Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: titoli on June 07, 2011, 04:00:10 AM



Title: Montana (1949)
Post by: titoli on June 07, 2011, 04:00:10 AM
There are no memorable scene, an excess of back projections, Alexis Smith is beefy but the plot is reasonably original (Haycox is guaranteed to deliver) and the narrative pace is fast. 7\10


Title: Re: Montana (1950)
Post by: stanton on June 07, 2011, 05:04:35 AM
Of the 8 Errol Flynn westerns this is the least, the only mediocre one. 5/10


Title: Re: Montana (1949)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 12, 2011, 03:44:46 PM
absolutely ridiculous plot. they sounded like squabbling little kids

SPOILER

I know all AW's have to have a ridiculous love story, but the ludicrousness of them get crazier every time I see another movie -- the two of 'em get together immediately after she shoots him? PUHLEEEZ

The only thing I enjoyed about the film were the real nice landscapes (when they weren't being rear-projected, which happened WAY too often), and the sets 5.8/10


Title: Re: Montana (1949)
Post by: stanton on June 13, 2011, 01:54:42 AM


I know all AW's have to have a ridiculous love story,



That's not reallly true. Or is at least a simplification. Generally I think there are much too many US westerns from a time span of over 100 years as there exists such a thing as THE US western.

But I know what you mean. But you should at least make clear that you talk about what we nowadays may call the "classic" western.
It was a movie convention in genre films before 1960 that most films had what is called the "love interest of the hero", and it is true that many old films have indeed superfluous love stories. But there were always exceptions.  And the US westerns of the late 60s and 70s mostly didn't cared about such things anymore.


Title: Re: Montana (1949)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 13, 2011, 08:57:55 AM
I'd never say EVERY one did. But probably the vast majority of Westerns before, say, the Spaghetti influences, had a love interest. And most of the time it was completely ridiculous


Title: Re: Montana (1949)
Post by: stanton on June 13, 2011, 10:02:31 AM
Oh yes, sorry, you said "have to have", that's indeed a difference.

But do you really think that all these love interest things are ridiculous? In some films it is obvious that the love story could have been easily cut out without changing the rest of the film, but in many it is also somehow part of the story.



Title: Re: Montana (1949)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 13, 2011, 11:54:20 AM
sometimes it makes sense, but it's often ridiculous. such as in this film:

SPOILER

 they go off together the minute after she shoots him. puhleez


Title: Re: Montana (1949)
Post by: stanton on June 13, 2011, 01:02:41 PM
I can't see which film you mean


Title: Re: Montana (1949)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 13, 2011, 01:43:24 PM
Montana!


Title: Re: Montana (1949)
Post by: stanton on June 13, 2011, 02:49:59 PM
Oops, ok, now I didn't got it what you meant. Maybe not my day today ...