Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: Rblondie on May 15, 2003, 06:58:16 PM



Title: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Rblondie on May 15, 2003, 06:58:16 PM
Has Paul Newman ever been cooler when he enlightens David Canary: "Maybe if we all get thirsty we'll go to Delgado's and get some mescal."?


Title: Re:Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on May 15, 2003, 10:06:33 PM
It was definitely a great movie and very different, especially the way Hombre never reacted the way the whites expected, you can just here the twangs that Moricone would have added after Newman's comments, lol.

Also Richard Boone was never more menacing. Its a shame he didn't make more westerns and to bad most of the other ones he did make were with John Wayne.


Title: Re:Hombre (1966)
Post by: Rblondie on May 16, 2003, 07:06:29 PM
Richard Boone starred in Rio Conchos (1964) in which he played a brooding Confederate with Anthony Franciosa, Stuart Whitman, Edmond O'Brien, and Jim Brown-a very solid underrated western. His best film with Wayne was definitely The Shootist (1976).


Title: Re:Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on May 18, 2003, 05:31:35 AM
Richard Boone was very underutilized, a shame.


Title: Re:Hombre (1966)
Post by: KERMIT on May 27, 2003, 12:04:51 PM
r.b. had this sort of PLEASE ? " tell me truth or i WILL kill you."
his partner richard linz providing counterpoint in a time the old west was changing. hec set in his ways, was always caught between a rock and a hard place w/ ubiqutious harry morgan.
also r.g. armstrong.  

boone never seemed to grow old.
"HERE IS THE PART I HATE THE WORST !" classic hec.
boone made hombre what it is......no ?

newman's use of the phrase "everybody's got to die . it's just a matter of when".

if boone had delivered that line it may have gone deeper.
ie. "everybody's got to die. it's just a matter of when.....AND HOW !?!"
kermit


Title: Re:Hombre (1966)
Post by: Harmonica on May 30, 2003, 07:44:43 PM
I love this flick!!!! ;D  As you can tell by my quote. 8)

You guys notice how fast Newman is drawing that gun in the end.  I mean, that was fast fast fast... and in real time to...


Title: Re:Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on May 30, 2003, 08:32:46 PM
Yes it was fast and, it was in fact another three way shootout although they all had loaded guns, lol. It was an overlooked western at the time.


Title: Re:Hombre (1966)
Post by: KERMIT on May 31, 2003, 02:29:54 AM
for all it's violence in GB&U vs. hombre, the big difference of the two movies, ie. 3 way duells, is hombre leaves all  3 dead. finito !   :(
leone's 3 way leaves us w/ a happy ending.  bad guy eliminated, coins had, blondie rides off as tuco is left  w/ his share,   in the middle of nowhere to spend it.             i don't mean to be smart or anything.   GB&U's cinematography w/standing,  leaves a feel good ending i like.  can you imagine tuco  being shot dead ?
plus the guitarest is @ his twangyest !   ;D
nevertheless hombre packs a powerful punch just w/ numan putting up w/ his situation.  not to mention the big nod he suffers in this 3 way.  it wasn't a duell as it seemed just an eruption of violence.  i'll really go out on a limb and compare hombre's 3 way to rape as  loene's is to making love.  does enyone know how many angles & shots leone had to make in order to reach his 3 way climax ?  and does  leone beat hitch's record  of camers shots w/ the shower scene in psyco . ???


Title: Re:Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on May 31, 2003, 04:10:20 AM
I guess you could say Hombre's ending was anti-climatic while GBU was uber-climatic, just another example of Leone taking the western genre which was big to begin with and making it bigger!

Don't know how many cuts, I think a man like you could count them and get back to us, aaah, aaah, aaaaaaah!


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on August 26, 2006, 10:02:50 AM
I saw the movie many times, though the last one a while ago. Yes, it's good but I never liked


SPOILERE SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER



Newman's death. Can't get over that, sorry.

 


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on August 26, 2006, 10:05:00 AM
Its a sort of SW ending then huh?  8)


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Beebs on August 26, 2006, 10:46:31 AM
Its a sort of SW ending then huh?  8)

Yes.....


Richard Boone made a good General Houston.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on August 28, 2006, 09:12:22 PM
Yes.....


Richard Boone made a good General Houston.

Yes in the Alamo, underutilized again there too.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Tim on August 29, 2006, 08:00:54 AM
Quote
Yes in the Alamo, underutilized again there too.

  Originally, Boone wasn't even supposed to be in The Alamo, John Wayne wanted to make a brief cameo as General Sam Houston while he handled the directing and producing duties.  Instead, studio backers insisted Wayne play a bigger part, hence his role as Davy Crockett.

  In the two scenes Boone is actually in, he's excellent.  His mini speech toward the end when he reveals the Alamo will fall because reinforcements won't arrive in time is very moving.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on October 26, 2006, 07:01:20 AM
Saw the movie for the first time with the original audio today, at last (bought the usual 3 euros dvd: a pity the series was discontinued). This film is a masterpiece but still can't get over the end. Newman can't be such a fool twice: once to accept to save the woman and the second time not foreseeing the line of fire might be encumbered. Sure, Ritt is smart to make the end fast, with no tear shedding.

A question: is this the best ever  Newman's performance? I believe it is. March and Balsam and Boone I knew them, so I could expect it from them: this quartet of actors is huge. But the former Mrs Connery was a revelation (though I had seen her already in Tom Jones).     


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Beebs on October 26, 2006, 02:18:02 PM
Another good line of Newman's in there is when his Mexican friend says something after he hits that cowboy in the jaw, and he says, "I don't know why you say that, I was thinkin about it in English."

Another good one is, "What will it be today, Mr. Russell, hombre?"
"Anything but bastard will do"

ANOTHER good one is, "What do they say about it?"
"They say what they want"
His tone is so intimidating.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on October 26, 2006, 07:08:32 PM
 
Quote
question: is this the best ever  Newman's performance? I believe it is. March and Balsam and Boone I knew them, so I could expect it from them: this quartet of actors is huge. But the former Mrs Connery was a revelation (though I had seen her already in Tom Jones).   


I think its his best Western performance that I know of, but then I've never seen "The Lefthanded Gun", it definitely is one of Boone's best performances, and Diane Celintro was excellent also, though she wasn't in anything outstanding in later years.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Tim on October 26, 2006, 10:03:08 PM
Quote
A question: is this the best ever  Newman's performance?

  Hombre definitely ranks up there, but I wouldn't call it his best performance. For that, I'll go with Cool Hand Luke, one of my favorite movies.  Newman's Lucas Jackson is one of the greatest characters ever because of Newman.

  And it may not be his best performance, but I love him in Road to Perdition as John Rooney.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on October 27, 2006, 04:23:03 AM
  Hombre definitely ranks up there, but I wouldn't call it his best performance. For that, I'll go with Cool Hand Luke, one of my favorite movies.  Newman's Lucas Jackson is one of the greatest characters ever because of Newman.

  And it may not be his best performance, but I love him in Road to Perdition as John Rooney.

I was talking Western performance, yea he's great in "Cool Hand Luke", and excellent in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", and "The Hustler", so many of his performances have been top notch.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on October 27, 2006, 07:03:38 AM
Yes, but though I watched it a couple a times I should rewatch Luke: I'm not sure I would like it as I did the first time. Lefthanded Gun I seem to remember he was pushing too much on the facial expressiveness. And anyway the movie, it wasn't top-notch. Boone was also in The Big Sleep, playing Lash Canino: a smaller, though similar, part than in Hombre, which I don't think he ever surpassed anyway.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Sackett on October 27, 2006, 03:58:43 PM
Well lets see now
Hud- The smirking wisecracking cowboy
Cool Hand Luke- The smirking wisecracking convict
Hombre- Th smirking wisecracking half breed
Butch Cassidy- The smirking wisecracking outlaw
Sting- The smirking wisecracking con man
Cat on Hot Tin Roof- The smirking wisecracking son


I guess when you've got a style, you stick with it.
Anyone know of other Newman movies off hand where he accurately portrays a 'smirking wisecracking' something.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on October 27, 2006, 04:11:33 PM
Almost forgot, "Somebody Up There Likes Me" Paul as Rocky Marciano  8)


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on October 27, 2006, 04:28:26 PM
Sackett, that's exactly what I mean: in Hombre Newman's style (rather monotonous) blends perfectly with the character, which, in my opinion, doesn't happen (at least not in such a perfect way) in any other of his movies. That smirk works tremendously here. The laconicity of Hombre is in contrast with the loquacity of his other characters.
Also, I think that from Butch Cassidy on he changed his style. For the better I'd say.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Tim on October 28, 2006, 07:43:26 AM
Quote
I was talking Western performance

  Sorry about that confusion, joe, I was just going off of titoli's comment/question if Hombre is his best performance.  And if we're talking westerns, John Russell is definitely his best western performance.  Butch and Sundance is close behind for me.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 05, 2006, 10:17:01 AM
And speaking of Butch Cassidy & TSK, I can think of three AW's that had the "music video" interludes, BC&TSK with "Rain Drops Keep Falling On My Head", The Life & Times of Judge Roy Bean with "Marmalade, Molasses, and Honey", and The Ballad of Cabel Hogue with "Butterfly Mornings".

These interludes completely take you out of the films and destroy the story narrative, I think it works because these were not dead serious Westerns anyway but more comedies. Someone suggested on the SWWB that they were included for the female views and akin to date movies, which does make sense..

Anybody remember any others?


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on November 05, 2006, 11:24:13 AM
I can't remember the other 2 because I saw them long time ago, but the "Raindrops" interlude in BC is effective because the song is beautiful (as the rest of the soundtrack). I will see the movie for the first time in english one of these days, but the other 2-3 times I saw it it was rather dull. Except for the song.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on November 05, 2006, 11:27:40 AM
Bringing the talking back to Hombre, I was wondering what the development would have been if Hombre had said to Cilento: "Ok, you go". I have no doubt that would have been the answer in 99% of SW of the same era and that kind of development (with the final, though implied, fanfare for Hombre) is where the divide between AW and SW lies.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 05, 2006, 04:13:50 PM
Quote
Hombre had said to Cilento: "Ok, you go". I have no doubt that would have been the answer in 99% of SW of the same era and that kind of development (with the final, though implied, fanfare for Hombre) is where the divide between AW and SW lies.


you are probably right about the above


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on November 05, 2006, 05:57:32 PM
But are you personally satisfied with the finale? I think it crashes with Hombre's personality as we have seen it develop from the start. To behave foolishly just for a nice pair of eyes doesn't go down with me. Actually, to show him as a "loser who is a winner" is the usual Hollywoodcrapish resource to equalize everything and demonstrate that being american's beautiful, even under 6 ft. of clay. Wish it could have been made in the New Hollywood era 4-5 years later.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 05, 2006, 09:07:33 PM
Actually I look at it as a struggle between his Native American stoicism and his Caucasian reality. His Native American side couldn't care less of the whites, however there is possibly that overwhleming intrinsic human need to protect the female of the species that does foolishly win out when goaded on by Cilento.

The finale is what it is, I would like to read Elmore Leonard's novel to see if the screen play is the same, the answer may actually lie there.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on November 06, 2006, 02:09:54 AM
Quote
Actually I look at it as a struggle between his Native American stoicism and his Caucasian reality.

He's ideologically totally on Indians side. He accepts what there is of white civilization (dresses, talk) only for opportunistical reasons. To let emerge a chivalric, "white" attitude is nonsense.

Quote
His Native American side couldn't care less of the whites, however there is possibly that overwhleming intrinsic human need to protect the female of the species that does foolishly win out when goaded on by Cilento.

They are not the last humans on earth. No, if he does it it is because he is attracted by Cilento. Still the repentine decision he takes when she goads him into action doesn't rhyme with his critical attitude: he hasn't developed such a intimate relationship with Cilento which assures him he can be the man of her life or the opposite. He knows his going against great odds and can't do that so lightheartedly as he does.

Still you're right, I'd like to have time to read some of the Leonard's western tales, expecially those transposed into movies.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Tim on November 06, 2006, 08:57:48 AM
Quote
But are you personally satisfied with the finale? I think it crashes with Hombre's personality as we have seen it develop from the start. To behave foolishly just for a nice pair of eyes doesn't go down with me.

  I don't think Russell does what he does just because he's attracted to a "nice pair of eyes."  Jessie proves to him that she's willing to die to go save the woman tied up at the bottom of the staircase. Unlike all the others, she is willing to sacrifice herself.

  IMO, Russell sees this and decides to do it himself.  Of course, I love the irony of the woman he's trying to save ending up killing him by blocking the shot.

  And that's a really good take on if it was a spaghetti western.  Let the woman kill herself. :o


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on November 06, 2006, 10:13:11 AM
So he does it for a point of pride? Maybe, but what had it been March or Balsam to propose himself for the mission?


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Tim on November 06, 2006, 12:41:55 PM
  Well, titoli, I think you hit the nail on the head. March or Balsam would have never volunteered to go down and save March's wife.  Instead, a lone woman volunteers to do it.

  I've looked at it as Russell showing respect for the one person in the group that is a genuinely good person.  If he hadn't gone down in her place, Jessie would have gone down, she wasn't trying to call his bluff.  It's almost as if Russell would possibly rather sacrifice himself than let Jessie die.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 06, 2006, 03:33:17 PM
Quote
I've looked at it as Russell showing respect for the one person in the group that is a genuinely good person.  If he hadn't gone down in her place, Jessie would have gone down, she wasn't trying to call his bluff.  It's almost as if Russell would possibly rather sacrifice himself than let Jessie die.


That makes sense too.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on November 06, 2006, 04:55:11 PM
I have the marked impression that Cilento f...s Hombre, folks.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Tim on November 06, 2006, 05:38:54 PM
Quote
I have the marked impression that Cilento f...s Hombre, folks.

   :o

  I never thought of that.  I don't know if I agree, but I'd never contemplated it.  It seems to take away from Newman's Russell character, like it removes his "cool" feeling.  Just like the Socorro scene in GBU or the scene with the innkeeper's wife in FAFDM would have taken away from Blondie's supreme coolness.

  Stuff like that makes him seem human, like they're down on our level, lowly humans.  ;D 


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 06, 2006, 07:42:21 PM
I think we need to get a hold of Leonards book,  ;)


Done..... Amazon.com has used copies ahhh the wonders of the internet, they also have "Valdez is Comming, and another Western by Leonade I never heard of:

http://www.amazon.com/Hombre-Elmore-Leonard/dp/0380822245/sr=1-1/qid=1162866759/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5044587-6626428?ie=UTF8&s=books


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: CISCO on November 07, 2006, 12:23:58 AM
thanks !  ;D


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on November 07, 2006, 12:39:28 PM
the review of the book by suetonius at amazon.com lets one presume the flaw was there (in an aggravated form) from the start.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 18, 2006, 05:03:18 PM
Well the book arrived the other day and I have been reading it. So far its not quite the same as the film. The story is told sort of in flash back style by Menedez's helper the blonde kid Peter Lee Blake, who is the newly wed in the film but in the book he's not married to the blonde girl who in the book is an indian captive that's just been released. He meets her just before the stage takes off

Russel inherits a ranch not a boarding house in the book, so there is no Jesse (Diane Cilantro) boarding house manager part nor is there a Cameron Mitchell sherrif backstory though his character name Frank Braden is used in the book instead of Cicero Grimes.

The incident at Delgado's is the first time the narrator sees Hombre, its also explained that Newman's character has three names John Russel, Ish-kay-nay, and Tres Hombre, he got the name in a fight with renegades and the muleskinners he was with said he fought like Tres Hombres.

Cicero Grimes (Richard Boone) is called Frank Braden in the book (the name of Cameron Mitchell's lawman gone bad character in the film) and his dialogue in the film is right out of the book. So with the coach are Menedez, Blake, McLaren, Dr. & Audra Favor, Russel and Braden. I've gotten as far as the groups flight from the stagecoach into the desert.

Will report back as I get further.  8)


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: CISCO on November 18, 2006, 06:52:00 PM
the best is yet to come,
and, away we go joe...
new s**t has come to light  ;D

possibly, if a prequel script, using the book it seams possible "hombre 2" taking newman's character further by exploring hombre's past.
and, re-igniting new intrest in the original folks may have missed. boone extrudes evil. like frank, a menace extradinaire. boone, also the master of the "slow burn ".... " this is the part i hate the most "

John Russell: Hit something, Mendez, first the men, then the horses.
Henry Mendez: I don't know. Just to sit here and wait to kill them?
John Russell: If there was some other way, we'd do it.
Henry Mendez: Maybe we can keep going and try to outrun them.
John Russell: If you run, they're gonna catch you, they're gonna kill you. You believe that more than you believe anything.
Henry Mendez: All right.
John Russell: And try not to puke. You may have to lie in it for a long time.

hombre has 100 one liners.

[Grimes/ boone has just delivered an ultimatum to Mendez and the others]
John Russell: Hey. I got a question. How are you planning to get back down that hill?
Grimes: Now you wait a minute! I'm getting back down the same way I came up! (Begins running back down the hill. Russell shoots him as he is running)
Jessie: [as Grimes crawls away after being shot] Cicero Grimes, meet John Russell.



Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 19, 2006, 03:49:21 AM
Its my favorite AW, lol, now if it just had a Morricone score...... you can almost just hear the jew's harp twangs after Hombre's one liners, lol.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: CISCO on November 19, 2006, 06:16:02 AM
Its my favorite AW, lol, now if it just had a Morricone score...... you can almost just hear the jew's harp twangs after Hombre's one liners, lol.
when i mentioned a prequel i was thinking the exact thing. wasn't hombre and indian policeman hired to
protect the coach ? heard that somewhere.  like TMWNN
i wonder how newman's character became that savvy
in dealing w/ the situation the're all in. hombre has to wet nurse and explain options at every turn.  ;D


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 19, 2006, 09:11:52 AM
Ok just finished the 184 page novel. Like I stated before in the story there is no Jesse, Kathleen McLaren the girl (17 yrs old) who was taken captive ( by Apaches for about a month) and is being returned to her parents was split into two people in the screenplay.

In the story she is an attraction to Carl Allen, Menendez's helper who becomes Peter Lee Blake in the screenplay and McLaren character splits into both his young unsatified wife Doris Blake, and tough as nails Jesse.

In the novel its Kathleen who eventually becomes the outspoken one, speaking for the "human" race rather than taking sides, always goading Russel to do whats right she says "people help other people."

In the novel its Kathleen who yells out to Dr. Favor at the San Pedro Mine and gives them away.

Russell "I want to know why you helped."

Kathleen "Because he needed help! I didn't ask if he deserved it.....Like that woman (Audra Favor) needs to live, its not up to us to decide if she deserves it."

Russell "We only help her, huh?"

Kathleen "Do we have another choice?"

Russell "Not Help her."

Kathleen "Just let her die."

Russell "Thats up to Braden (Grimes). We have another thing to look at, if we don't give him the money he has to come get it."

Kathleen "You'd sacrifice a human life for that money, that's what you're saying."

Russell "Go ask that woman what she thinks of human life.  Ask her what human life is worth at San Carlos when they run out of meat."

Kathleen "That isn't any fault of hers."

Russell "She said those dirty Indians eat dogs. You remember that? She couldn't eat a dog no matter how hungry she was..... Go ask her if she'd eat a dog now."

Kathleen "That's why she insulted the poor hungry miserable Indians and you'd let her die for that!"

Russell  "We were talking about human life."

Kathleen "Even if there was no money, nothing to be gained, you'd let her die! ....Because she thinks Indians are dirty and no better than animals."

Russell "It makes you angry why talk about it."

Kathleen "I want to talk about it, .... I would like you to ask me what I think a human life is worth... a dirty human Apache life. Go on ask me. Ask me about the ones who took me from my home and keep me past a month. Ask me about the dirty things they did, what the women did when the men weren'y around and what the men did when we weren't running but were hiding somewhere and there was time to waste. I dare you to ask me!" ..... "I haven't seen my folks in two months....or my little brother. Just he and I were home and he ran and I don't know what happend to him, whether they caught him or what." .... "What do they think of an eight year old human life?... Do they just kill little boys who can't defend themselves?"

Russell "If they don't want them."

Kathleen silently dared Russell to say something else.

A few pages later as Audra is screaming for help and Russell asks each of those in the cabin if they want to go and help Mrs. Favor, they all decline even Kathleen. Russell then takes off his Apache moccasins and throws them at Kathleen, "Wear those, You run faster when the shooting starts " He then takes out his boots and puts them on."

At end of book.

John Russell was buried in Sweetmary. It was strange the neither the McLaren girl nor Henry Mendez nor I said much about him until after the funeral, and when we did talk found there wasn't much to be said.

You can look at something for a long time and not see it until it runs off. That was how we had looked at John Russell. Now, nobody questioned why he walked down that slope. What we ask ourselves was why we ever thought he wouldn't.

Maybe he was showing off a little bit when he asked each of us if we wanted to walk down to the Favor woman, nowing nobody would but himself.

Maybe he let us think a lot of things about him that weren't true. But as Russell would say that was up to us...... Russell never changed the whole time, though I think everyone else did in some way. He did what he felt had to be done. Even if it meant dying. So maybe you don't have to understand him. You just know him.

"Take a good look at John Russell. You will never see another one like him as long as you live" That first day, at Delgado's, Henry Mendez said it all.

end

 


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on November 19, 2006, 03:16:56 PM
They talk too much. Better the movie, though it still has a more talkative Hombre of what I think is the right measure.



Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 19, 2006, 03:40:03 PM
Yea the film is better, the book paradoxically enough though has no dialog for the final confrontation between Boone & Newman, no "I wonder what Hell is gonna look like" and no "I want to know his name" from the Mexican.

So those classic lines were probably added by screenwriters Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank Jr.   
 


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: CISCO on November 19, 2006, 10:17:55 PM
joe, many thanks sharing.  maybe newman caught FOD went to the best one liner script writter and said re do w/ my character saying as little as possible.  i think "cool hand luke" was newman's next move. " i can eat 50 eggs in one hour". dragline: whay did you say 35 ? why 50 !. luke : "it just seamed like a nice round figure. it'll
be something to do ".

hombre my fav AW as well  ;)



Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on November 24, 2006, 07:36:59 PM
One more thing the book makes clear that the film doesn't. When Hombe takes off after the stage robbery the book informs you that he heads up and down the mountains for the specific reason that the horses of Grimes & crew cannot follow and must circumnavigate the obstacles, this is their only advantage on foot and how they can keep ahead since it takes the horses longer to pick their way around.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 29, 2008, 01:42:17 PM

I thought I'd bump this up in memory of the late, great Paul Newman. May he rest in peace.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: T.H. on May 27, 2010, 03:41:27 PM
Can't say I enjoyed this one too much. The last hour really dragged. This should have been an 80 minute movie. And after the heist, which too took way too long to develop, nothing really happens. There were many possibilities but the movie takes no chances. Fox is easily my least favorite studio from the classic era, especially their 60s output. Of all the studios that should have their own channel, of course it's only Fox.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Groggy on May 27, 2010, 04:58:19 PM
It's great. O0


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: stanton on May 28, 2010, 03:14:00 AM
Here and there Hombre gets a bit pretentious, which is noticeable, but not really distracting.

Apart from that this is for me one of the best westerns ever. Very well directed and very well acted. With a breathtaking scenery and photography by James Wong Howe, which is especially striking after having seen too much SWs in the last years, which generally do not care for landscapes.

9,5/10


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Dust Devil on May 28, 2010, 03:18:00 AM
9,5/10

Hombre, are feeling generous today or what? :D

9.5, that's the rating I'd give OUATITW if I'd have to rate it.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: cigar joe on May 28, 2010, 03:32:28 AM
I give it a high rank too, its one of the top AW's. O0


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: moviesceleton on May 28, 2010, 03:44:09 AM
9.5, that's the rating I'd give OUATITW if I'd have to rate it.
:oBLASPHEMY! >:(


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: T.H. on May 28, 2010, 09:11:28 AM
Here and there Hombre gets a bit pretentious, which is noticeable, but not really distracting.

Apart from that this is for me one of the best westerns ever. Very well directed and very well acted. With a breathtaking scenery and photography by James Wong Howe, which is especially striking after having seen too much SWs in the last years, which generally do not care for landscapes.

9,5/10

I didn't care for the visuals whatsoever. Brown was too dominant. I feel like I saw a different movie than the rest of you guys. It was just a very bland experience imo.



Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: stanton on May 28, 2010, 12:32:06 PM
Hombre, are feeling generous today or what? :D

9.5, that's the rating I'd give OUATITW if I'd have to rate it.

That's too low.

OUTW gets of course a 10. And GBU too.

But I think I prefer Hombre to all the other Leone films. On a good and generous day.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Groggy on May 28, 2010, 01:36:19 PM
Well, I'll grant the direction isn't terribly stylish. But you've got an excellent story, good shootouts and great characters, especially Richard Boone.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 08, 2011, 01:53:42 AM
Just saw Hombre on Fox News Channel. I really enjoyed it though judging from the discussion here, I'm probably not as absolutely crazy about it as most of the rest of you seem to be; I think it's very good, but not a classic. Another terrific performance by Newman


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Groggy on May 16, 2015, 10:22:21 AM
DVD Savant reviews the new Blu-Ray release:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s4809homb.html (http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s4809homb.html)

Savant's review has one major shortcoming, ignoring Richard Boone's excellent villain turn. Instead he praises Frank Silvera - huh?


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: stanton on May 17, 2015, 02:57:09 AM
But Silvera is also fantastic. His role is pretty untypical for a genre film. He is for a long time only in the background, seems just to be another faceless genre-Mexican who is expected to be the first of the gang to die, but then turns by and by into the most dangerous (and rational) of the bandits.

Hombre is such an underrated film. Probably only the wrong director. Name not craftmanship.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 23, 2015, 03:27:17 PM
Perfect 5/5 for image quality: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hombre-Blu-ray/49047/#Review

Ordered and shipped!


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 26, 2015, 10:49:11 AM
Blu-ray in da house! Spinning tonite!


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 27, 2015, 06:30:10 AM
OK, took a look: fabulous. The new transfer is so good that I could really concentrate on the film for the first time (in the past I've only ever seen it on TV, which I tend to watch distractedly). Anyway, I've got some questions.

When the group gets to the mine the first time there's talk of one of the water bags going missing. At the end of the picture after  they've returned to the mine, the group is holed up in the structure up on the hill. Frederic March shows up and he appears to be on his last legs and he tries an old water pump and nothing comes out. Diane Cilento mutters something about him not remembering that they'd left the water bag behind. She calls out to March and tells him the water bag is in the mine shaft. March gratefully staggers over starts guzzling. Then Richard Boone and Co. ride into view.

Question #1: Why did they leave the water bag behind in the first place?
Question #2: How did Diane Cilento know where the water bag was?
Question #3: If the group members knew where the water bag was, why hadn't they reclaimed it for themselves? Why didn't they have it in the cabin? How could they take the risk that Boone and his boys would come by and cut them off from it; further, that the Boone gang would find it and use it themselves?

Question #4: Why were the Boone gang so cavalier about water to begin with? They get the money, but then don't think to take the water bags? Then one of the villains goes back for a bag as an afterthought. He takes only one of the bags. He shoots a hole in another bag. Huh? How can he not know that the gang is going to need every bag they can get?

Question #5: Why does Boone develop this elaborate plan to hold up the stage, when he can rob the Favors in town even before the journey begins? Remember, Cam Mitchell, the sheriff, has already thrown in with the robbers. There is no one to oppose the men. The Favors are just as defenseless in town as out, and it requires a lot less trouble to rob them in town.

Question #6: For the climax, why does Newman give the rifle to the kid instead of Martin Balsam? We know Balsam can shoot; we don't really know what the kid can do. Why is he the better choice? Also, don't they have more weapons? Why can't they both cover Newman, especially from two different angles? (which, as it turns out, would have been really helpful).


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on December 31, 2016, 09:01:10 AM
Rewatched. To Jinx observations I might add the scarce probability that March could be welcome by the group after he tried to f...'em in the desert. So the last 20' make really little sense characterwise. Still 8/10 thanx to the 4 male leads.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: titoli on January 01, 2017, 11:33:55 AM
OK, took a look: fabulous. The new transfer is so good that I could really concentrate on the film for the first time (in the past I've only ever seen it on TV, which I tend to watch distractedly). Anyway, I've got some questions.

When the group gets to the mine the first time there's talk of one of the water bags going missing. At the end of the picture after  they've returned to the mine, the group is holed up in the structure up on the hill. Frederic March shows up and he appears to be on his last legs and he tries an old water pump and nothing comes out. Diane Cilento mutters something about him not remembering that they'd left the water bag behind. She calls out to March and tells him the water bag is in the mine shaft. March gratefully staggers over starts guzzling. Then Richard Boone and Co. ride into view.

Question #1: Why did they leave the water bag behind in the first place?
Question #2: How did Diane Cilento know where the water bag was?
Question #3: If the group members knew where the water bag was, why hadn't they reclaimed it for themselves? Why didn't they have it in the cabin? How could they take the risk that Boone and his boys would come by and cut them off from it; further, that the Boone gang would find it and use it themselves?

Question #4: Why were the Boone gang so cavalier about water to begin with? They get the money, but then don't think to take the water bags? Then one of the villains goes back for a bag as an afterthought. He takes only one of the bags. He shoots a hole in another bag. Huh? How can he not know that the gang is going to need every bag they can get?

Question #5: Why does Boone develop this elaborate plan to hold up the stage, when he can rob the Favors in town even before the journey begins? Remember, Cam Mitchell, the sheriff, has already thrown in with the robbers. There is no one to oppose the men. The Favors are just as defenseless in town as out, and it requires a lot less trouble to rob them in town.

Question #6: For the climax, why does Newman give the rifle to the kid instead of Martin Balsam? We know Balsam can shoot; we don't really know what the kid can do. Why is he the better choice? Also, don't they have more weapons? Why can't they both cover Newman, especially from two different angles? (which, as it turns out, would have been really helpful).

Just read the novel. Q. #1 No explanation is given in the novel either but the water bag is repeatedly mentioned and all the passengers (Q#2) are aware of it. The only supposition I can make  is that is left there in case of back trip. But it is only a supposition.
Q#3 Because it would give them away to the gang. In fact they hole up in the cabin doing a kind of roundabout trip which allows them not to leave traces and easily assume that the gang will pass them by. The moment the 17y.o. girl (who incorporates the Cilento character) just rescued from Apache's captivity is moved to pity by the March character they're fucked up. And she claims her folly was right and would do it again: considering her age and her recent experience she is more justified than the Cilento rendition.
Q.#4 They do not plan to have trouble going back to base. And the shooting of the water bag is made out of spite of hombre's spiteful words. BTW, the  party who was seen in the tavern scene and is the first to leave the wagon scene is said to have filled his canteen with whisky instead of water: that's why the gang  goes into trouble.
Q#5 ? In front of a whole town of witnesses who could react? Naah.
Q#6 Balsam shewed his inability to keep cold blood before, when he opened up fire much in advance. So Newman gives the boy a chance. BTW, Newman is also exposed to the fire from the third party behind the barrack, so his chances are really scarce and his action all the more unjustified.     


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 24, 2017, 02:43:17 AM
Just saw the movie for the second time (TCM). Print looks perfect.

I give the movie an 8/10


TCM was showing it as part of the TCM Spotlight series. This month's spotlight is on villains, called "March Malice."

The two Westerns  they showed in this months's series are THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (spotlight on, of course, the villain Liberty Valance, played by Lee Marvin); and HOMBRE, for Richard Boone's character.


Title: Re: Hombre (1966)
Post by: Spikeopath on May 03, 2017, 05:49:59 AM
Adding my coins worth.

We all die, it's just a question of when?

Hombre is directed by Martin Ritt and adapted to screenplay by Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank Jr from the Elmore Leonard novel. It stars Paul Newman, Richard Boone, Fredric March, Diane Cilento, Cameron Mitchell and Barbara Rush. Music is by David Rose and cinematography by James Wong Howe. Plot finds Newman as John Russell, a white man who has been raised by the Apache. Travelling on a stagecoach after collecting his inheritance, Russell finds himself ostracised by his fellow white travellers. That is until something goes wrong and the group find they now need Russell's skills in order to survive.

If it's all right with you lady, I just didn't feel like bleeding for him.

One of the best things about 1960s Westerns was that writers and directors were now more comfortable in portraying the Native Americans more honestly. Yes there were some excellent ones in the 50s as well, but as the 60s wore on things started to get more gritty, characterisations had more daring depth to them and darker human thematics drove the narratives on. One of the finest of the decade is Hombre, a literate and often bleak story that thrives on truisms as it spins off about racism, tolerance, corruption, selfishness, hypocrisy and vengeance. Crucially here the makers aren't just about kicking the white man for injustices against the Native Americans, Russell, too, is not being portrayed as a stoic, moral, defender of the Apache. He too has major flaws, his bile consistently rising, he's one cold fish. The film does indeed have a liberal slant, but it's also kinked in places and ultimately plays out as a complex morality piece, while there's not much to like about any of the characters here, this is down and dirty stuff.

You wagged your tail in the mans face and got his attention.

The dialogue is sparse, but what there is is to be savoured. The script has intelligent barbs and rough edged ironies dotted within the exchanges, the group dynamic is frayed from the off and Ravetch and Frank's script keeps the mood sombre. And with Ritt unhurried and pacing it on the simmer, it's a film begging to be heard and understood. Filmed in Panavision on location in the Coronado National Forest area and the Helvetia Mines in Pima County (a real ghost town), film has a beauty that belies the tone of the story. Photographer James Wong Howe composes some striking images for the scenery and deals in memorable deep-focus shots for John Russell's telling moments. Howe, Ritt and Newman were a great team, four years earlier they had made Hud, with Ritt and Newman getting nominated for Academy Awards (Best Director/Actor respectively), and Howe winning for Best Cinematography (Black & White). Their understanding of each other is evident in Hombre, it's a lesson in how to get three of your key Western elements right (direction, photography and leading actor).

Cast are led superbly by Newman, piercing blue eyes with an icy cold demeanour, there's a boldness to the role that brings out a wonderfully simmering bitterness to Newman's acting. Perfect foil to Newman is Boone (The Tall T/Rio Conchos), who is nicely restrained in an uncouth bully boy role. Balsam (Psycho/Cape Fear) is one of the few character actors of the time who could get away with playing a Mexican without inducing cringes, and March (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde/A Star is Born) scores well in a two fold character portrayal of some shiftiness. Of the girls it's Cilento (Tom Jones) who leaves the lasting impression, she has Jessie as a lady not for turning, who has taken her knocks but ploughs on with strength of mind and a tongue as sharp as a tack. Rush (It Came from Outer Space/Bigger than Life) is the weak link, never once looking or sounding right in a Western setting, she compounds this by looking hopeless on a horse. A decent actress in the right genre, but an Oater? No way.

That gripe about Rush aside, this is a cracker of a Western. Not one for the all action guns a toting brigade for sure, but one for the adult who likes a bit of moody cranial splendour in their Western diets. 9/10