and the latest cgi wizardry, move along. I won’t be offended. Something tells me this masterpiece will easily outlive the latest flavor of the month.
And take note, today’s A-list starlets: Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep is a femme fatale for the ages.
Rotten Tomatoes: 96%
MinotaurXXX rating: 4.75 out of 5 minotaurs for the 1946 version
^^^Avoid the colorized version. There’s something garish about a movie originally filmed in black and white that’s been altered.