Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: John Baldwin on December 25, 2004, 03:35:03 PM



Title: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: John Baldwin on December 25, 2004, 03:35:03 PM
Just watched this movie...I found it very good; very "Leone" movie, if you see what I mean...  ;) I like Clint's character, an other man with no name. The story is...not so bad, the direction is good, Clint is...GREAT. And I like very very very much the costums, which make me think to OUATITW (Cheyenne's gang), and Eastwood suit.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: JJ_Snakes on December 25, 2004, 05:18:02 PM
I like this movie. I'd change only some little things(for instance: I would've liked to see Clint use more western world technique in fighting using a stick. Should've been just, PLUNK!, right against the head of the badguy, without these acrobatics.)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on December 26, 2004, 05:06:59 AM
Well, this one and "High Plains Drifter" are the closest to Leone, and you might also say that "Two Mules for Sister Sara" is a Zapata Western.  


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: visitor on December 26, 2004, 08:27:29 AM
PALE RIDER is a pale(pardon the pun) remake of the much superior SHANE - including Eastwood and Moriarty pounding sledgehammers into the boulder vs Shane and Starrett trying to remove the tree stump & eastwood's "love triangle" with Penney and mother vs Shane's with son Joey and Mother(Jean Arthur)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: CloseUpEye on December 26, 2004, 12:04:30 PM
 I mean no ill to Clint, as of course of I am a great fan, ;D but "Pale Rider" was dull to me when I saw it when it first came out... A pretty dull script, and  semi off paced feel.  
   However, I only watch westerns if I have people I like or of course that lovely side genre of the S.W.! :D  (IE: I don't like Wayne much at all beyond a few movies, but love my Fonda) so I have seen it two more times in the years, and it has "gotten better", but it still isn't as great as other westerns Eastwood did post-Leone.
   Don't rip me too hard.  :P ;)
 -Tom


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on December 27, 2004, 04:12:20 AM
The biggest problem with most of Eastwood''''s post Leone westerns is that they all seriously lack a strong villian. Only Unforgiven came close with Hackman, and I didn''''t find Hackman that villanous. Ramon, Indio, Frank, and Angel Eyes were way better.

I started a while ago a whole thread on the flaws of each of Eastwoods post Leone westerns if you want to get into this in more depth .

It seems that Eastwood and others have over the years brought the western back almost to where we were before Leone, we get oversentimental melodramas with the only caveat to SW''''s being the realistic action and Eastwood''''s reincarnations of the MWNN attitude in his various characters.  

We don''''t have that surrealistic feel of something that''''s familiar but equally strange. We don''''t have that Iconic West.

What we don''''t have is a director who over a period of years made whole complete movies in his head perfecting his vision way before he got the chance to direct them.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: redyred on December 27, 2004, 11:55:14 AM
The biggest problem with most of Eastwood''''''''s post Leone westerns is that they all seriously lack a strong villian. Only Unforgiven came close with Hackman, and I didn''''''''t find Hackman that villanous. Ramon, Indio, Frank, and Angel Eyes were way better.

Good point, like in Josie Wales there''s a really strong revenge motive, but no central villain figure for it.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: John Baldwin on December 30, 2004, 04:58:27 AM
Good point, like in Josie Wales there''''s a really strong revenge motive, but no central villain figure for it.

This movie is the only Eastwood I stoped to watch. I really dislike this movie!!!


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on December 30, 2004, 04:56:19 PM
Quote
I suspect Eastwood of having developed some kind of deep-seated philosophical distaste for the idea of the uber-villain whose death makes all things right: it''''s such a formula of the movies that made him famous, and yet so utterly absent from most of his own creative projects (especially the really serious ones), that it''''s hard to see any other explanation.

One thought that comes to mind is that perhaps he didn''t like being upstaged by first Mortimer and then Tuco, he mentions this about haveing less and less screen time in Leone''s films. An Uber Villian would have meant sharing screen time. But his best later films have strong villians "Dirty Harry", "In The Line of Fire", and to a lesser extent "Unforgiven" but Hackman is made a bit human for some unknown reason with the little house building sidebar, he just doesn''t reek badness.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: General Sibley on December 31, 2004, 04:08:20 AM
. And I like very very very much the costums, which make me think to OUATITW (Cheyenne''s gang), and Eastwood suit.

Pale Rider''s ok, not Clint''s best effort.  I completely agree with you on the costumes JB, the hired guns in their dusters at the end of the movie are magnificent.  Great scene where the cold-blooded Marlboro Man leader guns down the drunken miner in the muddy street.  May not be an Indio ubervillain, but this scene certainly sets him up as a very menaciing force of evil to be reckoned with.  But still a minor character who''s not a threat to upstage Clint, I haven''t the vaguest notion of what this character''s name is supposed to be.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on December 31, 2004, 06:33:31 AM
Wasn''t he (the bad guy) the star of the old wetern TV series "Lawman"?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: visitor on December 31, 2004, 07:07:34 AM
Wasn''''t he (the bad guy) the star of the old wetern TV series "Lawman"?

John Russell
Yeah. he was in LAWMAN. Also in RIO BRAVO, and a couple more Clint flicks including JOSEY WALES(in the early scenes - he recruits Clint after his family has been killed)
My favorite movie he appeared in was YELLOW SKY with Gregory Peck and Richard Widmark.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on December 31, 2004, 10:16:02 AM
Thanks Lawman was one of the TV westerns I used to catch. I''ll keep an eye open for Yellow Sky.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Belkin on January 02, 2005, 09:12:22 PM
Some mervellous scenes in PALE RIDER, but what lets it down are the "KUNG-FU" style stick swirling and the corny semi-comic bits with "JAWS". Oh, and the crappy acting style of the young girl. What ever happened to her?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on January 03, 2005, 04:42:16 AM
I just never thought that he had a very strong villan playing opposite him in most later films, which is a detriment to them all as a whole. 

In his ensemble films not many had stars of Clints caliber, I would say Burton in "Where Eagles Dare", and George Kenedy perhaps though he didn''t have a lot of screen time in his two films.

Unforgiven of course was different.




Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on January 03, 2005, 11:05:57 PM
It may not be ego, just perhaps bad casting judgement, he gave a lot of parts to old friends, TV actors from Rawhide Days.

Take, Josey Wales, John Vernon is not exactly a heavy weight villian, in Joe Kidd, the villanry was spread out kinda equally between Lamar, Mingo, and the Duval character. Pale rider, same thing no memorable villan, High Plains Drifter, Geofry Lewis is more funny than really menacing. Two Mules nobody that I can remember, in Hang ''em High, Captian Madow was laughable (that whole ending was was a let down), and the Skipper Alan Hale, give me a break, Ringo was ok but didn''t last long neither did the Swede character.

I can think of a few good contemporary villans in recent movies, Daniel Day Lewis as the Butcher in Gangs of New York, Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal and Gary Oldham in Leon.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Beebs on June 23, 2005, 08:34:15 AM
I have always wanted to find this passage ever since I heard the Johnny Cash song The Man Comes Around which reads it before the song. What is the passage in Pale Rider from? It goes somethin' like this. "And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts and I looked and Behold, a Pale Horse and the name that said on him was Death and Hell followed with him." The only other word I can think of are: "One of the four beasts saying ' come and see' and I saw and behold a white horse" then the Johnny Cash song starts talkin about the Judgment Day. One of my favorite songs: The Man Comes Around by Johnny Cash, look it up. he made it on his last album before he died.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Jack of Hearts on June 23, 2005, 08:48:18 AM
Beebs, the quote is from the Book of Revelations, Chapter 6, verses 1-8 which deals with the four horses of the apocolypse, the end of the world, and all that goes with it.  The line is:

"I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him."






Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Beebs on June 23, 2005, 08:53:33 AM
Beebs, the quote is from the Book of Revelations, Chapter 6, verses 1-8 which deals with the four horses of the apocolypse, the end of the world, and all that goes with it.  The line is:

"I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him."







Thanks, I had a feeling it was a Biblical verse but didnt think of where to look. I'm goin to look it up right now thanks again.

(My lucky card is King of Clubs and my lucky hand is King-7.)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 23, 2005, 07:03:02 PM
Beebs, the quote is from the Book of Revelations, Chapter 6, verses 1-8 which deals with the four horses of the apocolypse, the end of the world, and all that goes with it.  The line is:

"I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him."

That's "Book of Revelation": singular, no "s".


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Beebs on June 25, 2005, 08:56:00 AM
Thanks, I had never read that particular book of the Bible. Very very different.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Beebs on June 25, 2005, 09:01:26 AM
The thought just came to me. Why is Clint shown as Death on the Pale Horse?  Sure he's a hired gun but he's the "miracle" to the tin pans. Of course, one version of The Bible that I read said the Pale Horse was a Pale Green Horse. In that case Clint is riding the First horse, the white one. "His rider was given a bow and a crown, and he rode out as a conquerer bent on conquest".

Any ideas? dave you sound like you know what your takin about ;D


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on September 04, 2005, 01:20:36 PM
Rewatched it last week. I had watched it on TV many years ago and wasn't impressed (probably because of the dubbing). Very good movie. I think the director of Photography should have received an Academy Award. Whoever got it that year couldn't have possibly done better. Also, it is hard to remake a scene like that between Jack Palance and Elisha Cook jr. in Shane  and getting even. That is because the actor impersonating then bad one is just as terrifying as Palance, though reminding one physically of Randolph Scott: not a mean feat, I'd say. Sure he should have earned an Academy Award too. The religious crap is kept at bay and quite functional, like the romance. The girl in love with Eastwood is as lovely as Jennifer Connelly in OUTA: a pleasure for the eye. And also is good the method of not giving many explanations about Eastwood's past. I plan to rewatch it soon.






Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: grandpa_chum on September 04, 2005, 05:24:01 PM
yeah i've seen it a few times, and as long as it's not pan and scan it's amazing... although i hated it P+S on tv


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Bill Carson on September 05, 2005, 04:00:40 PM
the strangest thing... the trailer for PALE RIDER features the same music from CHANNEL 4 NEWS! but it's a great movie!   ;)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on September 05, 2005, 07:01:24 PM
Let me to add something more about the photography. I don't usually go for scenes shot in the dark or semidarkness:  didn't enthuse so much for those, so much  celebrated, of Barry Lindon, maybe because they are ends to themselves (or maybe because  that was not the best K.'s movie). Tthe opening sequence of Godfather is wonderful, but without  much originality as to visual solutions.   Here the ones shot in the mine owner's office are all the way perfect because they are not an end to themselves but absolutely functional to the atmosphere of tension, both when Eastwood pays his visit there and when the sheriff peruses through the window the drunk miner.  The limited definition of faces' expressions clicks to the yet scarcely defined characters. It is these scenes that make me for the first time think of Eastwood as a director.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Poggle on August 15, 2006, 02:33:13 PM
Clint is my favorite American western director and I really enjoyed High Plains Drifter, Outlaw Josey Wales and Unforgiven. I've heard some doubty reviews about Pale Rider. What do you think?

By the way did anyone else here feel that Sandra Locke's character in Josey Wales "cut through" the mood of the film? I love the movie and all, but upon her character first appearing I thought it lost mood before things felt settled again.

Has Leone ever commented on the Clint-directed westerns?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Silenzio on August 15, 2006, 02:36:49 PM
Pale Rider is probably my Least favorite of Eastwood's westerns. The only real reason to watch it is because Clint's in it. But, other than that, you really could live without ever seeing it. And it completely pales to Clint's three best american westerns: Outlaw Josey Wales, High Plains Drifter, and Unforgiven.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 15, 2006, 02:44:00 PM
Pale Rider is pretty good. Most of Clint's American westerns are better, but I still think it was a good movie.

I thought the worse Eastwood western done in the states is Hang 'em High. It's a good movie but it pales in comparison to the others.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 15, 2006, 03:09:23 PM


By the way did anyone else here feel that Sandra Locke's character in Josey Wales "cut through" the mood of the film? I love the movie and all, but upon her character first appearing I thought it lost mood before things felt settled again.

Has Leone ever commented on the Clint-directed westerns?

Josey whales was great up until Sandra Locke showed up...thats all I'm gonna say on the subject...

In my "Once upon a time in Italy" book, in an interview, Leone is asked what he thought of Eastwood's Josey Whales...Leone responded by asking the interviewer what he thought about it...

"what do you think about it?"

a response like that can mean only one thing...he didnt care for it.


as for "Pale Rider"...I like it...and it is most certainly an entertaining film.  Clint's intro is probably the best of all his western intro's (outside the dollars trilogy).
Pale Rider is far better than "Joe Kidd" (blech) thats for sure.

If you can get it for, at most, $12.99 (which isnt hard to do) I say go for it!


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 15, 2006, 03:15:26 PM
Pale Rider is far better than "Joe Kidd" (blech) thats for sure.

Oh, I forgot about Joe Kidd. I take back my previous comment, Joe Kidd was the worst Eastwood western made in America.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Poggle on August 15, 2006, 03:18:36 PM
"And it completely pales to Clint's three best american westerns: Outlaw Josey Wales, High Plains Drifter, and Unforgiven."

That's probably why it's called Pale Rider ;D


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Silenzio on August 15, 2006, 03:22:51 PM
Oh, I forgot about Joe Kidd. I take back my previous comment, Joe Kidd was the worst Eastwood western made in America.

I've never seen Joe Kidd, so I wouldn't know, but I think that Hang 'em High  and Pale Rider were his two worst that I've seen.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 15, 2006, 03:24:54 PM
I've never seen Joe Kidd, so I wouldn't know, but I think that Hang 'em High  and Pale Rider were his two worst that I've seen.

"Hang em High" would work very well if there would be a proper  (complete!) ending and if that romance segment was cut from the picture.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Silenzio on August 15, 2006, 03:26:52 PM
"Hang em High" would work very well if there would be a proper  (complete!) ending and if that romance segment was cut from the picture.

The romance thing really did need to be cut.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 15, 2006, 03:33:17 PM
The romance side-plot is the perfect example of when Hollywood has to halt the pace of a western or any action film so they can throw in some sappy romance story that has NOTHING to do with the plot.

It's frustrating.   >:(


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on August 15, 2006, 05:27:30 PM
I've only seen the last half hour, but it didn't impress me.  I did like Clint's guns with the interchangable magazines though.  ;)

"Hang 'Em High" sucks, it has some good scenes early on but goes south pretty quickly.  And I've already said I'm not a fan of "High Plains Drifter". . .


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 15, 2006, 05:30:38 PM
I've only seen the last half hour, but it didn't impress me.  I did like Clint's guns with the interchangable magazines though.  ;)


the intro where eastwood beats down the baddies with wooden planks is probably the high light...


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 15, 2006, 05:32:25 PM
I don't think much of Pale Rider, it has no real strong villan, and the prospectors were more like some hippy commune, I liked seeing John Russel (TV's Lawman, & Yellow Sky) though.

We should revive this thread where I sort of rant about Clints AW's

http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=148.0


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on August 15, 2006, 05:33:19 PM
Oh, for the record, I've only seen parts of "Joe Kidd" and I don't remember it well at all.

And nice self-promotion CJ.  ;)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 15, 2006, 05:50:10 PM
Well Joe Kidd is somewhat similar to the plot of TGS if you think about it.  ;D


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Tuco the ugly on August 16, 2006, 06:39:41 AM
"pale rider" is not a great film but clint makes him worth watching...
and i'll agree with the others,sondra locke sucks


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: franksgrandson on August 16, 2006, 02:10:17 PM
here's a radical thought, apart from Unforgiven and maybe High Plaines Drifter were all Eastwoods other Westerns just quick offerings to his fans while his real aim was the Dirty Harrys and his more arty flicks
A kind of short changed sop to raise the cash for the nextoff the field flick.
By the way I thought the Beguiled was a pretty neat Western in a funny sort of way and I hate all movies with Sondra Locke in, talk about getting some fame from the back of your boyfriend


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 16, 2006, 04:23:21 PM
Quote
here's a radical thought, apart from Unforgiven and maybe High Plaines Drifter were all Eastwoods other Westerns just quick offerings to his fans while his real aim was the Dirty Harrys and his more arty flicks
A kind of short changed sop to raise the cash for the nextoff the field flick.
By the way I thought the Beguiled was a pretty neat Western in a funny sort of way and I hate all movies with Sondra Locke in, talk about getting some fame from the back of your boyfriend


Thats kind of the way it seems don't it. Anybody else that was that hot a box office draw should have been in demand by some of the great directors through out the 70's & 80's.

Maybe Clint just wanted total control with Malpaso.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Banjo on August 17, 2006, 02:29:51 AM
Pale Rider is a GREAT movie,up there with Clints classic High Plains Drifter and Outlaw Josey Wales.
  Eastwood produced the most Italionate American westerns and in my opinion is the number one American director of westerns.
   C'mon Clint,lets have some more! ;)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: boardwalk_angel on August 17, 2006, 06:48:42 AM
For me..."Hang 'Em High" is Eastwood's best immediate post -Spaghetti Western.
Pale Rider's a good movie..Joe Kidd's kinda so-so...except for that great climactic train scene.
It wasn't till "Josey Wales" in '76...that he got it all together...& so well.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 17, 2006, 10:48:56 PM
here's a radical thought, apart from Unforgiven and maybe High Plaines Drifter were all Eastwoods other Westerns just quick offerings to his fans while his real aim was the Dirty Harrys and his more arty flicks


Dirty Harry? are you serious? To me those are like cheap tv movies.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Banjo on August 18, 2006, 01:44:07 AM
Dirty Harry? are you serious? To me those are like cheap tv movies.
They were revolutionary for their time i guess(apart from the 2 made in the 80's)but don't you like Eastwood's character Firecracker?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 18, 2006, 01:47:40 AM
They were revolutionary for their time i guess(apart from the 2 made in the 80's)but don't you like Eastwood's character Firecracker?

I liked Dirty Harry. It was a cool flick.

Not a great movie...but cool.   8)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Banjo on August 18, 2006, 01:56:10 AM
The Dirty Harry's movies were the best of their type and most definately superior to the Deathwish series.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 18, 2006, 05:56:21 AM
Quote
The Dirty Harry's movies were the best of their type and most definately superior to the Deathwish series.


That is true.  8)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 18, 2006, 10:15:34 AM
The Dirty Harry's movies were the best of their type and most definately superior to the Deathwish series.


I'll take the first "Death Wish" over any of the Dirty Harry films I think.

besides Eastwood's obviously cool character I think the movies were a bit lackluster.

The first film has that wonderfully cool shot at the football field (Harry is stepping on the scorpion's hands or something...) and then finally the ultimate climax on that dock...but everything else...meh.

And Scorpio is too feminine a man to be scary. He is like a little girl and he comes off annoying.



The sequels dont fair much better. You get that awful one where some hippie's get a load of rocket launchers and start to terrorize San Fran with them and then their is the Eastwood Directed one called "sudden Impact" that is just pure rubbish(the coffee shop scene where Eastwood delivers the famous line "go ahead... make my day" is classic though).

The one that really comes close to being as good as the original is "Magnum Force" I think. I believe that is the one that other policemen become vigilantes and Harry has to take em down.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 18, 2006, 10:19:35 AM

And Scorpio is too feminine a man to be scary. He is like a little girl and he comes off annoying.

Scorpio does look a bit wussy, but I think he made a good villain.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 18, 2006, 10:21:03 AM
Scorpio does look a bit wussy, but I think he made a good villain.

I look forward to the game I says...


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 18, 2006, 10:21:46 AM
I look forward to the game I says...

 ???


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 18, 2006, 10:26:45 AM
???


awhile ago I put up a trailer of the Dirty Harry videogame.
you guys really need to start paying attention to me more ;D


Hopefully the game will be decent as opposed to the films.

To me, nothing significant came out of the Don Seigel and Eastwood collaboration (from what I have seen) except "The Beguiled".


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 18, 2006, 10:28:06 AM

awhile ago I put up a trailer of the Dirty Harry videogame.
you guys really need to start paying attention to me more ;D

Oh...okay.   ;)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 18, 2006, 10:28:37 AM
Oh...okay.   ;)

here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uDIyJBPsWQ&search=dirty%20harry


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 18, 2006, 10:31:56 AM
here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uDIyJBPsWQ&search=dirty%20harry

That looks AWESOME!!!

I'm getting that when it comes out!

By the way...any news on GBU game?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 18, 2006, 10:33:56 AM
That looks AWESOME!!!

I'm getting that when it comes out!




yeah I thought the same however there is no gameplay shown so...


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 18, 2006, 10:34:14 AM

yeah I thought the same however there is no gameplay shown so...

True...


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Banjo on August 18, 2006, 11:09:06 AM
besides Eastwood's obviously cool character I think the movies were a bit lackluster.

The first film has that wonderfully cool shot at the football field (Harry is stepping on the scorpion's hands or something...) and then finally the ultimate climax on that dock...but everything else...meh.

And Scorpio is too feminine a man to be scary. He is like a little girl and he comes off annoying.
I don't think Scorpio needed to be scary-just deranged-he was only praying on little girls afterall.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the chase where Harry has to run from phone box to phone box-this is a very suspenseful well handled sequence.
I agree with you that Magnum Force was by far the best sequel with a very decent storyline with the police corruption and all that!


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 18, 2006, 11:21:51 AM

I'm surprised you didn't mention the chase where Harry has to run from phone box to phone box-this is a very suspenseful well handled sequence.


I vaguely remember it Banjo. I guess I'll have to see it again.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 18, 2006, 03:21:00 PM
Robinson was pretty good, he was one of the strongest villians In the DH Series if not the best.

He was deranged not so much menacing, and scary in that way.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Banjo on August 24, 2006, 07:59:33 AM
Also, it is hard to remake a scene like that between Jack Palance and Elisha Cook jr. in Shane  and getting even.
I watched Shane for the first time today and it instantly struck me that Pale Rider borrows lock,stock and barrel from this earlier western.In both movies a wealthy landowner is trying to force small holders off their land,first by violent intimidation before bringing in professional killers.Both Shane and the Preacher come to the aid of the rural folk and give heavies a good beating,and at the end of the movie take it upon themselves to shoot it out on their friends behalf.Shane is worshiped by the boy who calls out to him as he rides off at the movies end,likewise with the girl with the Preacher.There are so many parellels that Pale Rider is almost like a remake,though Eastwood is far more cooler and convincing than Ladd,but on the other hand Jack Palance is totally brilliant as the evil gunslinger Wilson and far more menacing than Stockburn and all his deputies put together.
     Both films have great atmosphere but Pale Rider shades it for me with that more spaghettiesque feel and Shane is very dated!


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 24, 2006, 10:23:10 AM
I watched Shane for the first time today and it instantly struck me that Pale Rider borrows lock,stock and barrel from this earlier western.In both movies a wealthy landowner is trying to force small holders off their land,first by violent intimidation before bringing in professional killers.Both Shane and the Preacher come to the aid of the rural folk and give heavies a good beating,and at the end of the movie take it upon themselves to shoot it out on their friends behalf.Shane is worshiped by the boy who calls out to him as he rides off at the movies end,likewise with the girl with the Preacher.There are so many parellels that Pale Rider is almost like a remake,though Eastwood is far more cooler and convincing than Ladd,but on the other hand Jack Palance is totally brilliant as the evil gunslinger Wilson and far more menacing than Stockburn and all his deputies put together.
     Both films have great atmosphere but Pale Rider shades it for me with that more spaghettiesque feel and Shane is very dated!

I agree. Shane's a good flick, and Palance is really cool as the really evil baddie, but it's just a bit too dated for comfortable viewing.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Beebs on August 24, 2006, 02:37:34 PM
I watched Shane for the first time today and it instantly struck me that Pale Rider borrows lock,stock and barrel from this earlier western.In both movies a wealthy landowner is trying to force small holders off their land,first by violent intimidation before bringing in professional killers.Both Shane and the Preacher come to the aid of the rural folk and give heavies a good beating,and at the end of the movie take it upon themselves to shoot it out on their friends behalf.Shane is worshiped by the boy who calls out to him as he rides off at the movies end,likewise with the girl with the Preacher.There are so many parellels that Pale Rider is almost like a remake,though Eastwood is far more cooler and convincing than Ladd,but on the other hand Jack Palance is totally brilliant as the evil gunslinger Wilson and far more menacing than Stockburn and all his deputies put together.
     Both films have great atmosphere but Pale Rider shades it for me with that more spaghettiesque feel and Shane is very dated!

I had the same reaction when I first saw Shane. But I like Shane a lot better. Dont ask me why. I just do. Maybe because it's a little more G rated. Though I absolutly love the hickory axe handle fight in the begining. Clint is so awesome.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 24, 2006, 03:51:40 PM
I haven't seen PR for a long time and I can't be sure, but I don't remember the wealthy landowner dude being at all sympathetic. Watching Shane again not too long ago, however, I was struck by a scene where the old guy who hires Wilson makes a little speech about all the hard work he and others put in pioneering the area and how ticked off he is about the recent squatters. Suddenly, you see things from his point of view and you have to agree that he's got a righteous beef. Those sheepmen are trespassers, and the law's not doing anything about it! We need professional help, call the regulator!

Nice bit of insight, the kind of thing I don't think you get in the more PC Pale Rider........



Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on August 24, 2006, 04:21:33 PM
I don't think is a matter of PC, in PR the reasons of both parties are explained and got into probably even more of what is done in Shane. The main problem with Shane is that you have all those homelies delivered to Brandon by Ladd, Heflin and his mother that slow down the action terribly: I was aware of that the first time I saw the movie as a kid and never changed my mind in the following viewings. I don't know if I remember well, but me and my cousins were playing during those endless speeches and gave attention to the movie only when action started again. The film is at his greatest in the confrontations and in the sole appearance (a french critic called it - and rightly so - "the irruption of fantastic in cinema") of Palance: that's where is a "great" movie.
 A while ago we made a discussion on The Great Silence and I said Trintignant wasn't convincing in the part. I wonder how the Ladd could be more convincing than him and against such a tremendous foil as Palance, not against the small Kinsky. That is a great piece of miscast. 
And in Pale Rider you also have the beautiful (and minor: hey, where's PC? ) girl in love with Eastwood, surely a better solution than having De Wilde between the balls. Rewatch Pale Rider and then reopen the topic: I think you'll be amazed at how good the movie is.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 24, 2006, 04:42:29 PM
My problems with Pale Rider stem from the depiction of the placer miners. Its all shown like a nice little hippy commune circa 1968, it just doesn't compute, most of these camps were rip roaring hell holes and deviod of women.  The country side in these placers would look like a moonscape and when you see the remains of of these placer mining camps today you still see the scars on the landscape.

PR is Better than Shane, but Jack Palance is the better villian.



Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on August 24, 2006, 05:16:04 PM
Yeah, Palance in Shane is film history, but the villain in PR is not to be underestimated and using Palance as a term of comparison tells it has not to be so.
Of course I trust the accuracy of all that you say about historical truth in PR: but then I wonder what you would say about Shane's relationship with reality.  I don't know whether hippy commune is the right term of comparison for the miners' community: but their depiction is in accordance with the dramatic development of the story: without those liberties you wouldn't have all the Eastwood's involvement with the family, the wife and the daughter. You always have to strike a balance between a stretch of reality and the need to entertain: I'd say that Eastwood has found here the right middle.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 24, 2006, 05:28:39 PM
I don't think is a matter of PC, in PR the reasons of both parties are explained and got into probably even more of what is done in Shane.
Could well be, but that wasn't exactly what I was getting at. I mean that in Shane for an instant you actually sympathise with the bad guy. It's not an intellectual understanding of the conflicting interests, it's more visceral. At least, that's the way it is for me. Suddenly I connect with the guy, and I'm surprised. I doubt the same thing occurs in PR: Eastwood's films tend to keep me emotionally distant. But, as I say, I haven't watched PR in a long time, I'll have to see it again.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on August 24, 2006, 06:26:56 PM
I'll try to find the dvd and get back to you.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Banjo on August 25, 2006, 02:16:01 AM
   Those who say that Pale Rider is a rehash of High Plains Drifter is just rubbish isn't it despite Eastwood appearing to be a spectral figure in both movies?
   Another couple of big parellels between PR and Shane come to mind.In Shane,Ladd & Heflin together take several minutes to chop up and remove a huge stubborn tree stump-in Pale Rider of course its the huge rock in the stream that the two friends struggle to break up with sledgehammers .Also in both movies theres the outspoken loudmouth from the abused communities who takes it upon himself to go into town and confront the villains before being cruelly gunned down.
    Cigar Joe i think the Pale Rider mining community were a little old and respectable for a hippy commune and i didn't see any evidence of polygamy,drugs,beads or long hair.No for me they were fine,just pulling together in the face of dire adversity.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 25, 2006, 06:03:55 AM
Quote
Cigar Joe i think the Pale Rider mining community were a little old and respectable for a hippy commune and i didn't see any evidence of polygamy,drugs,beads or long hair.No for me they were fine,just pulling together in the face of dire adversity.


Its just a fantasy, no mining community was ever like that, it just played like the hippes or greenies commune,  against big buisness. In reality these guys would be claim jumping each other at the drop of a hat.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 25, 2006, 03:55:20 PM


Its just a fantasy, no mining community was ever like that, it just played like the hippes or greenies commune,  against big buisness. In reality these guys would be claim jumping each other at the drop of a hat.
Now THAT would make an interesting movie.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 25, 2006, 07:02:53 PM
This is the way it usually goes. Some propector finds a bit of color in a creek, he goes to the local land office and files a claim. Here is a legal definition on BLM land.

Placer claims, where practicable, are located by legal subdivision. The maximum size is 20 acres per locator, and the maximum for an association placer is 160 acres for 8 or more locators. The maximum size in Alaska is 40 acres. The maximum size for a corporation is 20 acres per claim. Corporations may not locate association placers unless they are in association with other locators or corporations as co-locators.

This prospector is not going to be able to keep this a secret for long and inevitably if the find is rich enogh is going to start a stampede "gold rush" , of a hord of get rich quick claim filers all along said creek.

Not only that no prospector in his right mind will work his claim with a gold pan. First he'll build a rocker sluice box at the very mininum to up production, then comes a flume with continous water over a baffle sluice where you turn on the water and shovel gravel into the sluice and collect what gold shows up in the baffels. This is all going to tear the hell out of the streambed. Then you move on to bigger and more efficient methods, either the hydrolic mining depicted in PR or you can build a dam and construct a dragline floating dredge and tear up the whole river bottom.

But the gold is comming from somewhere and a rush will be on to find a load or the vein from which the placer gold has its source.

Lode Claims - Deposits subject to lode claims include classic veins or lodes having well-defined boundaries. They also include other rock in-place bearing valuable minerals and may be broad zones of mineralized rock. Examples include quartz or other veins bearing gold or other metallic minerals and large volume, but low-grade disseminated gold deposits. Descriptions are by metes and bounds surveys beginning at the discovery point on the claim and including a reference to natural objects or permanent monuments. Federal statute limits their size to a maximum of 1500 feet in length, and a maximum width of 600 feet (300 feet on either side of the vein.

Besides this hord of prospectors you have all the parasites that will feed off them, the quaint depiction of the placer miners in PR reminds me of the quaint Hobbits in Hobbiton.  ;D



Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Banjo on August 26, 2006, 05:03:07 AM
Revealing stuff Cigar Joe,but isn't all this really nit-picking because it still makes for a great story/movie?
    Presumably if you are solely talking about authenticity then i bet that flaws can be found in almost every other classic western.Theres a common reference to Leones "attention to detail" from many posters on the forum which would suggest that he was the exception rather than the norm! ::)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 26, 2006, 08:06:03 AM
Revealing stuff Cigar Joe,but isn't all this really nit-picking because it still makes for a great story/movie?
    Presumably if you are solely talking about authenticity then i bet that flaws can be found in almost every other classic western.Theres a common reference to Leones "attention to detail" from many posters on the forum which would suggest that he was the exception rather than the norm! 

I agree I'm am nit-picking to an extent, but to me the whole gold panning comunity seems a bit off.

It would work if it was a bunch of homesteaders as in Shane, trying to make a living off hard working the land, with gold prospectors I just don't see them in the same light.

It has a story that we used to refer to in Montana as being "Californicated"  8)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on August 26, 2006, 09:42:23 AM
Question: were all the gold searchers on their own or brought their families with them? Or, even better: were these prospectors generally lonely men instead of family men?   


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 26, 2006, 09:59:25 AM
Question: were all the gold searchers on their own or brought their families with them? Or, even better: were these prospectors generally lonely men instead of family men? 

Probably if I had to guess 99% were without family, prospecting for gold would entail a very roughing it existance. They generally would leave what family they had at home or were batchelors. If they became rich and the diggins propered into some sort of town then possibly they would send for their families.

And for those of you interested yes you can still prospect for gold today out in the American West, here is a link for the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) regulations on filing a claim

http://www.wy.blm.gov/minerals/miningclaims/types.htm

Two DVD's you have to check out are "McCabe & Mrs. Miller and HBO's Deadwood if you can get then in Italia.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on August 26, 2006, 10:51:52 AM
Quote
Two DVD's you have to check out are "McCabe & Mrs. Miller and HBO's Deadwood if you can get then in Italia.

As told elsewhere, I've seen Altman's on tv in the early '80's. I don't know if I want to see it again, a much as I love Julie Christy.
The other, if it turns up I'll grab it.

Thanx for the infos, as usual.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Whalestoe on July 28, 2007, 10:17:16 PM
Pale Rider - 7/10

Just watched this again for the first time in years. I remember it being a lot greater the first time I saw it. An all right Eastwood flick, but no where as good as High Plains Drifter... and very far off from Unforgiven.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 01, 2007, 10:33:05 AM
I just watched this film for the first time in years. I've been reading through this topic, and I'm very surprised at some of the negative talk, calling it dull and such. I personally think the film is great. I had a great time watching it. There was never a dull moment in my mind. Yes, in the middle it gets a bit talky with not much action, but that doesn't take away from the story. You would think many of us Leone fans here would understand that.

I think some of you don't give this to much credit because it's a semi remake of Shane. There is also some High Noon elements in here as well. I don't see anything wrong with this. The plot from Shane may have been evident but I think Clint put his own touch on it. It's not an exact remake so this doesn't tarnish my appreciation for the film.

Pale rider is the one Clint Eastwood directed Western that so closely resembles Leone's films. You have the long dusters present so closely resembling OUATITW which you know I loved! We also seen some slow build up to gun sequences as to build tension what Sergio Leone was so famous for. Also in the closing climax, when they're trying to seek out the preacher, you can see some of the camera work being very Leone. I seen the beginning of TGTBATU at the end of Pale Rider. The camera panning along between the buildings following the gunfighters, especially Clint. Awesome!

Finally, besides the great performance here by Clint Eastwood...I wanted to point out the performance by Sydney Penny as Megan Wheeler. I thought this girl was wonderful. Her acting here was natural and realistic. This girl has some talent and I'm very surprised her career hadn't took off as big as it should have. She's also very beautiful as well.

Here's some great shots from the film...

(http://data-allocine.blogomaniac.fr/mdata/8/7/2/Z20060227190820273988278/img/1151835050_pale_rider-steph.jpg)

(http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes2/PaleRider19.jpg)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on August 01, 2007, 04:46:29 PM
Deadwood's second season has turned up at a commercial center I haunt, but I'm very doubtful as to buying it...


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 01, 2007, 04:50:01 PM
Deadwood's second season has turned up at a commercial center I haunt, but I'm very doubtful as to buying it...

What's this have to do with Pale Rider?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Whalestoe on August 01, 2007, 04:56:28 PM
What's this have to do with Pale Rider?

I was thinking the exact same thing. ???

But... while on the subject, Carnivāle is amazing. ^-^


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 01, 2007, 04:57:10 PM
I was thinking the exact same thing. ???

But... while on the subject, Carnivāle is amazing. ^-^

I like Deadwood, I like Carnivale, but to hell with them. This is Pale Rider! ;)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Whalestoe on August 01, 2007, 05:04:39 PM
"PREEEAAACHER... PREEEAAACHER... PREEEAAACHER..."

Did anyone else find that part semi-corny?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on August 01, 2007, 05:05:20 PM
Quote
What's this have to do with Pale Rider?

It has to do with Deadwood looking like a mining town and Pale Rider's community looking like a hippy commune.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 01, 2007, 05:08:06 PM
"PREEEAAACHER... PREEEAAACHER... PREEEAAACHER..."

Did anyone else find that part semi-corny?

No, not really. It's a direct homage to Shane. It didn't bother me one bit, but that's just me.  :)

"SSSHHHHAAANNEEE.....SHHHANNNNNNEEE COMMME BAACKKK!!!"


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 01, 2007, 05:09:03 PM
It has to do with Deadwood looking like a mining town and Pale Rider's community looking like a hippy commune.

Still though, it has nothing to do with the Pale Rider convo. Anyway, I watched it last night and I absolutely like it better then the last time I watched it.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Whalestoe on August 01, 2007, 05:12:16 PM
No, not really. It's a direct homage to Shane. It didn't bother me one bit, but that's just me.  :)

"SSSHHHHAAANNEEE.....SHHHANNNNNNEEE COMMME BAACKKK!!!"

The part where he hears Stockburn calling his name from far away before he sleeps with Hull's wife is homeage to Shane?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 01, 2007, 05:15:47 PM
The part where he hears Stockburn calling his name from far away before he sleeps with Hull's wife is homeage to Shane?

Oh, nevermind. I thought you ment the ending when Meghan is calling out to Preacher. haha Sorry Whalestoe!

Anyway, that part of Stockburn calling him out didn't really bother me much. I guess these two had history together. He wanted Preacher dead. What better than to stalk him, intimidate him a bit.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Whalestoe on August 01, 2007, 05:23:22 PM
Oh, nevermind. I thought you ment the ending when Meghan is calling out to Preacher. haha Sorry Whalestoe!

Anyway, that part of Stockburn calling him out didn't really bother me much. I guess these two had history together. He wanted Preacher dead. What better than to stalk him, intimidate him a bit.

He could of just thrown those fake dead dog props at him. That would scare me more than anything. ;D


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on August 01, 2007, 05:25:59 PM
He could of just thrown those fake dead dog props at him. That would scare me more than anything. ;D

 ;D

I'm sure he didn't scare Preacher though. That sure as hell wouldn't have scared me either.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 27, 2008, 08:01:52 AM
Blu-ray on da way: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67846


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on May 27, 2008, 02:46:01 PM
$30 ????? it just ain't worth it, with gas over $4.00 a gallon, imo.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: moviesceleton on May 27, 2008, 02:54:08 PM
$30 ????? it just ain't worth it, with gas over $4.00 a gallon, imo.
I'm sorry but it just makes me mad when you Americans complain about gas prices... It's over twice that here!


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on May 27, 2008, 03:01:40 PM
I know its $9 in Italy, but you got to understand, it was $.99 at the end of the Clinton Administration, we have no mass transit comparable to in Europe, any way, all the little mom and pop hardware stores, auto parts places, etc., etc., were replaced by "Big Box" stores centrally located, so if you need to get a nut or a bolt you got to drive a 30 mile round trip to get it, its going to hurt a lot of people. If you have to look for a job you cant afford to.

But like you say we made our own bed and now we got to sleep in it.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Panache on May 27, 2008, 03:02:39 PM
yea, yer cars get 50+mpg too- or ya got electric cars

all they sell here is gasguzlers, even imports dont get as good milage as over there


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: moviesceleton on May 27, 2008, 03:09:15 PM
I know its $9 in Italy, but you got to understand, it was $.99 at the end of the Clinton Administration, we have no mass transit comparable to in Europe, any way, all the little mom and pop hardware stores, auto parts places, etc., etc., were replaced by "Big Box" stores centrally located, so if you need to get a nut or a bolt you got to drive a 30 mile round trip to get it, its going to hurt a lot of people. If you have to look for a job you cant afford to.

But like you say we made our own bed and now we got to sleep in it.
You get my sympathies. After all, before I'm of your age, none of us can afford driving a car that uses any kind of oil based fuel...


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 18, 2012, 03:32:55 AM
So I was about to post about Pale Rider, which I just saw for the first time, and glanced at the few previous posts, and waddaya know, it's people complaining about gas prices. Times don't change, do they?

I'll chime in for a brief moment on that. There are a few real reasons prices are so high in America, having to do with the fact that  we are hampered by the federal gov't regusal to allow us to tap our own resources. And let's be real: i honest moments, certain politicians in love with the "Green Revolution" admit that they want prices to go up so that we will be forced to actually give a real chance to this useless "alternative energy" that nobody wants to buy or invest in and loses incredible amounts of money even with massive government subsidies and mandates and tax credits. It is as colossal a failure as any "business venture" has been. Not to mention that at least check, the feds tax 15% of all gas sales, which is greater than the oil companies' profit margins (that's right, their profit margins are only about 4%, very low when compared with other industries). It;'s a great racket the gov't has going: do all it can to raise gas prices, then rail against the "evil" oil companies for making "excessive profits," as if there is something wrong with being wealthy and successful in (what should be a free society). Fuck 'em all. Fuck all the central planners. ALLOW PEOPLE AND MARKETS TO BE FREE!!
(whew! ever since I got rid of facebook several months ago, this is all the politix I have discussed online. Felt good to get that off my chest. I swore never to discuss politix on tis board and have pretty much stuck to that promise, but once y'all brought it up, I figured I could chime in with a response. Alright. Enuf about the fucking gov't. Just gives me ulcers. I hope they all %^&)(*&^%$#@!.

-------------

Anyway, on Pale Rider: Well, I didn't like it much either My rating is 4/10

Not only has this general plot been done a million times before, but even more specifically, this is pretty much a direct ripoff of High Plains Drifter (that's even a more direct ripoff than Shane, where I don't think there's the supernatural element). HPDwas a far better film than this one, which may be the worst Clint Western I have ever seen. (a short list which includes the Dollars Films, Hang "em High, High palins Drifter, Josey Wales, Unforgiven. And Two Mules for Sister Sara, which wasn't all that great). I really don't see what this film adds to HPD, which at least offers us some wonderful comedic elements. And how many times can we see Clint play essentially the same character, supernatural or not?
And wasn't there a SW called  The Strangers Gundown with a similar plot?

In this movie, Eastwood seemed to serious and self-conscious about his MWNN-strong-silent-mysterious type persona, and isn't nearly as good as in his other films. And all the other acting was pretty much atrocious. That scene with the young girl where she is asking him to bang her, sounds as if it is being read from cue cards, just as do the rest of that girl's lines. None of the actors add anything to the movie: not MOriarty, not the woman, not LaHood's son. I guess LaHood himself isn't awful, which is as much as you can say for this movie. John Russell as Marshall Stickburn is probably the only actor who actually does quite a good job here, in a very brief performance.

The only things I occasionally enjoyed in this film are: a) the two direct references to Leone films (the bad guys in dusters and the scenes at they end where they look for Clint through town resemble the opening scene in GBU, which I thank tucumcari bound for reminding me of);
 and b) some of the set pieces in the mining camps.  Come to think of it, hydraulic fracturing is in the news as well today here in America, and often quite controversially.

 So the bottom line is that the more things change the more they stay the same: gas prices and hydraulic fracturing are all that matters, eh?  ;)

p.s. I was about to mention that I was very surprised to read on Wikipedia that this was the highest grossing Western of the '80's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_rider#Reception; But then I realized that I can't even think of a single other Western made in the 80's  ;D ;D

p.p.s. I just looked at my list of Westerns that I have seen: Other than Pale Rider, there is exactly one other Western on it from the 80's: Tom Horn (1980), out of 120 total westerns that I have seen


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: stanton on March 18, 2012, 05:44:43 AM
The 80s weren't exactly a great time for the western. Nor were the 90s and the ZeroZeros


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 18, 2012, 09:00:58 AM
I would have thought Silverado did good business, but then I'm not expert.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 18, 2012, 10:29:33 AM
The 80s weren't exactly a great time for the western. Nor were the 90s and the ZeroZeros

Indeed. And it's sad. I wonder if it is dead for good, or we'll see a revival anytime soon. All you really need is for one or two movies to be released and be successful...

Off the top of my head, the only Westerns I can recall that were released  in the last few years are Seraphim Falls (2006), The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) and True Grit (2010) (of the 3, only True Grit was financially successful).


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 18, 2012, 11:37:10 AM
It seems like there's interest in TV Westerns. Deadwood was a hit, Hell on Wheels is on AMC and they're planning to reboot The Rifleman and Bonanza. Not necessarily for the better but there appears to be an audience for them.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 18, 2012, 01:10:20 PM
Off the top of my head, the only Westerns I can recall that were released  in the last few years are Seraphim Falls (2006), The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) and True Grit (2010) (of the 3, only True Grit was financially successful).
Off the top of MY head: The Proposition (2005), the 3:10 remake (2007), Appaloosa (2008), Blackthorn (2011).

They keep making them, but since you (and others like you) don't  bother to go to them, how can they be successful?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: stanton on March 18, 2012, 02:22:40 PM
I would have thought Silverado did good business, but then I'm not expert.

According to this list Young Guns earned some more Bucks:

http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=western.htm


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: stanton on March 18, 2012, 02:31:46 PM
Indeed. And it's sad. I wonder if it is dead for good, or we'll see a revival anytime soon. All you really need is for one or two movies to be released and be successful...

Off the top of my head, the only Westerns I can recall that were released  in the last few years are Seraphim Falls (2006), The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) and True Grit (2010) (of the 3, only True Grit was financially successful).

What the genre needs is a film which renews the genre and is at the same time very successful. But since the 70s there was nothing new in the genre. Every western made since then could have already be done back then.
And many of those westerns of the last 30 years are pretty old fashioned in their approach towards the genre.

Frankly said, I have no clue how to make an original new western which could at the same time appeal to a wide audience.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 18, 2012, 03:27:14 PM
You can love or hate Unforgiven, at least it was a brand new kind of western (that appealed to a wide audience). That's the only example to me. The Coen had a shot and they blew it ...


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on March 18, 2012, 03:50:22 PM
I've covered this before. They can't make anymore. One thing about Westerns that I've been contemplating about and trying to put a finger on is what exactly is different about todays Westerns. For some reason they don't seem the same as the Classics. You'll read comments that various posters say about some of the few Westerns that come out comments like "they don't make them like they used to", or "they don't know how to make them anymore". Besides some of the obvious differences i.e. steady/shaky cam, cgi and blue screen, what else is making them seem different?

I think I've finally got it figured out and what it is is that is difference is that Westerns that were made in the 1939-1973 "Golden Age of The Western" (both in film & TV) have a certain pallet, part of it is a look that we who lived through that period or those of us that are Western Aficionados or just have seen a lot of Westerns recognise as being the "correct look" for a Western a feel that is the "correct feel" for a Western and certain traits that comprize the "correct deportment's" for a Western. Once you get those conventions correct then you can, within those conventions, try and push the envelope in a creative way.

Our stable of actors that could make a convincing lead in a Western are limited. In the Golden Age the lead actor had a weary weathered leathery look and was usually in his thirties or older and was shown to be wise beyond his years. The actors in their twenties played the young hot heads or the naive and inexperienced kids who usually made a fatal mistake and got blown away early. Now a days the scheme is turned on its head, its the young adults and teens who are showed to be more knowledgeable than their elders, it may be playing to today's audience demographics but it doesn't ring true.

On top of all that you had a stable of conventional character actors who made a career of just appearing in film Westerns and in TV Westerns who also contributed to that same "correct look" and added to the cinematic memory.

Forget today's hewing close to historical accuracy BS, or trying to hard to get the archaic speech patterns correct, the more modern directors attempt to make a Western too true to the actual historical West the farther they get away from the classic Mythic Western and its look.

And back in the "Golden Age" through the TV 50's basically everything was in place to make a Western, the Studio sets, the stuntmen, the costume warehouses, the paraphernalia - steam engines, wagons, stagecoaches, etc., and the great locations/landscapes.

Now to make a Western everything has to be pretty much assembled from scratch EVERY TIME , and as a poster mentioned "There are no character actors left like Chill Wills, Walter Brennan and the great Gabby Hayes." ... etc., etc., actors who started as extras or stunt men in Westerns and worked there way up through the ranks and acquired well... "character".

Watching a Western should be like slipping into a comfortable old pair of shoes.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 18, 2012, 04:10:36 PM
You can love or hate Unforgiven, at least it was a brand new kind of western (that appealed to a wide audience). That's the only example to me. The Coen had a shot and they blew it ...

True Grit did pretty good box office. I don't know what you're on about.

Unforgiven is new only in the sense that it blatantly ripped off other Westerns (The Gunfighter especially). Not sure what you mean there either.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 18, 2012, 04:14:49 PM
Western "like they use to be" will never return, that's for sure, and that's also for the best. If they did it right now it would be only imitations and not real westerns. The only way to do westerns now is to re-define the genre's rules, just like Leone did (and I'm not sure someone will find a way to do it once again... We might get a few more interesting shots, but we're very unlikely to experience something like the SW movement. It's not the kind of things that happens twice to a genre).

On the other hand, there are scenes in some recent westerns that contradict everything I just said. The best example is towards True Grit's beginning: when the girl (Maggie?) rides a horse through the river. I'm not debating weither the scene or the movie was good. I'm just saying that this particular scene had the golden age western feel to it. I could not define it or find exactly why, but:

- the fact they used a stuntman instead of CGI/blue screen
- the close-to-real-time rhythm
- a quiet but subtely epic feel
- a very retro music
- classic cinematography, no shaky cam

probably helped.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 18, 2012, 04:29:17 PM
True Grit did pretty good box office. I don't know what you're on about.

Unforgiven is new only in the sense that it blatantly ripped off other Westerns (The Gunfighter especially). Not sure what you mean there either.

True Grit had a good box office but they never chose what to do with the film:
- is it a Coen brothers movie? Town sequences
- is it No Country For Old Men in the wild west? Night scenes
- is it a good old fashioned western? The river scene, hang him very high scene, the final battle
- is it a classy but cold fairy tale? Opening, final ride

That's a problem for me (I quite like the movie but I'd never say it's a good movie, and I would never ever say it's a good western) and that's also what will hamper it to be a trend setter.

Unforgiven probably stole many things, just as Leone did with each of his westerns. To make it sort it's the first realistic western that got a wide audience, and you clearely see its influence of almost all the westerns that have been made since (with the notable exceptions of 3:10 and Blueberry). Not saying it was a masterpiece, but it was a landmark.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 18, 2012, 05:39:37 PM
I hadn't thought we were discussing quality. Of course I violently disagree re: True Grit.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on March 19, 2012, 01:25:36 AM
I've covered this before. They can't make anymore. One thing about Westerns that I've been contemplating about and trying to put a finger on is what exactly is different about todays Westerns. For some reason they don't seem the same as the Classics. You'll read comments that various posters say about some of the few Westerns that come out comments like "they don't make them like they used to", or "they don't know how to make them anymore". Besides some of the obvious differences i.e. steady/shaky cam, cgi and blue screen, what else is making them seem different?

I think I've finally got it figured out and what it is is that is difference is that Westerns that were made in the 1939-1973 "Golden Age of The Western" (both in film & TV) have a certain pallet, part of it is a look that we who lived through that period or those of us that are Western Aficionados or just have seen a lot of Westerns recognise as being the "correct look" for a Western a feel that is the "correct feel" for a Western and certain traits that comprize the "correct deportment's" for a Western. Once you get those conventions correct then you can, within those conventions, try and push the envelope in a creative way.

Our stable of actors that could make a convincing lead in a Western are limited. In the Golden Age the lead actor had a weary weathered leathery look and was usually in his thirties or older and was shown to be wise beyond his years. The actors in their twenties played the young hot heads or the naive and inexperienced kids who usually made a fatal mistake and got blown away early. Now a days the scheme is turned on its head, its the young adults and teens who are showed to be more knowledgeable than their elders, it may be playing to today's audience demographics but it doesn't ring true.

On top of all that you had a stable of conventional character actors who made a career of just appearing in film Westerns and in TV Westerns who also contributed to that same "correct look" and added to the cinematic memory.

Forget today's hewing close to historical accuracy BS, or trying to hard to get the archaic speech patterns correct, the more modern directors attempt to make a Western too true to the actual historical West the farther they get away from the classic Mythic Western and its look.

And back in the "Golden Age" through the TV 50's basically everything was in place to make a Western, the Studio sets, the stuntmen, the costume warehouses, the paraphernalia - steam engines, wagons, stagecoaches, etc., and the great locations/landscapes.

Now to make a Western everything has to be pretty much assembled from scratch EVERY TIME , and as a poster mentioned "There are no character actors left like Chill Wills, Walter Brennan and the great Gabby Hayes." ... etc., etc., actors who started as extras or stunt men in Westerns and worked there way up through the ranks and acquired well... "character".

Watching a Western should be like slipping into a comfortable old pair of shoes.
So FOD should never have come into existence? 8)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 19, 2012, 02:05:59 AM
Of course I violently disagree re: True Grit.

Not too violently I hope. I wear glasses.
What's your disgreement about my clever and in depth analysis about True Grit?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: stanton on March 19, 2012, 03:11:47 AM
You can love or hate Unforgiven, at least it was a brand new kind of western (that appealed to a wide audience). That's the only example to me. The Coen had a shot and they blew it ...

No, nothing new in it. A pretty good one, yes, but still a typical 70s western.
 


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: stanton on March 19, 2012, 03:19:05 AM
Western "like they use to be" will never return, that's for sure, and that's also for the best. If they did it right now it would be only imitations and not real westerns. The only way to do westerns now is to re-define the genre's rules, just like Leone did (and I'm not sure someone will find a way to do it once again... We might get a few more interesting shots, but we're very unlikely to experience something like the SW movement. It's not the kind of things that happens twice to a genre).


Yes, yes, yes


And no, no, no to Cigar Joe's statement.

The western was always developing between 1939 and 1976, and the newer films were often blamed not to be anymore like they were before. Peckinpah (after 'Ride the High Country) Corbucci and Leone were very often criticised for not filming and framing and cutting like Ford or Hawks, for destroying the genre.
But since then many of the later westerns looked only retro, most of them have no idea how to make something fresh.
But there were at least every now and then some highly original single films, even if none of them refreshed the genre.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on March 19, 2012, 03:40:30 AM
So FOD should never have come into existence? 8)

I'm talking, also, about the (at the time) zeitgeist that existed for the Western, and the visual cinematic language of the traditional AW that we the audience here in the US all knew, and that Leone learned and spectacular-ized.  Leone's Westerns basically looked correct (it also helped having Eastwood a direct link to the AW). And Leone emphasized style and soundtrack which made them unique and those two cards trumped the typical staple American Western character actor who spouted "genuine frontier gibberish".

Today, without the zeitgeist, without Almeria's landscapes,  and without Eastwood and other traditional AW actors providing a linkage with cinematic memory I would say that FOD may not be able to come into existence.  


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on March 19, 2012, 04:45:20 AM
I'm talking, also, about the (at the time) zeitgeist that existed for the Western, and the visual cinematic language of the traditional AW that we the audience here in the US all knew, and that Leone learned and spectacular-ized.  Leone's Westerns basically looked correct (it also helped having Eastwood a direct link to the AW). And Leone emphasized style and soundtrack which made them unique and those two cards trumped the typical staple American Western character actor who spouted "genuine frontier gibberish".

Today, without the zeitgeist, without Almeria's landscapes,  and without Eastwood and other traditional AW actors providing a linkage with cinematic memory I would say that FOD may not be able to come into existence. 

 :o  :o :o You're talking after the fact. Leone's westerns looked correct?  Oh my God, what you're talking about?  At the time they looked as uncorrect as can be, have you forgotten it? Read the reviews in Garfield book, written in 1980 (not in 1964) and see how correct Leone was (and probably is still by some) perceived.   Eastwood a link? You didn't even realize it was him when you saw him on FAFDM! 


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 19, 2012, 10:06:02 AM
Not too violently I hope. I wear glasses.
What's your disgreement about my clever and in depth analysis about True Grit?

Your criticisms don't seem to make much sense. You say it's partly like a Coen Bros. film and partly like No Country for Old Men? How does that compute? You may be right but not in the way you think.

If you like I find True Grit a traditional Western with Coen Bros. stylings sprinkled on top. I said most of what I had to say about the film in its thread.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 19, 2012, 10:10:25 AM
Today, without the zeitgeist, without Almeria's landscapes,  and without Eastwood and other traditional AW actors providing a linkage with cinematic memory I would say that FOD may not be able to come into existence.  

Not sure how that computes. How many Westerns prior to the Spaghettis were shot in Almeria? A few war films/epics/peplums were but that's not the cinematic language you're talking about. Leone's European sensibilities and stylings certainly weren't "a linkage with cinematic memory" to the average Western viewer. Homage isn't enough of a link or else contemporary Westerns should be exempt from this criticism.

I hate to agree with Titoli but I think he's right on this one.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on March 19, 2012, 12:46:26 PM
:o  :o :o You're talking after the fact. Leone's westerns looked correct?  Oh my God, what you're talking about?  At the time they looked as uncorrect as can be, have you forgotten it? Read the reviews in Garfield book, written in 1980 (not in 1964) and see how correct Leone was (and probably is still by some) perceived.   Eastwood a link? You didn't even realize it was him when you saw him on FAFDM! 

Looked correct as in Almeria rambalas does look like Mexico/New Mexico, the FOD and FAFDM sets looked like a Western border town. Indio and the gang looked like Mexicans

Not glaringly different As opposed to say Corbucci's "The Specialist" which with its setting in the Alps looked off and, or say a film like Bad Company which looks like the Dead End Kids out West, or any (for me anyway) Western that shows the ocean like One-Eyed Jacks or Hannie Caulder for instance

No I didn't recognize Eastwood, but the first SW I saw was FAFDM and I did recognize Van Cleef and at least Van Cleef provided that cinematic memory link I mentioned.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on March 19, 2012, 01:12:37 PM
Not sure how that computes. How many Westerns prior to the Spaghettis were shot in Almeria? A few war films/epics/peplums were but that's not the cinematic language you're talking about. Leone's European sensibilities and stylings certainly weren't "a linkage with cinematic memory" to the average Western viewer. Homage isn't enough of a link or else contemporary Westerns should be exempt from this criticism.

I hate to agree with Titoli but I think he's right on this one.

Very few prior to Leone but there were some.

Almeria's rambalas and deserts look like Mexico/New Mexico, its vegetation of sage and olive is what even far to the North Montana has on its bad lands & plains i.e., sage brush & Russian olive so that landscape look is the cinematic memory link to American Westerns, the towns look like Mexican towns, that is what I'm referring to. Leone wisely didn't set his Westerns on the great plains, and didn't involve Native Americans, he emphasized the faux-look-a-like archetypes he had available.

(I can think of a few SW's where the landscape was way way too green one that pops immediately into mind is Mannanja) 

As soon as Leone set his tales/stories in the Western border towns emphasizing that whole milieu, i.e., telling the tale from the Spanish/Catholic side of the coin there was a linkage of sorts to the occasional AW's that had Mexican Bandits but prior to Leone we only saw it from the Manifest Destiny/Protestant view, but the opposite view was always implied.

An Example is Red River, when John Wayne meets the two Vaqueros who tell him that the land belongs to some far off Patron granted from the King of Spain he guns one of them down, and says that that is too much land for one man. That brief encounter with the Vaqueros implies for me that there is another side to the story, another view. That other view, for me anyway I get in Leone's tales.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 19, 2012, 02:14:57 PM
According to this list Young Guns earned some more Bucks:

http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=western.htm

yeah I just mentioned the quote on Wikipedia without looking at the citation. Perhaps it means that it "became the highest grossing Western of the 1980's" up till that point (Young Guns was released a few years later). But yeah, if that's the case, it's a very misleading statement and if any of y'all are a wikipedia editor you may wanna change it.



Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 19, 2012, 02:32:31 PM
What the genre needs is a film which renews the genre and is at the same time very successful. But since the 70s there was nothing new in the genre. Every western made since then could have already be done back then.
And many of those westerns of the last 30 years are pretty old fashioned in their approach towards the genre.

Frankly said, I have no clue how to make an original new western which could at the same time appeal to a wide audience.

I wish we'd return to the era of making Westerns, and I am not all that worried about having a brand new kind of Western. Of all the great AW's of the 40's and 50's, how many can you say have great and original stories? Most of my favorite AW's are pretty straightforward movies about a sherrif tring to keep bad guys locked up (Rio Bravo), cavalry and clashes with Indians (Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon), a Wyatt Earp story (My Darling Clementine), or a cattle drive (Red River).Or some kind of conflict between landowners (The Big Country), etc. I don't know how much the Western genre lends itself to having many new and original stories, without risking falling into a melodrama with the Western setting almost irrelevant (eg. Duel in the Sun, The Hanging Tree), the former of which I did not like and the latter I did. McCabe &  Mrs. Miller, one of my all-time favorite movies, is a very original Western, but in general I believe that if you want to make a real Western (ie. not just a melodrama in Western garb), I don't know how many really new stories there are to tell.

But I just wanna see some good Westerns; I am fine with unoriginal stories. I wish we could get back to the days where the studios were banging out dozens of Westerns, mostly unoriginal and mediocre -- cuz within the bad bunch, there would be a few good ones. I kind of feel that since Westerns are hardly ever released now, in the rare times they are released (except when it's a remake of an earlier film) they feel it has to be something very different, and are afraid of doing something that looks like a more "standard" 1950's Western. In other words, a new Western today might look like The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, but there is no way that a movie like Rio Bravo, The Far Country, or The Big Country would be released today. Since the genre is almost non-existent, I feel like in the rare times that a movie is made, it's felt that it has to be something unique that has never been seen before, and I'd really love just seeing some good Westerns that don't feel like they hav eto necessarily be re-inventing the genre or new in any way, but look like any good Western of the 40's or 50's. The new and original type is certainly welcome also, but not necessary.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 19, 2012, 02:54:23 PM
Looked correct as in Almeria rambalas does look like Mexico/New Mexico, the FOD and FAFDM sets looked like a Western border town. Indio and the gang looked like Mexicans

Not glaringly different As opposed to say Corbucci's "The Specialist" which with its setting in the Alps looked off and, or say a film like Bad Company which looks like the Dead End Kids out West, or any (for me anyway) Western that shows the ocean like One-Eyed Jacks or Hannie Caulder for instance

No I didn't recognize Eastwood, but the first SW I saw was FAFDM and I did recognize Van Cleef and at least Van Cleef provided that cinematic memory link I mentioned.

Frayling has frequented said this: The difference the Hollywood Western and the Italian Western are that in the end, the Hollywood Western were Protestant Westerns, while the Italian Westerns were Catholic Westerns.
(I'm paraphrasing; if I find the exact quote I will change it, but it's pretty darn close)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 19, 2012, 05:07:28 PM
I don't have any problem whatsoever with PR; it's not memorable but it's solidly acted and entertaining all around, if in a cliched way. 7/10


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 19, 2012, 05:09:14 PM
Frayling has frequented said this: The difference the Hollywood Western and the Italian Western are that in the end, the Hollywood Western were Protestant Westerns, while the Italian Westerns were Catholic Westerns.

Nonsense really, whoever said/wrote it, ain't it?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 19, 2012, 05:10:41 PM
Frayling has frequented said this: The difference the Hollywood Western and the Italian Western are that in the end, the Hollywood Western were Protestant Westerns, while the Italian Westerns were Catholic Westerns.
(I'm paraphrasing; if I find the exact quote I will change it, but it's pretty darn close)

Kindly explain John Ford and Sam Peckinpah then.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on March 19, 2012, 06:17:05 PM
Looked correct as in Almeria rambalas does look like Mexico/New Mexico, the FOD and FAFDM sets looked like a Western border town. Indio and the gang looked like Mexicans

And how many westerns with a Mexico\New Mexico look and with Mexicans having a leading part did you have prior to that one? None. M7 was shot in a Swiss Alps Mexico (or at least that was what it looked) and the Calvera gang had their counterpart in the good Mexicans with their women and children. In FOD and FFDM there was (almost) nothing of that.  The look of that landscape was nothing like it was until that moment: the first shot of Eastwood and the noose is something absolutely unseen before. And the kid maltreated by Volontč's gang? That can be perceived as a Southern border  town but it is a completely different cinematic landscape.

Quote
Not glaringly different As opposed to say Corbucci's "The Specialist" which with its setting in the Alps looked off and, or say a film like Bad Company which looks like the Dead End Kids out West, or any (for me anyway) Western that shows the ocean like One-Eyed Jacks or Hannie Caulder for instance.

Of course they raised the ante but they were not perceived as disruptive as Leone was because they came some 200 SW later. Actually I well remembered  (I wrote this here repeatedly) going to the theaters looking for SW because of their outrageousness: AW was too tame after Leone. I expected to find over the top action in SW: and they had to deliver. But that was because Leone had shown the way.  I am 100% sure that me and my father weren't alone in this preference.

Quote
No I didn't recognize Eastwood, but the first SW I saw was FAFDM and I did recognize Van Cleef and at least Van Cleef provided that cinematic memory link I mentioned.
[/quote]

I think you were among the blessed hundred in USA who were able at the time to tell who Van Cleef was.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 19, 2012, 06:37:22 PM
I found the exact Frayling quote; I'm transcribing an extended version of it to give it some context. Here goes:


"When these movies came out, they were treated as ersatz American movies, you know, carbon copy Westerns, Westerns which were trying to ape Hollywood. I don't believe that. These are Italian movies; I think they're really best understood as part of Italian culture and European culture. FOD and FAFDM were originally made for the home audience. In the 1960's, Southern Italian audiences went to the cinema more often than any other audiences in the world outside America. Southern Italian audiences went to the cinema twice a week on average, as adults. There was no television in Southern Italy in the mid-60's.

So all the cultural references are for that audience. There's lots of references to Italian paintings, to Roman Catholicism: there are bells and churches and monks and cemeteries and crosses and angels and the interiors of churches and the whole iconography of Roman Catholicism.

I think one difference between the Italian Western and the American Western is that in the end, the American Western is a Protestant genre, based upon a Protestant view of the world in the 19th Century; whereas the Italian Western is a Catholic genre, you know, at that fundamental level. Not in an upfront way, but that's just the visual references."


This is from an interview/conversation Frayling did with Terry Gross, host of the NPR show "Fresh Air," that I downloaded off iTunes.
The title is "Fresh Air, Christopher Frayling, August 1, 2005."
 It is really good; it's listed in the "Audio Book" category of iTunes,  and costs $1.95 to download  O0


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on March 19, 2012, 08:05:50 PM
Frayling, as usual, makes confusion: he starts talking about SW and then generalizes by quoting FOD and FFDM. FOD wasn't treated like an ersatz western when released. Everybody was well aware of the break with the traditional western it enacted: otherwise it couldn't have been the hit it was. It was just the contrary:  Leone was mostly accused to have degraded, perverted (fans said "revolutionized") the laws of the genre as established by the americans: but that was no "ersatz" (surrogate).  Ersatz was what Euro-Western was before Leone.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 19, 2012, 08:14:01 PM
The quote isn't any less dumb in context. Ford's films aren't heavy on the Catholic imagery and themes? The difference is attitude not religion.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 20, 2012, 12:27:19 AM
The quote isn't any less dumb in context. Ford's films aren't heavy on the Catholic imagery and themes? The difference is attitude not religion.

I have no idea wtf a "catholic western" or a "protestant western" is. And while I don't know much about Christianity, aren't crosses, angels, cemeteries, and insides of churches are as much a part of Protestant religions as Catholicism?

Frayling also spoke about how Leone didn't like the themes of the John Wayne Westerns, the whole Manifest Destiny stuff, which I believe he said was a Protestant ideal.

There is no doubt that Leone's films don't have the same attitudes toward the beauty of frontier life and Manifest Destiny and Indians etc. that some of the Ford/Wayne Westerns have. And while America then was a largely Protestant country, does that necessarily mean that it was a Protestant ideal? If Americans held a certain view of something and those Americans happened to be Protestants, does that necessarily mean that that attidtude arise from their religion? Perhaps when Frayling is discussing  Protestant vs. Catholic ideals, he is not necessarily referring to a religious divide, but more of an geographical one? (ie. the ideals of the English vs. those of the Italians, which are easily grouped into Protestants vs. Catholics, but not that it necessarily arises from one's Catholicism or another's Protestantism, just as there is nothing particularly Catholic about spaghetti and nothing particularly Protestant about tea?)

This is all just speculation, I really have no clue what the difference is between Protestant Westerns/imagery  and Catholic Westerns/imagery. If someone can explain it I'd be mighty appreciative.


-------------

(p.s. GROGGY: if there is indeed a difference between Protestant Westerns vs. Catholic Westerns, I do understand why Ford's would be categorized as "Protestant," although he himself was Irish Catholic: Ford's Westerns are famous for depicting the optimism of frontier life and Manifest Destiny, which are themes that I guess are associated with whatever a "protestant western" is. So to the extent that there is some difference between protestant and catholic westerns -- which I'd love it if it  can be explained -- I don't see why you would view Ford's as being  "Catholic," (aside from the fact that he himself was Catholic): his themes are miuch more in line with the classic American Western than with the Leone Western).


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on March 20, 2012, 12:31:40 AM
The quote isn't any less dumb in context. Ford's films aren't heavy on the Catholic imagery and themes? The difference is attitude not religion.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, Ford's Westerns where they reference religion are not heavy on Catholic themes and do reference the Protestant take, the bible,  the fellowship, the fire and brimstone preacher, the building of the sparse plain church, etc., etc.  Catholic themes would be Christ on the cross, Mary, the shrines, the statuary, the paintings, the stained glass windows, priests monks, sisters, you don't see much of that in the majority of American Westerns, one that comes to mind is The Bravados.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 20, 2012, 12:50:43 AM
Here is a bit more from that discussion with Frayling. It was in a different part of the discussion and nothing is specifically mentioned of Protestant vs. Catholic, but it touches upon the difference in ideology between Leone's Westerns and Ford's Westerns, so I figure it may be relevant to transcribe here.

Relevant or not, enjoy!

INTERVIEWER: "He (Leone) knew he was making Westerns that were different from American ones. Like he said, and I think this was to you that he said this, in your interview with him, that John Ford, the great director of Westerns, 'was full of optimism, whereas I, on the contrary, am full of pessimism.'

FRAYLING: Well that's the thing: he loved the look of the Western, and the idea of the Western, and the fairy tale of the Western, but he didn't like some of the ideologies -- he didn't like John Wayne very much, and some of the sort of crusading element of the Western that you got in 50's and early 60's Westerns. So loved the visuals, didn't like the ideology very much. So he takes the concept of the Western, and makes it much much more cynical.

I mean the hero, for example, when people ask him , for example, "why are you doing this for us?" -- someone actually asks in FOD, the first of his Westerns -- instead of saying, you know, "because a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do," or "there are some things a man can't just ride around," things like that, he says, "Five hundred dollars." He works strictly for ready cash.

So he has a very street-wise 1960's cash-only attitude toward life. And this was a very different kind of hero -- much more grown-up kind of hero, to the old-fashioned crusading hero.

And I think that the modern movie action hero begins with the Clint Eastwood character in FOD, where you identify with the hero not because of what he believes in anymore -- cuz he doesn't actually believe in anything -- you identify with him because of his style: the way he wears his clothes, the way he walks, the personal style of the man; and that of course is the basis of identification of all modern action heroes. And I think it begins with Clint Eastwood in FOD."



Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on March 20, 2012, 01:12:47 AM
Quote
And how many westerns with a Mexico\New Mexico look and with Mexicans having a leading part did you have prior to that one? None. M7 was shot in a Swiss Alps Mexico (or at least that was what it looked) and the Calvera gang had their counterpart in the good Mexicans with their women and children. In FOD and FFDM there was (almost) nothing of that.  The look of that landscape was nothing like it was until that moment: the first shot of Eastwood and the noose is something absolutely unseen before. And the kid maltreated by Volontč's gang? That can be perceived as a Southern border  town but it is a completely different cinematic landscape.

You are getting now into more specifics, I was being very general when I said the Almeria landscape looks like a passable Mexico, New Mexico, and that Indio and the Gang looked like Mexicans,  the general background, I wasn't talking about style.  Its what Leone did with that landscape, the style, cinematography and music is where we never saw Anything quite like it before in a Western.

Quote
Of course they raised the ante but they were not perceived as disruptive as Leone was because they came some 200 SW later. Actually I well remembered  (I wrote this here repeatedly) going to the theaters looking for SW because of their outrageousness: AW was too tame after Leone. I expected to find over the top action in SW: and they had to deliver. But that was because Leone had shown the way.  I am 100% sure that me and my father weren't alone in this preference.

Here is where you and I differ, I went to Leone Films expecting to see a very "Cool" take on a tired genre with stories and characters and action that were plausible to me in the Mythic world of the Western. 

I originally made a distinction, a compartment in my mind between the plausible and the outrageous, I loved American Westerns and Leone's Westerns the same way, and the only other SW films (since I hadn't seen very many) that I added to that cannon were "The Big Gundown" and "Death Rides a Horse".

Once they got too outrageous I didn't put them in the same class like say "Sabata" which I saw contemporaneously with the Leone films and I didn't like, and if I had seen "Django" it would have been definitely too implausible and outrageous to be taken seriously.

On the other hand I treated say the TV show The Wild Wild West as somewhat as a spoof, a not very serious Western and in that category I would put say Support Your Local Gunfighter, North To Alaska, Cat Balou, The Hallelujah Trail, McClintock,  and now since I've since seen them Sabata, Django, Sartana, The Specialist, Vamos a Matar Companeros, My Name Is Nobody, the Trinity films and a few others.



Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 20, 2012, 01:34:03 AM


Here is where you and I differ, I went to Leone Films expecting to see a very "Cool" take on a tired genre with stories and characters and action that were plausible to me in the Mythic world of the Western.  

I originally made a distinction, a compartment in my mind between the plausible and the outrageous, I loved American Westerns and Leone's Westerns the same way, and the only other SW films (since I hadn't seen very many) that I added to that cannon were "The Big Gundown" and "Death Rides a Horse".

Once they got too outrageous I didn't put them in the same class like say "Sabata" which I saw contemporaneously with the Leone films and I didn't like, and if I had seen "Django" it would have been definitely too implausible and outrageous to be taken seriously.

On the other hand I treated say the TV show The Wild Wild West as somewhat as a spoof, a not very serious Western and in that category I would put say Support Your Local Gunfighter, North To Alaska, Cat Balou, The Hallelujah Trail, McClintock,  and now since I've since seen them Sabata, Django, Sartana, The Specialist, Vamos a Matar Companeros, My Name Is Nobody, the Trinity films and a few others.



The only non-Leone SW's that I have seen are:

1. The Big Gundown
2. The Mercenary
3. Death Rides a Horse
4. Django

(I have seen My Name is Nobody, but for this and all discussions, I consider MNIN to be a Leone film. So MNIN is always included in my discussions of "Leone films," and never included in my discussions of non-Leone SW.

The Big Gundown  and The Mercenarywere good. I did not love Death Rides a Horse  -- despite being treated to the site of Mario Brega and Luigilli Pistilli dressed in business attire as business men  ;D ;D -- cuz John Philip Law is terrible. And I did not like Django  very much.
 No doubt, all these movies are waaaaaay over the top and outrageous.

I though The Merceneray was absolutely  terrific, but it has to be viewed in context of a comedy. Without officially being a "comedy," it was more outrageous than any comedy you could actually hope to see: a mediaterannean take on drama ?  ;)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on March 20, 2012, 01:44:30 AM
I look a MNIN as not really a Leone film you can see his influence here and there but I generally hate slapstick, but that was the trend in SW at the time it was made, so if you wanted to make money you would have to jump on the band wagon.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 20, 2012, 01:48:34 AM
I look a MNIN as not really a Leone film you can see his influence here and there but I generally hate slapstick, but that was the trend in SW at the time it was made, so if you wanted to make money you would have to jump on the band wagon.

yeah well if people were gonna make money parodying the genre that Leone popularized, it was natural that Leone would be one of those doing it!

I'm not into comedy at all, but in this case, with Leone playing a large part in it, I was able to enjoy some of it; the contrast between the old West  (Fonda, representing the American West and its hero) and the new brash young wannabe (Terence Hill, representing the SW), and basically, this movie is about what has been happening for the past 7 or 8 years  ;) (There were parts that dragged needlessly, but overall, I did enjoy the themes of MNIN!


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on March 20, 2012, 01:53:07 AM
yeah well if people were gonna make money parodying the genre that Leone popularized, it was natural that Leone would be one of those doing it!

But from what I've read at the time he didn't like that trend hence he just produced it and its companion "A Genius Two friends and an Idiot" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073036/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073036/)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 20, 2012, 01:56:37 AM
But from what I've read at the time he didn't like that trend hence he just produced it and its companion "A Genius Two friends and an Idiot" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073036/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073036/)

That's the only film I have never seen that Leone was  seriously involved with, I think I might have to see it just for the sake of seeing, even though from what I hear, it's not worth the time...


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on March 20, 2012, 02:19:01 AM
That's the only film I have never seen that Leone was  seriously involved with, I think I might have to see it just for the sake of seeing, even though from what I hear, it's not worth the time...

I haven't seen it either  :'(


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 20, 2012, 04:19:49 AM
I'm not sure what you are getting at, Ford's Westerns where they reference religion are not heavy on Catholic themes and do reference the Protestant take, the bible,  the fellowship, the fire and brimstone preacher, the building of the sparse plain church, etc., etc.  Catholic themes would be Christ on the cross, Mary, the shrines, the statuary, the paintings, the stained glass windows, priests monks, sisters, you don't see much of that in the majority of American Westerns, one that comes to mind is The Bravados.

Ever see Three Godfathers? Lots of Catholic imagery in that one. The "miraculous" births in that one and Stagecoach and the fallen women not uncommon to Ford's films could also fit this. You could certainly argue personal redemption (one of Ford's favorite themes) is a much more Catholic theme than a Protestant one.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on March 20, 2012, 10:48:06 AM
You are getting now into more specifics, I was being very general when I said the Almeria landscape looks like a passable Mexico, New Mexico, and that Indio and the Gang looked like Mexicans,  the general background, I wasn't talking about style.  Its what Leone did with that landscape, the style, cinematography and music is where we never saw Anything quite like it before in a Western.


What I mean is that the Leone landscape could look like real american landscape to people who knew the real thing. But to people around the world who had their rations of western flicks that didn't look like any other AW landscape seen before.


Here is where you and I differ, I went to Leone Films expecting to see a very "Cool" take on a tired genre with stories and characters and action that were plausible to me in the Mythic world of the Western. 

I originally made a distinction, a compartment in my mind between the plausible and the outrageous, I loved American Westerns and Leone's Westerns the same way, and the only other SW films (since I hadn't seen very many) that I added to that cannon were "The Big Gundown" and "Death Rides a Horse".

What you define "cool" now was defined as "outrageous" by most at the time. Especially in USA. I could make lots of examples in that regard. Just think of the faces of the bit players: how were they defined at the time? "Cool"? They were (and still are, for me at least) outrageous. The poncho is another thing I call "outrageous", though now you can call it "cool".  I think the difference between me and you lies in the fact that spaghetti westerns weren't your regular diet in the post-FOD years like they were of mine. And I was a kid then. You saw them as an adult, if at all, and that makes a lot of difference.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 20, 2012, 12:22:07 PM
I don't think Leone's films are nearly as outrageous and over the top as are some of the other famous SW's like The Mercenary or Django. Leone may have paved the way for films like that, but those films took the over the top shtick to an entire new level.

True, it's very hard to know whether you would have thought of a film differently if you had seen it at a different time in your life. For me, Leone's Westerns were basically the first Westerns that I saw; only after watching all of Leone's, did I begin watching all the classic AW's. So that's definitely very different than someone who grew up with the classic AW's and then walks into a theater in 1967, and suddenly it's  "my mistake, 4 coffins!"


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: cigar joe on March 20, 2012, 03:33:07 PM

What I mean is that the Leone landscape could look like real american landscape to people who knew the real thing. But to people around the world who had their rations of western flicks that didn't look like any other AW landscape seen before.

Ok I can see that.


Quote
What you define "cool" now was defined as "outrageous" by most at the time. Especially in USA. I could make lots of examples in that regard. Just think of the faces of the bit players: how were they defined at the time? "Cool"? They were (and still are, for me at least) outrageous. The poncho is another thing I call "outrageous", though now you can call it "cool".  I think the difference between me and you lies in the fact that spaghetti westerns weren't your regular diet in the post-FOD years like they were of mine. And I was a kid then. You saw them as an adult, if at all, and that makes a lot of difference.

As a kid I though they were "cool" (Leone's Films), Fuck Vincent Canby and Pauline Kael they may have thought it was outrageous but the Box Office obviously proved otherwise  ;)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 20, 2012, 05:05:20 PM
I think one could argue the films' success in America had to do with their very strangeness. When your alternative is cliche-ridden John Wayne vehicles and B-movie program filler you want something that's not like every other Western out there.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: stanton on March 21, 2012, 03:43:01 AM
Only that most "cliche-ridden Wayne movies" of that time made more money than the Leones in the USA.

The Dollar trilogy made a lot of money for UA cause they bought them for comparatively nothing, but they weren't as successful as many, many of the US westerns made in the late 60s.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: titoli on March 21, 2012, 03:57:26 AM
As a kid I though they were "cool" (Leone's Films), Fuck Vincent Canby and Pauline Kael they may have thought it was outrageous but the Box Office obviously proved otherwise  ;)

As noted by stanton, they were not as succesful in USA as most of the John Wayne's fare was at the time. And not even remotely succesful as they were in Italy and the rest of the world. So there was that perception of outrageousness of what now we call "cool" even in a large quota of the american audience, probably.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 21, 2012, 04:17:49 AM
idk wtf "cliche-ridden John Wayne Westerns" means. yeah they were very different from Leone's, but many of them were damn good in their own right: Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Rio Bravo, Red River, The Shootist, Stagecoach, The Cowboys, The Horse Soldiers, El Dorado, Three Godfathers, The Searchers,  True Grit... Just some of the great John Wayne Westerns.
To the extent that there are "cliche's," well., Wayne (along with Ford and a few others) is one who created the cliche. Stagecoach was Wayne's breakout role, and also probably the first great Western, the one that started the Golden Age of Westerns (cj defined that as '39-'73). I mean, how many great Westerns can you think of from before Stagecoach? Every pre-1939 Western I saw was pretty bad.

So that to the extent something is "cliche'd," it is Wayne himself who is one of the fathers of those cliches. And even if you don't like Wayne's ideologies about the West: not all of Wayne's films contain those ideologies.

So while you may like Leone's Westerns better than Wayne's Westerns (and I love all of Leone's films better than any other films, period), let's not discredit John Wayne, who was in some amazing films, and was one of the most important personalities in the American Western (along with others such as Ford and Hawks)


(btw, RE: the list above of great Wayne Westerns: I have included all those Wayne Westerns that I love, plus a few that I personally don't love but which are generally very well-loved, including The Searchers, True Grit, Three Godfathers, and El Dorado)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 21, 2012, 04:24:27 AM
Aside from El Dorado none of those movies were released in the '60s. You clearly missed the point of my comment.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 21, 2012, 04:25:23 AM
Only that most "cliche-ridden Wayne movies" of that time made more money than the Leones in the USA.

The Dollar trilogy made a lot of money for UA cause they bought them for comparatively nothing, but they weren't as successful as many, many of the US westerns made in the late 60s.

This is true. It's still a stretch to suggest they were a hit because they were like every other Western out there, which is demonstrably untrue.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 21, 2012, 10:03:48 PM
Aside from El Dorado none of those movies were released in the '60s. You clearly missed the point of my comment.

So the Wayne Westerns of the 60's were cliche-ridden, but not the Wayne Westerns of the 40's and 50's?


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 22, 2012, 04:40:43 AM
This was around the time Duke started palling around with Andy McLaglen. Cliche-ridden is another term for crap.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 25, 2012, 02:32:35 AM
Your criticisms don't seem to make much sense. You say it's partly like a Coen Bros. film and partly like No Country for Old Men? How does that compute?

Of course, I meant it's partly like a regular Coen Bros. film and partly like NCFOM, which is NOT a regular Coen Bros. film. The closest film they had done at the time was Fargo, and it's still a comedy before being anything else.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 25, 2012, 03:25:39 AM
Of course, I meant it's partly like a regular Coen Bros. film and partly like NCFOM, which is NOT a regular Coen Bros. film. The closest film they had done at the time was Fargo, and it's still a comedy before being anything else.

Fargo is a comedy?? 

Sure, a big part of the movie are the accents/mannerisms of their area of the Northwest -- and that stuff may indeed be in a joking/light manner -- but still, there is no way you can say it's "a comedy before anything else."
(btw, I see that on Wikipedia, it is listed as "a dark comedy-crime film," and on imdb, which basically assigns numerous different genres to every movie, it is listed as "Crime, Drama, and Thriller." Just mentioning that, not that what some dude writes on wikipedia or imdb means anything).

Fargo is a very serious movie, and certainly is a crime drama. As with many, many  dramas, it has comedic elements, and the accents and mannerisms of the Northwest indeed are a big part of the movie. Yeah, you can say that those references cultural references to the area are a character -- perhaps even the main character -- in the movie. But it is a very serious movie, and the actions in it have very serious consequences. I have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that it is a "comedy before anything else."  :)


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 25, 2012, 07:26:24 AM
Of course, I meant it's partly like a regular Coen Bros. film and partly like NCFOM, which is NOT a regular Coen Bros. film. The closest film they had done at the time was Fargo, and it's still a comedy before being anything else.

That's debatable. No Country is crammed with very black humor.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Cusser on March 25, 2012, 08:15:16 AM
Sometimes it just seems that the critics are "in cahoots" about films.  The Leone films were pretty much universally panned in the US by critics when first released, but nowadays the very same films are considered legendary and masterpieces.  Even by the very same critics.

Everybody is different, would've expected some critics to really like these films in the late 1960s.  Personally, I think "2001" was sucky, loved "Clockwork Orange", I just make up my own mind.

Sure, Citizen Kane was innovative technically, but not a real good film to watch, all based upon the final word of a man who died alone.  So who heard "Rosebud" if he died alone !!!!


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Groggy on March 25, 2012, 08:59:16 AM
Sure, Citizen Kane was innovative technically, but not a real good film to watch,

I'd very much beg to differ. If anything the technical elements are overpraised to the story's detriment.

Quote
all based upon the final word of a man who died alone.  So who heard "Rosebud" if he died alone !!!!

It's pretty clear Kane's Butler heard him. I don't know why this frequently gets cited as a plot hole.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 25, 2012, 01:29:42 PM
That's debatable. No Country is crammed with very black humor.

Yes... It's actually quite easy to spot The Coen signature in it. To me it is the perfect "Coen Bros. meet a genre" film. It's a thriller made by the Coen Bros., not a film that would have been a thriller if dne by somebody else (like Fargo, to me: I laugh in every scene, every line, every new character, everything, actually, even the darkest elements are nothing but black humor to me, appart from the night car chase).


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 25, 2012, 05:47:24 PM
Fargo is a comedy?? 

Sure, a big part of the movie are the accents/mannerisms of their area of the Northwest -- and that stuff may indeed be in a joking/light manner -- but still, there is no way you can say it's "a comedy before anything else."
Minnesota is the Northwest?

I don't disagree with your main point, but I will mention that when I saw the film in a theater on its initial run (in the real Northwest) the audience was laughing all the way through it. Sometimes I joined in, but very often I did not, and it was kind of a creepy experience, like somehow I'd missed an important memo. I really did not enjoy the showing, and I came out of the theater thinking the Coens had blown it, that they'd made an unfunny comedy. It was only later, rewatching it on LD, that I realized how good the film was and how it wasn't like a comedy at all, but a serious drama with occasional humorous material thrown in. It's a film that isn't easily pigeonholed, which may be why that audience at the theater acted the way they did. I guess they had decided in advance that the film was a comedy, and they were going to find some laughs in it, and plenty, damn it. Maybe people from that screening are still posting on the internet, helpful arbiters of taste that they are.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 26, 2012, 09:19:40 AM
I never entered a theater that wasn't located in the Northwest. Best audiences by far.


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: Spikeopath on July 29, 2017, 08:53:09 AM
Adding.

You can't beat a good bit of Hickory.

The opening to Pale Rider is just excellent, at first all is calm and serene, but then the peace is shattered by the thundering of hooves. A group of men employed by Coy LaHood, tear thru a small mining community, shooting guns and trampling over all in their way. During this callous act of bullying, one of the men shoots and kills young Megan's dog. When Megan buries her beloved pet, she calls to god to send someone to help them against the greedy LaHood, because LaHood is intent on stripping the locals of their claims, and he literally will stop at nothing to get them. Later on Megan is reading from the bible, she reads aloud to her mother about "beholding a pale horse and that the man who sat on it was death", we then see a lone horseman riding towards this under fire place...

Behold the pale horse because the man that sat on him was Clint Eastwood! And that's all you really want to know as regards what drives the film on. It had been quite some time since the movie watching world had witnessed a damn good Western, so it is obvious that Eastwood, knowing the genre inside out, felt it time to remind all and sundry about this engrossing genre and all its little peccadilloes. Riffing on his own High Plains Drifter from 1973 and homaging Shane in the process, Eastwood again uses supernatural leanings to play out this intriguing tale. Pale Rider works well because Eastwood cares for the genre so much, no frame is wasted and the acting on show delivers the necessary amount of quality to enhance the picture's impact. From the thundering opening to the gorgeous final shot, Pale Rider is an expertly crafted Western that still holds up today as a great entry on Eastwoods CV. Pale Rider. 8/10


Title: Re: Pale Rider (1985)
Post by: stanton on August 28, 2017, 05:36:12 AM
Story, dialogues and characters are a bit thin in this good looking but pale variation of some Shane motives. Eastwood's directing is too often mediocre, and somehow he also has miscast himself. The obvious (and uninspired) Spag influences clash with the simple moralistic tone of the film, as simple as its political and ecological undertones, or its affected religious context. The often very dark photography looks good though. All in all not as bad as it sounds, but less interesting than it should be. Still for me Eastwood's weakest western as director. 5/10