Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: boardwalk_angel on December 15, 2005, 05:40:34 AM



Title: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: boardwalk_angel on December 15, 2005, 05:40:34 AM
Anthony Mann's first Western in Cinemascope...... darker than most Westerns of its time...comparisons & similarities have been made to "King Lear".

The Man From Laramie (1955)
Director: Anthony Mann

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCM: Thursday, December 15 8:00 PM


Cast: James Stewart, Arthur Kennedy, Donald Crisp, Cathy O'Donnell, Alex Nicol, Aline MacMahon, Wallace Ford, Jack Elam, John War Eagle, James Millican, Gregg Barton, Boyd Stockman, Frank de Kova


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Leone Admirer on December 15, 2005, 07:03:07 AM
I love this film, I have it on R1 DVD with the original 3 channel sound and its a great film. I whole heartedly recomed it to all the people who haven't seen it.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: The Peacemaker on December 15, 2005, 04:53:31 PM
I LOVE The Man From Laramie. It's such a great movie and I too own that Region 1 DVD in letterbox. For any western fan, TMFL is a must-see!


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: titoli on October 06, 2006, 10:36:38 AM
Didn't remember it at all but found the usual cheapie dvd. I don't like Donald Crisp and his son is a bit too old for the part. Stewart is great as usual: I like the voice and his delivery. Arthur Kennedy is a great actor, I'd say perfect. But I don't like his physical appearance: that great forehead doesn't appeal to me at all.
The movie could have been a bit shorter and without some sentimental twist that dates it. Still, for a movie with Indian and women doesn't fare bad. Not as good as Winchester 73 but a must-see anyway. And a movie which makes me keep wondering whether the real poet of the big spaces was  Ford.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on May 01, 2008, 05:57:43 PM

I just recorded this on my DVR player and plan on watching it this weekend. It's a western I have yet to see!!! I can't wait. I love Jimmy Stewart so I'm excited to see it.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on May 10, 2008, 01:28:17 AM

I seen it, finally! Wow, I can't believe I've passed this up through the years. What an over-looked western by many. Jimmy Stewart was great as usual, and it was a great directing effort yet again by Anthony Mann. I really enjoyed this film.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: The Firecracker on July 07, 2009, 11:10:06 PM
Essential viewing but not one of Mann's better westerns.
One of the biggest problems is the "whodunit" plot.
We know the guy Jimmie wants to plug before he even knows.

8/10

P.S. why does Elam try to knife Stewart in the back?


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 14, 2009, 06:34:13 PM
Essential viewing but not one of Mann's better westerns.
One of the biggest problems is the "whodunit" plot.
We know the guy Jimmie wants to plug before he even knows.

8/10

P.S. why does Elam try to knife Stewart in the back?


I think this is a great western but I agree with FC that there are some serious plot holes in this one. I could never figure out whose character, Arthur Kennedy or Alex Nicol, was intended to be the villain.

The greatest feature in this flick is the amazing salt flats location.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Groggy on October 23, 2009, 03:27:13 PM
I think this is a great western but I agree with FC that there are some serious plot holes in this one. I could never figure out whose character, Arthur Kennedy or Alex Nicol, was intended to be the villain.

Yeah, there shouldn't be any ambiguity in our villains, right. They should all be cold-hearted assholes.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Groggy on October 23, 2009, 11:15:15 PM
Looking up the cast list on IMDB, I see that three of the main cast members are from my neck of the woods.

James Stewart - born and raised in Indiana, PA
Arthur Kennedy - MA native, but attended school at Carneige Mellon just down the street
Aline MacMahon - native of McKeesport, PA

Cool. O0


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Groggy on October 24, 2009, 08:52:45 AM
And a triple-post! Frosty!

Quote
Until today I had seen several of Anthony Mann's renowned "adult Westerns" from the 1950's - Winchester '73 (1950), The Naked Spur (1953) and The Tin Star (1957). All were good movies but lacked that special something to make them great. Today I found Mann's masterpiece: The Man From Laramie (1955). The last of Mann's seven collaborations with James Stewart, Laramie is not only Mann's magnum opus, it makes a strong case for being among the best Westerns of all time. With its great cast, richly drawn characters, well-developed story, skillful direction and gorgeous Cinemascope photography, it's nothing short of a masterpiece.

Will Lockhart (James Stewart) arrives in the isolated farming village of Coronado. The town is run by Alec Waggoman (Donald Crisp), an aging cattle baron, and his two lieutenants: his simple-minded, quick-tempered son Dave (Alex Nichol), and Vic (Arthur Kennedy), the fiercely loyal ranch foreman. Will's arrival puts a spanner into the works, intensifying the rivalry between Dave and Vic as they debate how to deal with the stranger. Will would just as soon stay out of the way, but he has a score to settle - his brother, a cavalryman, was killed by Indians carrying Winchester rifles, and he's determined to seek revenge on the man (or men) who sold them the guns.

The movie undoubtedly excells in its characters. Will's character is (by necessity) fairly elliptical; he's tough but not a bad-natured, amoral vigilante like, say, The Man With No Name. Mann parcels out Will's background carefully, leading inevitably to the final reveal of his motivation - and yet his righteous anger and vengeance is tempered by his morality, allowing Fate to wreak its own vengeance on the wrong-doers. Smaller parts, like Will's love interest (Cathy O'Donnell), the tough lady rancher with a thing for Waggoman (Aline MacMahon), Will's hard-drinking side-kick (Wallace Ford), the chatty Indian priest (Frank DeKova), and the town conman (Jack Elam) are also interesting personages.

The trio of villains is undoubtedly the best feature. Once a two-fisted tough guy in his own right, the older Alec Waggoman is well-meaning but increasingly ineffectual man. A Western Lear, he loves his son and right-hand man all too well, and is unable to to see the growing. Dave is a bit of a stereotype - the weak, hot-headed son living in the shadow of his father - but Vic makes up for it with a very well-rounded character, haunted by guilt and driven by a need to please his surrogate father. Even towards the end, he never degenerates to villainy or pathetic pleading; the scene where he guiltly visits his blinded boss is nothing short of brilliant, humanizing him more believably than any other Western character I can think of. All three characters are flawed yet sympathetic to a degree, and the film doesn't make any of them evil, not even at the end when there's nothing to lose. The Wild Bunch is the only Western comparable in its depth of believable, engrossing characterization.

Mann's direction is nothing short of brilliant. As usual, he does a fantastic job of photography, capturing the gorgeous salt flats and forbidding deserts of the Southwest and making landscape a character in its own right. The film is full of striking individual set pieces, from Will's first encounter with Dave, the dusty fisticuffs with Vic, the shootout at the cattle range, and the final confrontation with the Apache. Phillip Yordan and Frank Burt's screenplay is sharply written, carefully developing story and characters while delivering a generous portion of quotable dialogue. George Duning provides a suitably dramatic score, marred only by the cornball title tune (that fortunately only crops up at the beginning and very end).

James Stewart gives a solid performance; his character here is less neurotic and obsessive than his earlier Mann protagonists, but still convincingly a two-fisted, grimly determined man of action. Arthur Kennedy (Lawrence of Arabia) gives perhaps a career-best turn. Vic is a conflicted, complex character who never turns into the expected sneering villain, and Kennedy perfectly captures the character's sense of guilt and anguish throughout the movie. Donald Crisp (Juarez) does equally well with his part, making Alec a nice guy with an undertone of nastiness showing through. Alex Nicol is perhaps a bit too broad as Dave but perhaps the script can be blamed for that. Supporting parts are ably handled by the likes of Cathy O'Donnell, Aline McMahon, Jack Elam, James Millican, Frank DeKova, and John War Eagle.

The Man From Laramie is an unquestionable Western masterpiece, and an instant personal favorite. Perhaps the other Mann films above-named are due for a rewatch? Stay tuned...

http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2009/10/man-from-laramie.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2009/10/man-from-laramie.html)


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 15, 2011, 12:12:48 PM
Just saw  "The Man from Laramie" on TCM. Nice film. I really like how you aren't completely sure who the villain is; many of the characters are kept ambiguous


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 15, 2011, 12:17:07 PM
Essential viewing but not one of Mann's better westerns.
One of the biggest problems is the "whodunit" plot.
We know the guy Jimmie wants to plug before he even knows.

8/10

P.S. why does Elam try to knife Stewart in the back?


SPOILER ALERT:

1. Elam tries to knife Stewart cuz Elam was working for the Wagomans... but then Vic kills the Elam character himself, to try to frame Stewart.

2. I disagree that "we know the guy Jimmie wants to plug before he even knows." I mean, yeah, we know that David Wagoman is a real bad guy, but you don't really realize how bad Vic is until the end....

3. I didn't really the like the music, but otherwise, it's pretty good. I'd say 7/10. Donald Crisp did a great job as Alec Wagoman.




Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 02, 2014, 01:45:40 PM
From Twilight Time: THE MAN FROM LARAMIE (1955) BLU-RAY - June 10th


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: T.H. on February 03, 2014, 03:09:56 PM
Thanks for posting that. I'd pay 60-70 bucks for a solid transfer of Laramie, Man of the West and The Naked Spur. I'll gladly fork over the 35 USD.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: T.H. on May 22, 2014, 08:33:51 PM
Pre-oder is up on the screen archives website.

The Mechanic '72 and The Train are also up for pre-order


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 23, 2014, 06:17:37 AM
Pre-oder is up on the screen archives website.

The Mechanic '72 and The Train are also up for pre-order
Thanks. I ordered The Mechanic and The Train. Laramie is not a favorite of mine, so I'll wait and see what people say about the transfer.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 17, 2014, 05:03:28 PM
PQ 5/5: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Man-from-Laramie-Blu-ray/70460/#Review


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: T.H. on June 19, 2014, 12:37:31 AM
I ended up buying all three films but haven't got around to watching any of my copies yet.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 28, 2014, 06:13:47 AM
T.H., any thoughts yet?


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: T.H. on June 30, 2014, 11:47:44 AM
I've been out of town, I'll get on it once I return.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: T.H. on July 11, 2014, 01:49:39 PM
I'm not one to really lean on in terms of technical stuff, but I do think the bluray review was on point. There was a user review that claims the frame was compressed some, it should be 2.66 instead of 2.35 (I think) but I thought it looked gorgeous. The exterior scenery is gorgeous and this is a 4K scan. This would be a fine addition to the culture bunker, Jenkins.

With that said, the movie has its plotting issues, even though I consider it a masterpiece. There are some murky details about the evil plot concocted between Arthur Kennedy and Alex Nicol's characters: why order that many guns, why potentially arm Apaches (as they were portrayed in the movie), it just doesn't add up that much. Also, the ending isn't exactly The Naked Spur from a emotional standpoint or Man of the West in terms of pure excitement. It's a lot to ask of the audience to buy into a wagon full of rifles blowing up after being thrown off a cliff and for the Apaches to not murder or even pursue Stewart's character.

Despite taking more issue with the plotting on my third or fourth viewing, Laramie becomes greater upon additional views, as do all of the Mann Stewart westerns. Mann's visuals are the tops, this movie doesn't have any boring scenes and rarely are classic US westerns this dark. The performances are all very good, I think I'm in the minority for liking Cathy O'Donnell. Even if the role might not perfectly suit her, there's something very earnest about her that comes across on screen - which was brought out in full effect by Wyler in 'The Best Years' and Ray in They Live By Night. Speaking of actors that Nick Ray really knew how to use, Arthur Kennedy is fantastic and makes you forgive some of the plotting.

Overall, Laramie is incredibly well shot and has great momentum, despite not being perfectly plotted. While the movie deserves a better climax, everything is so well done to the point where it's only slightly disappointing.

I couldn't fit this in here but there are some amazing low angle exterior shots that I never really noticed before. Also, the vistas are breathtaking, for a lack of a better word. I can understand why anyone can feel how Titoli feels about Mann's place in western lore.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 11, 2014, 05:57:56 PM
I thought O'Donnel was incredible in They Live by Night.

RE: Mann/Stewart I am a HUGE fan of The Far Country. I did not like Winchester '73, and thought Bend of the River was decent at best. Those are the three movies that I've seen multiple times, and have a firm opinion of. The Naked Spur and The Man from Laramie I've only seen once each, and it was a while ago. I did not like TNS at all, and thought TMFL was good (probably like in the 7-7.5/10 range), but I'd like to see them another time; I'll catch them next time they play TCM.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 12, 2014, 10:48:42 AM
Speaking of actors that Nick Ray really knew how to use, Arthur Kennedy is fantastic and makes you forgive some of the plotting.
He's great in The Lusty Men as well.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 12, 2014, 12:31:59 PM
Kennedy was better in Bend of the River.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: T.H. on July 13, 2014, 01:50:30 PM
DJ, I was actually referring to The Lusty Men. Was Kennedy in something else by Ray? I can't think of anything.

As for Mann westerns, it's funny how far apart we seem to be, though it seems pretty common. To me, his best are Man of the West, The Naked Spur and Laramie.

I know this board has its Far Country fans, but to me there is a plot overload - imo messy plotting is forgivable as long as the character is driven by a goal and there's some real momentum, which isn't present in that flick - which kills the movie. There's some nice scenery though. I doubt I'll ever love that one because I've seen it on the big screen on a repeated view, so if that wouldn't do it, nothing will.

I sort of group Winchester 73 and The Tin Star together, even though the former is definitely the superior film. The material is lighter, and the B&W visuals can't match up to technicolor. That's not to say B&W doesn't have its place in the Western, Mann's Devil's Doorway is a great example of when B&W in a western would be my preference, thanks to John Alton. I do have to admit that I need to give Win 73 another viewing soon.

Then there's Bend of the River, which I need to see again. I don't remember all that much about it compared to the other films. I know there was some really nice location work but the movie hasn't stuck with me.

The Last Frontier is solid but I don't consider it a forgotten classic like some do.

The Furies is very good and well shot, but I'd almost always prefer a melodrama to be shot in color. If it was shot in 3-strip it would probably be one of my favorite movies.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 13, 2014, 05:35:02 PM
I liked THE TIN STAR, and IMO it is certainly better than WINCHESTER '73, which I consider to be a very overrated film. MAN OF THE WEST AND THE FAR COUNTRY are both 9/10 for me.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: cigar joe on July 13, 2014, 05:43:32 PM
The Naked Spur I find overrated, its a cheapie on location work & has NO SETS.  :(


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 13, 2014, 07:33:59 PM
The Naked Spur I find overrated, its a cheapie on location work & has NO SETS.  :(

yeah, I really didn't like The Naked Spur at all. My understanding is that that one and W'73 are the two most popular films of the Mann/Stewart series. For me, they are the two worst.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Groggy on July 13, 2014, 08:19:57 PM
I've never quite understood the fascination with Naked Spur. Stewart's great and there's some nice photography, but the story clanks along and the supporting cast is extremely annoying. Even Robert Ryan isn't quite up to par. Definitely my least favorite of the Mann-Stewart Westerns.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 14, 2014, 07:14:04 AM
All the actors in The Naked Spur are terrific. For me clearly Mann's best western together with Man of the West. So at least the peak of his collaboration with Stewart. Followed by ... uhhh difficult ...

But actually The Man from Laramie is the least of the 5 westerns. Still a good one, like all Mann westerns.
Hmm ... except Cimarron, which has at least some strong scenes amongst the bigbudgetHollywoodrubble.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 14, 2014, 02:28:14 PM
All the actors in The Naked Spur are terrific.
They're terrific in other pictures, not here.

Winchester '73 is Mann's best Western, followed closely by Bend of the River.

Man of the West and The Man From Laramie are just so-so (but I've yet to see the latter on BD).

The Naked Spur is a complete POS.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 15, 2014, 02:18:36 AM
I enjoy The Naked spur for the acting alone. Stewart and Ryan are terrific. And Meeker and Mitchell are close. Leigh is also good, but her role is not that important. But not superfluous either, as so many other woman roles in westerns.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: mike siegel on July 15, 2014, 11:11:39 AM
I'm not a big fan of rating films with points or thumbs or lists. But one gets tempted when
it comes to Mann & Stewart. Own personal memories overshadow as usual (I saw Winchester 73
as a little boy and was very impressed, starting my film studies at the age of 11 and immediately
comparing this little jewel to so many other early 50s b/w western).

WINCHESTER 73, MAN FROM LARAMIE, NAKED SPUR & THE FAR COUNTRY are the best outcome of their collaboration.

GLENN MILLER I like a lot due to its content, but I guess it belongs to the second half their not-so-great
yet memorable and enjoyable films. Together with BEND OF THE RIVER.
And THUNDERBAY and STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND I don't like much, they could have been directed by anybody
in the 50s (at least that's what I felt when I saw them many years ago).

I have some nice German posters from the 50s:(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/poster%20archiv%20stars/js1.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/poster%20archiv%20stars/js1.jpg.html)(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/poster%20archiv%20stars/js2.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/poster%20archiv%20stars/js2.jpg.html)(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/poster%20archiv%20stars/js5a.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/poster%20archiv%20stars/js5a.jpg.html)(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/poster%20archiv%20stars/js4.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/poster%20archiv%20stars/js4.jpg.html)(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/poster%20archiv%20stars/js3.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/poster%20archiv%20stars/js3.jpg.html)(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/poster%20archiv%20stars/js5b.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/poster%20archiv%20stars/js5b.jpg.html)(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/poster%20archiv%20stars/js1a.jpg) (http://s953.photobucket.com/user/peckinpah69/media/poster%20archiv%20stars/js1a.jpg.html)


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 15, 2014, 12:47:13 PM
Wow, that one for Bend of the River is killer! O0 They're all good, of course, but for that one in particular I'd stand up and salute.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: T.H. on July 16, 2014, 10:49:52 AM
In defense of The Naked Spur:

To me, it's sort of the template for the Boetticher films: rage filled character on a (outdoor) journey with a love interest who is an integral part of the story which includes a humanized villain, with a wildcard character or two.

I love all the performances and feel like this is one of the best slow-burning (yet fast paced) tension fueled movies out there. Imo films like The Far Country and Bend of the River (though my opinion on the latter could change on an additional view) are much lighter, less complex and remind me of the type of scripts that Henry Hathaway would shoot.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: cigar joe on July 16, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Quote
To me, it's sort of the template for the Boetticher films: rage filled character on a (outdoor) journey with a love interest who is an integral part of the story which includes a humanized villain, with a wildcard character or two.

That may be so, but the Boetticher films do it so much better.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 16, 2014, 12:54:48 PM
They don't.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 17, 2014, 12:19:41 PM
They do.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: T.H. on July 23, 2014, 02:10:30 PM
How are the Boetticher films substantially better? I know they're a bit trimmer, but outside of that...

For what it's worth, The Naked Spur, 7 Men From Now, The Tall T and Ride Lonesome are all 10/10 movies to me.




Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 24, 2014, 04:10:51 AM
For me no Boetticher or Mann film is a 10er. I'm not even sure if there is 9 amongst them. Boetticher definitely not.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: T.H. on July 24, 2014, 03:31:46 PM
I know numbers are just arbitrary, but how many movies do you think you would consider a 10? Do you have an incredibly strict scale or something? Mann and Boetticher are two of the very best directors ever imo.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 24, 2014, 04:20:35 PM
Only few get a 10. Those who make me shiver.
Mann and Boetticher were good directors, but they are not exceptional, not amazing, they had their limits. Ford or Hawks haven't made a 10 film either. Hitchcock has.

8 is already a pretty high rating.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: mike siegel on July 25, 2014, 03:16:42 AM
Ford or Hawks haven't made a 10 film either.


Oh no no no :)


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 25, 2014, 05:27:04 AM
Oh no no no :)

Even their best films have too much typical Hollywood flaws. Some of their films had the potential to be really great, they had the necessary style and the general inspiration, but they are not pure enough.

Some directors had the creativity and the environment to make 2 or 3 10ers, and these are then the real film artists. No director has made more than 3 (but I have to think about that ...)

Of course these are all, and as always, rather subjective statements.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: T.H. on July 25, 2014, 09:28:09 AM
Ford and Hawks ARE movies though, and classic hollywood is the gold standard for the medium. I really don't like the insinuation that hollywood films are inherently flawed. It would be like a rock music fan criticizing Chuck Berry for not making music similar to Black Sabbath or Pink Floyd. But, like you said, this is subjective and all that stuff..

I thought I was being stingy when I only rate three Ford and four Hawks movies 10s: My Darling Clementine, The Searchers, Stagecoach, Rio Bravo, Red River, Only Angels Have Wings and The Big Sleep.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 25, 2014, 09:47:33 AM
IMO Neither Boetticher nor Scott many any 10/10 movies, but Ford and Hawks definitely did. Stanton, do you give ANY westerns a 10/10 other than Leone's and LITTLE BIG HORN?

I give 10/10 to THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, RED RIVER, STAGECOACH, RIO BRAVO; and FORT APACHE and MY DARLING CLEMETINE are borderline - if they are not a 10/10 then they are a 9.5/10

Some, maybe all, of these movies have flaws, but a movie can be great despite flaws. RED RIVER's flaw is well documented; for me, RIO BRAVO's final shootout scene is really bad, how a movie that had tension all along has a final shootout that is played for laughs, fit for a comedy. STAGECOACH has a camera that is way too stagnant; I like a camera that moves. TMWSLV has a ludicrous, ludicrous character in Andy Devine.
But all these movies are great or borderline great.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Groggy on July 25, 2014, 07:19:05 PM
Code:
Some, maybe all, of these movies have flaws, but a movie can be great despite flaws.

When Drink's right, he's right.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 26, 2014, 01:49:53 AM
Ford and Hawks ARE movies though, and classic hollywood is the gold standard for the medium. I really don't like the insinuation that hollywood films are inherently flawed.

Not all Hollywood movies are flawed, which I haven't said anyway.

And of course some films are great despite some flaws, or maybe even because of some flaws. But Ford and Hawks have generally too much flaws for my taste to make their films absolutely great.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 26, 2014, 01:53:46 AM
Stanton, do you give ANY westerns a 10/10 other than Leone's and LITTLE BIG HORN?




The Wild Bunch, OUTW, GBU, Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (all versions) and, yes, I think Little Big Man also. Arthur Penn has meanwhile become an underrated director.



Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 26, 2014, 04:18:04 AM
When Drink's right, he's right.

Unfortunately, he isn't. I'm with Herr Stanton.
That doesn't mean Ford isn't among the greatest, and that doesn't downplay Ford's influence on pretty much any american film shot after him. It's just that he didn't do any 10/10 although he could have.

Penn is incredibly underrated. I haven't seen many of his films, but he did at least two 10/10. I will never understand why nobody likes him.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Groggy on July 26, 2014, 09:17:48 AM
I'd give maybe ten movies in history a 10/10, and Stagecoach is one of them. I wouldn't change a single thing about it. Liberty Valance and Wagonmaster come close too.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 26, 2014, 02:37:50 PM
You're not alone. Stagecoach is wildly considered as a 10/10. I haven't seen it for years so my opinion on it isn't valid. Liberty is 9/10 and Cheyenne is at least 8.5.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 26, 2014, 07:34:12 PM
So I am not the only one who thinks CHEYENNE AUTUMN is a good movie? I give it an 8/10. But I always skip the stupid Earp/Holliday shit. And some of the shit with the accents, the Irish and German and Russian, are stupid. And Patrick Wayne is maybe the worst actor in Hollywood history. Despite a very stagnant camera, there is one big tracking shot of a cavalry charge that should be easy to make an actor look good, and P. Wayne still makes it look awful. I despise that mofo.
But Richard Widmark is an actor I like very much, and Carol Baker delivers what IMO is one of the very best performances by an actress, in a Western or otherwise. If this is a subpar movie, it's only by Ford's lofty standards.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 27, 2014, 03:17:14 AM
I'd give maybe ten movies in history a 10/10, and Stagecoach is one of them. I wouldn't change a single thing about it. Liberty Valance and Wagonmaster come close too.

Only 10?

I'm choosey with the 10/10s, but I know 100 - 200 films which are so amazing and incredible that they deserve a 10.

Now, if there are only 10 Groggy, it must be easy to name them. Put your cards on the table!


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 27, 2014, 03:18:43 AM
Cheyenne Autumn is ok, not Ford's weakest western, but one of his lesser efforts. 6/10


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 27, 2014, 09:44:24 AM
I probably don't know more than 10 10/10s either. And I sure don't know 100 8+/10s.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 27, 2014, 11:24:05 AM
I probably don't know more than 10 10/10s either. And I sure don't know 100 8+/10s.
You need to see more films.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 27, 2014, 11:45:04 AM
I probably don't know more than 10 10/10s either. And I sure don't know 100 8+/10s.

Put your cards on the table!

Only 10 films ... that's a poor testimony for film as a form of art.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Groggy on July 27, 2014, 03:47:59 PM
Or that 10 implies perfection, or something very close to it, which is hard for even the very best films to obtain.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 27, 2014, 11:20:45 PM
(Virtually) refusing to give a 10/10  rating doesn't mean you have better or more refined taste in movies. All it means is that you don't rate on a 1-10 system. Maybe you rate on a 1-9 system, or a 1-9.5 system. Don't ever give another movie, e.g., an 8/10 or a 5/10. You should give an 8/9 or a 9/9. Any great movie should get a 10. Or at least a 9.5. GREAT DOESN'T MEAN PERFECT. AND GREAT DOESN'T MEAN TOP 10 OF ALL-TIME.



Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 28, 2014, 12:37:33 AM
Your 1-10 system is not mine. I still use a 1-10 system (actually I use a 0-10 one). Of course, I also think my system is better than yours because it's more accurate where it needs to be (I want to have a way of rating OUATITW higher than DYS, whereas I don't give a damn about the exactitude of my ratings for average movies). Also, 10 is for masterpieces, like The Patriot (  :D ). Near-masterpieces get 9.5/10, great movies get 9/10 and very good ones get 8/10.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 28, 2014, 12:43:36 AM
You need to see more films.

I probably need to better appreciate pre-60's film. I'm missing a lot of 8/10s.

Put your cards on the table!

That would deserve its own thread!

Only 10 films ... that's a poor testimony for film as a form of art.

Or a good testimony for masterpieces as real masterpieces.
I'm exactly as tough with books and paintings, which doesn't mean I cannot enjoy spending hours with a 8/10 film/book/sculpture/song/painting/comics.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: mike siegel on July 28, 2014, 05:22:30 AM
This 1-10 thing is so awful I wish it would dissappear forever. It lowers the art of film making to a certain degree, the least thing an art form needs that is anyway regarded a mainly commercial. I checked out some nice paintings the other day with my girlfriend. They had some great Renoirs, one of my favorites. All 10/10 to me, but one Van Gough and at least three Picasso's were 6-7/10 - at the most. They also had some sketches from Disney's artist, they were all 9/10, great stuff. Sorry Picasso. Or do I not know enough about art? Because I rate an unknown cartoon artist higher than Van Gough? Over and out..


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 28, 2014, 07:46:17 AM
To paraphrase DJ, a rating isn't the final word on a movie; it is only the first.
n_l, I can rate multiple movies a 10/10 and it doesn't mean I like them exactly equally. Even among great, i.e., 10/10 movies, there is a higher echelon of all-time legends.
Babe Ruth and Joe DiMaggio are in a higher stratosphere, but players like Al Kaline still make the Hall of Fame. Make whatever analogy to soccer players you have to ;) For me, a Hall of Famer gets a 10/10, even if some 10/10's are better than others... Anyway, as long as the point of a rating is to serve as a an easy way of recommending a movie or not, this whole rating debate isn't all that important. Because (assuming I follow your recommendations), I'll be happy to watch any movie you rate 9/10 or even 8/10. (I still don't nderstand how the hell you can think 6/10 is a good rating, but that's another story.) I assume most people here would agree with that. So even if you give a 9/10 where I would give a 10/10, practically, it won't make much difference. (what DOES make a difference is you rating good movies a 6/10, though ..... ) ;)


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 28, 2014, 08:05:07 AM
Anyway, speaking of paintings .... I was at the Met Museum yesterday. Saw WASHINGTON CROSSING THE DELAWARE (an ENORMOUS canvas) and some other good stuff. Took some pics (on my friend's smartphone.... Not sure how they came out vs. My usual digital camera.) Will post the pics to the art thread when I get a chance.
That museum is enormous. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. You can spend a week in there and still not see everything. All I had was three hours. And my friend was more into the other shit, the artifacts (mummies, Roman/Egyptian architecture, ancient silverware, etc.) so I only got to spend 1.5, maybe 2 hours with the paintings .... So I'll have to go back sometime .... Anyway, I'll post what I can when I can.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 28, 2014, 08:11:20 AM
(I still don't nderstand how the hell you can think 6/10 is a good rating, but that's another story.)

The difference may be cultural. During some parts of my studies, a 12/20 rating would have made me the best student of the class. Also, in some universities, a 3 or a 4 out of 20 is a passing grade.

This 1-10 thing is so awful I wish it would dissappear forever. It lowers the art of film making to a certain degree, the least thing an art form needs that is anyway regarded a mainly commercial. I checked out some nice paintings the other day with my girlfriend. They had some great Renoirs, one of my favorites. All 10/10 to me, but one Van Gough and at least three Picasso's were 6-7/10 - at the most. They also had some sketches from Disney's artist, they were all 9/10, great stuff. Sorry Picasso. Or do I not know enough about art? Because I rate an unknown cartoon artist higher than Van Gough? Over and out..

 ;D

I'm a huge fan of Picasso, who I think is the perfect artist, and I would rate many of his painting 6/10 while some Disney sketches easily deserve 9/10. I may be ignorant in art too (although I don't believe so) but I'm not shocked :)


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 28, 2014, 08:34:44 AM
Your 1-10 system is not mine.
Which is why numbers alone are not sufficient. They need to be accompanied by explanations (to quote you quoting Drink quoting me).
Quote
Also, 10 is for masterpieces, like The Patriot (  :D ).
Stop. Stop. You're going to make me lose my spleen.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 28, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
Sorry if I offend your tastes, but I prefer American art. Picasso had some interesting stuff, particularly his use of light, but I'm not a big fan of Impressionism generally (I like Degas's ballerina paintings, though it's debatable what category to put him in),  I find myself enjoying American art more. Besides for my obsession with Hopper which you all know, I am enjoying the Hudson River School. I like Albert Bierstdadt a lot, a German who came to America during Wild West days and painted magnificent canvases of Western scenes. Not a very big Van Gogh fan.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 28, 2014, 09:23:05 AM
DJ: n_l makes a joke about The Patriot every week, and Now you decide to lose your spleen?


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 28, 2014, 09:25:53 AM
Picasso has been many things (cubist, fauvist...) but never an impressionist, by the way. The main thing about Picasso, to me, is composition. That's his biggest strength, and that's what he studied for decades. Until his death. That's why he could get away with any sort of abstract painting: it's like screenwriter Dan Harmon who can be exactly as creative as he wants and make pretty much anything happen in an episode of Community since he's obsessed by dramaturgy and scripts structure.

Which is why numbers alone are not sufficient. They need to be accompanied by explanations (to quote you quoting Drink quoting me).

 ;D


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 28, 2014, 09:27:25 AM
DJ: n_l makes a joke about The Patriot every week, and Now you decide to lose your spleen?

Picasso's strength was the rules of composition. My biggest strength is I never give up. You'll lose your spleen too. It may take a decade or two but you'll lose it.

(http://readrant.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/mel-gibson.jpg)
After all, even the Road Warrior lost it.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 28, 2014, 09:48:06 AM
DJ: n_l makes a joke about The Patriot every week, and Now you decide to lose your spleen?
Some humor--such as a recurring joke--is cumulative in its effect.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 28, 2014, 10:11:40 AM
I can't friggin believe this, but even as I was typing the word "Picasso," I was thinking of Monet. What I said about Picasso I meant about Monet; my mind was thinking of Monet but somehow my hand typed the name of Picasso.... Of course I know that Picasso was not an Impressionist. Anyway, what I meant to say was some of Monet's stuff is interesting but overall I am not a big fan of Impressionism.
 Once we are talking about Picasso, I will say this: I have absolutely no use for him, period. I've seen a whole gallery full of Picassos at MoMA and nary a one interested me. I know that Picasso had different periods (including one invented by Orson Welles ;) ) and I sure as hell can't say I have seen a lot of his work, but virtually nothing of his that I have seen interests me.
My favorite European painter is de Chirico, only his Metaphysical period.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 28, 2014, 10:13:22 AM
Anyway, I think we should move further art discussion to the art thread :)


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: stanton on July 28, 2014, 12:48:59 PM
This 1-10 thing is so awful I wish it would dissappear forever. It lowers the art of film making to a certain degree, the least thing an art form needs that is anyway regarded a mainly commercial. I checked out some nice paintings the other day with my girlfriend. They had some great Renoirs, one of my favorites. All 10/10 to me, but one Van Gough and at least three Picasso's were 6-7/10 - at the most. They also had some sketches from Disney's artist, they were all 9/10, great stuff. Sorry Picasso. Or do I not know enough about art? Because I rate an unknown cartoon artist higher than Van Gough? Over and out..

Mike, you make that wrong.

I don't rate art, I rate the entertainment value of art.

If Picasso bores me he gets a deserved 2. Or less. And if Transformers entertains me more than Picasso, then Bay beats the Pablo on my scale.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Groggy on July 28, 2014, 05:15:53 PM
This 1-10 thing is so awful I wish it would dissappear forever. It lowers the art of film making to a certain degree, the least thing an art form needs that is anyway regarded a mainly commercial. I checked out some nice paintings the other day with my girlfriend. They had some great Renoirs, one of my favorites. All 10/10 to me, but one Van Gough and at least three Picasso's were 6-7/10 - at the most. They also had some sketches from Disney's artist, they were all 9/10, great stuff. Sorry Picasso. Or do I not know enough about art? Because I rate an unknown cartoon artist higher than Van Gough? Over and out..

I agree with the sentiment. On my blog anyway I usually avoid a rating for that reason. What's the difference between a 6 and a 7, anyway? Ratings are just a handy way to gauge how much I enjoyed a movie, not a definitive statement of quality or artistic merit.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 28, 2014, 06:43:41 PM
there are definitely pluses and minuses to ratings.

with all their drawbacks, IMO you need an ewasy way to communicate whether or not you would recommend a movie. I remember reading old reviews of movies in the NY Times, like stuff from the '40's, it's simply hard to tell sometimes whether you are being recommended a movie.
Even a movie that is an 8/10 can sometimes have significant flaws; and even a movie that is 5/10 could have significant pluses. -So just cuz a review mentions flaws or attributes doesn't tell you whether or not you should see the movie. Of course, you don't need numbers; you could have word ratings (which I have suggested in the past), like GREAT, VERY GOOD, GOOD, MEDIOCRE, POOR, etc. Or you can simply use HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, AVOID AT ALL COSTS, etc. So you can pick numbers or words or whatever, but you need some set method of easily communicating whether or not you would recommend the movie - though of course, as discussed previously, those numbers/words are not the final word on the conversation.
Personally, I am always looking for recommendations of movies in the genres/categories that I like, so anytime someone gives a movie, say, a 7/10, or 8/10 or higher, in a genre/category I like, I may put that movie in my queue.
Recommendations are the sole purpose of ratings - in fact, they are basically the purpose of the entire RTLMYS thread. IMHO  ;)


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: mike siegel on July 29, 2014, 02:52:46 AM
Oh, I started something... Sometimes I think not checking the forum on a regular base, suffering from the fact that (it seems)
every great film maker / film masterpiece gets a demontage here sooner or later (and what's left then?). But almost every 'strong' opinion
here gets picked up immediately and leads to a loong discussion. That's kinda nice, really :).

Well, there is not one way for everybody of course. As for me, I'm more on the film makers side than on the side of the 'critics' or 'reviewers'. I have a huge respect knowing how much work it is to make a film, knowing how difficult it is to bring it all together to make a really good film that works the way it was intended to work -  before hundreds of details, changes, decisions, problems come along that make the final outcome rather uncertain.
Therefore I can't take just 10 seconds to 'rate' a film, just to get it the fast & easy way. Sometimes I even have a big problem with the distinction  ''A'', ''B'' or ''C''. As we all know many ''B-pictures'' came out far better & timeless than similar, higher budgeted ''A-pictures''. Over the years these terms became different , in the end confusing, meanings. I use them only to refer to the budget.
As for the rating, I always enjoyed reading reviews just for fun. To this day I have big problems with 'critics'. There were just few how really loved film and therefore had a different approach to film making than those impossible creatures who had a perverse satisfaction with 'being above it all' and spreading out there own subjective opinions or general dislike for this director or that actor.. 
In CINEMA RETRO we have this nice little thing called

OFF TARGET   Critic  Critique



‘There was once hope that Sam Peckinpah might develop into a capable director, but THE WILD BUNCH leads me to the sorry conviction he understands too little of the contemporary scene and has decided, in desparation, to imitate the socio and psycho pathologies with which such anti-life directors as Luis Bunuel and Arthur Penn fill their so-called films....
...Indeed, so incompetent has Peckinpah become... he didn’t get a performance out of even such good actors as William Holden, Edmond O’Brien and Ernest Borgnine...
However, Peckinpah’s desperate exalting of criminality and exploiting of slaughter couldn’t spoil the excellent color-photography of Lucien Ballard, who should not waste himself on incompetencies like THE WILD BUNCH’   

Arthur B.Clark  FILMS IN REVIEW  Aug.-Sept. 1969



 I started becoming my own film expert when I was ten. I always went along with this RECOMMENDED etc. thing.


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: mike siegel on July 29, 2014, 03:08:05 AM
continue:

THen when I talk about a film, I take into consideration what it was supposed to be (ambition), who made it and how it turned out. It is like the middle line when exposing your negative. From that line you can go up and down. I can't compare SIRK for instance with FASSBINDER. Although related in taste and subjects they come from different times & cultures, totally different styles etc. In fact I almost never 'compare' when it comes to art. And the 'perfect' film (a 10/10?) is regarded by some as such while others find a scene, an actor or something they do not like. I could use that rating system for ONE PERSON only I suppose. If GRAPES OF WRATH & HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY are 10/10 Ford pictures (which they are), I could go along rating SEARCHERS, VALANCE, QUIET MAN as 9/10 Ford films, and TWO RODE TOGETHER or LONG GREY LINE as 5/10 Ford films. But then you already talk about a little film universe and know where you are.

Anyway, I just think the 2/10 thing shows little respect for the art of film making. Months and years of work by so many people deserve a bit more than a weekly test in school. On the other hand it saves me time here :). When I read MIDNIGHT COWBOY 6/10 I know I can skip the posting immediately and go check my e-mail account ...
(Freedom for everybody)


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 29, 2014, 04:18:43 PM
Rating a film low doesn't necessarily mean disrespecting the filmmaker. It's just an easy way of saying whether or not (and how much) you recommend the movie. You aren't rating how much you respect the filmmaker and how much went into it, just how enjoyable it was for you to watch the movie. And sharing a piece of criticism from The Wild Bunch that you disagree strongly with doesn't mean that there isn't an important place for film critics. (I actually never read critics until after I see the movie; i never like to have the plot spoiled.)


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Moorman on February 19, 2017, 02:43:25 PM
This was a good movie. 

1. Cinematography.   It was ok. Filmed in Cinemascope with Technicolor. 

2. Script. Very good, until the end.  The director seemed to rush the end without bringing closure to Lockhart's name to the towns people.  The bad guy is revealed, Lockhart goes after him, and that was it.

3. Acting. James Steward shines...

4. Musical Score.  Pretty good.

Pretty Good movie. I rate it a 7 out of 10...


Title: Re: The Man from Laramie (1955)
Post by: Spikeopath on May 29, 2017, 11:51:31 AM
Hee, informative thread. Adding a review >

You Scum!

Will Lockhart (James Stewart) leaves his home in Laramie on a mission to find out who was responsible for selling repeating rifles to the Apaches who killed his brother. Landing in Coronado, New Mexico, he finds that most of the territory is owned and ruled by Alec Waggoman (Donald Crisp), a fierce patriarchal rancher with one loose cannon son, Dave (Alex Nicol) and another surrogate son, Vic Hansboro (Arthur Kennedy) running the Barb Ranch. As he digs deeper, Lockhart finds he is in the middle of two wars, one of which may eventually conclude his revenge fuelled mission.

The Man From Laramie is the last of the five Westerns that director Anthony Mann made with leading man James Stewart. The only one filmed in CinemaScope, it is a visually stylish picture that is full of brooding psychological themes and boasts great acting and a tight script. It's no secret that Mann, before his sad death, was looking to make a Western King Lear, The Man From Laramie serves as a delicious starter to what would have been the main course. With its family dilemmas and oedipal overtones, Mann's Western is very Shakespearian in tone. That its characters are sumptuously framed amongst a harsh dangerous landscape further fuels the psychological fire; with the landscapes (terrificly photographed by Charles Lang) providing a link to the characters emotional states. So many scenes linger long and hard in the memory (none of which I would dare to spoil for would be new viewers), so much so they each reward more upon subsequent revisits to the film. There's some minor quibbles down the pecking order; for instance Cathy O'Donnell as Barbara Waggoman is poor and contributes little to proceedings, but really it remains a quality piece of psychological work that barely gives us reason to scratch the itch.

Taut, tight and tragic is The Man From Laramie, brought to us courtesy from the dynamite partnership of Mann & Stewart. 9/10