Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 22, 2020, 02:32:32 AM
:


Show Posts

* Messages | Topics | Attachments

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - stanton

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 218
1
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2020 Awards Season (for 2019 movies)
« on: February 10, 2020, 11:40:29 AM »
There have been several mediocre films that have "won" Best Picture
https://www.readersdigest.ca/culture/best-picture-winners-ranked/


Sure, and some of the worst like Ghandi or Ben Hur are far away from the end of the list.

And many of the named alternatives are also rather forgettable.

But such is life in an unjust world ...

And GBU?
Tricky, but now that not-English films can also win, and now that westerns in general are not viewed as garbage, maybe ...

2
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2020 Awards Season (for 2019 movies)
« on: February 10, 2020, 07:05:17 AM »
Personally, I don't think the same film should be allowed to be in both Best Picture and International Feature Film categories.   1917 should have entered both under that criteria.


The International Feature Film Award is, I think, only for Foreign Language films.

3
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Rate The Last Movie You Saw
« on: February 10, 2020, 06:51:15 AM »
Yes, it is indeed a pretty powerful film, despite being a totally fatalistic film in theme and tone. 

Yet Peckinpah was in a disastrous condition at the time of the making, and some scenes are not played out to their potential limit. I actually think that some of the violence is in all versions wrongly edited. But the episodic structure in combination with the individual quality of the scenes make the film work in every version.

The short theatrical version (105 min) is merely a string of violent shoot-outs, but that gives the film a quality of its own, which gets then lost by adding scenes in which the themes of the film are deepened, but no violence is apparent.  In that short version the film still preserves its elegiac atmosphere and its lyrical feeling, most of the film's ideas are visible, only a bit less easy to spot.

I actually think that the current 115 min version would benefit from some further editing, by cutting out some more of the new scenes, and by adding a few shorter elements of the used scenes from the preview version. I think for example that the wife scene you mentioned is much too talky, much too obviously showing what it is about, and not that well played. In the preview version the scene ends with Garrett hesitating at his picket fence, before he enters his home. This alone does not tell us everything of the wife scene's content, but still enough to deepen Garrett's inner conflicts.

4
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Rate The Last Movie You Saw
« on: February 10, 2020, 02:14:44 AM »
Yes!

The 2005 cut is the one from the special edition DVD, right? If so that's the one I had seen on my 2 previous viewings (I own that DVD). The film felt very similar, I didn't notice a difference.

I have no idea what I saw the very first time, it was whatever they put on TV in the early 2000's.

By the way, here is a terrific article about the movie with nice pics and a pdf of the screenplay:
https://cinephiliabeyond.org/sam-peckinpahs-pat-garrett-and-billy-the-kid-finally-got-the-respect-it-deserved/

Hey, great, that screenplay is pretty interesting. Thanks for the link.
I assume it is the shooting script, which was largely altered and re-written by Peckinpah.

In 2000 it was one of the other 2 versions. If you can remember if the ingenious Knockin' on Heavan's Door scene was with or without the lyrics, than you know which version you saw. Another conspicuous indicator would be if the film started with teh 1909 time frame.

Unlike Novecento I think, and I'm unfortunately in a minority with that, that the 2005 cut is  (apart from the famous yet unreleased Stanton cut) the best so far, the one which does the film the most justice. I also think that the theatrical version already worked very, very well, despite all the missing things.

5
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Rate The Last Movie You Saw
« on: February 09, 2020, 08:03:19 AM »
It is the 2005 cut, a compromise between the theatrical version and the preview version.

It has Knockin on Heaven's Door with the lyrics, yes?

6
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Rate The Last Movie You Saw
« on: January 31, 2020, 10:51:17 AM »
Yeah but we’ve already discussed that and you know you’re wrong as hell.



How can I be wrong on my own entertainometer? That's practically impossible ...

7
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Rate The Last Movie You Saw
« on: January 31, 2020, 10:27:56 AM »
Then why a 7/10 for a bore? Boring films are automatically beneath 4/10 on my entertainometer.

8
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Rate The Last Movie You Saw
« on: January 29, 2020, 01:43:28 AM »

Re: JOKER film format
The negative of.35mm is 1:33 but 1/4 of the frame is cropped to produce the 1:85 ' widescreen' ratio.


Actually really 1,37:1 since the 30s, not that it makes a big difference. 1,33:1 was the silent film format, using the whole space of the negative, but that changed for the including of an optical soundtrack.

9
Ennio Morricone / Re: Woman With A Harmonica
« on: January 26, 2020, 09:41:55 AM »
Hmm, too pompous ...

10
Other Films / Re: Ulzana's Raid (1972)
« on: January 23, 2020, 02:11:33 AM »
The German Blu comes at least with a VHS transfer of the European cut.

Strange that Kino did not add the 4 known extra scenes from that cut as bonus. You can still find them on the www.

11
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: The Big Sleep (1946)
« on: January 17, 2020, 04:17:00 AM »
The film by Michael Winner is pretty mediocre in every respect.

But from the Hawks film two versions exist. The first one is closer to the novel, but the usual one, for which several new scenes were written and shot, is closer to a typical Hawks film. Ironically that happened only after the producers (not Hawks) wished to shoot some new scenes, cause they feared that the film could kill the career of their new promising star Bacall.

12
Other Films / Re: Nevada Smith (1966)
« on: January 15, 2020, 04:43:26 AM »
It's not much of a problem for the film.
At least all the other men are looking obviously much older, so calling him Kid seems right. Actually "kid" refers for me less to his age, but to his greenness.

In Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid it is for me neither a problem, that Kristofferson looks much older than the real Billy ever was.

There are in the end hundreds of films in which the actors are too old for their roles, without much hurting the films.

13
Other Films / Re: Nevada Smith (1966)
« on: January 08, 2020, 01:29:59 AM »



McQueen is supposed to be a teenager at the start of the film although they wisely don't give him a specific age.

In the book he's a teenager, but in the film?

He surely is a bit too old compared to his film mother, but I think it wasn't any problem for the film.

14
Other Films / Re: Nevada Smith (1966)
« on: January 08, 2020, 01:28:02 AM »
I think the code had always crumbled over the years, a bit here and a bit there, but in the late 60s it eroded quickly. But it was actually Nov 1986 when the code was definitely abandoned. I think in 1966 The Wild Bunch could not have been released like in 1969.

In case of violence mid 60s films are surely generally more violent than mid 50s films, but you can always find some stronger stuff in older films, which I did not expect to find there. E.g. in Coroner Creek (1948) our hero Randolph Scott does not only get his revenge by beating his foe with his fists to "pieces", after the fight he looks for a stone and smashes with this the hands of his passed out enemy. There were also some clearly visible squibs used in a few 50s films.

15
Other Films / Re: Nevada Smith (1966)
« on: January 07, 2020, 03:19:27 AM »
Kinda surprised at the generous comments for this 3 star Western.

The only distinguishing aspect is the VERY 60s brutality .
The kind of violence depicted would have never appeared in a film from earlier decades. I think this was made after the Production Code strictures were loosened.
The partial nudity also marks this as a 60s Western.
And, the fact that Sands doesn't try to prevent the robbery is pretty cynical, anti-hero MWNN , behavior.

But , seriously, McQueen as a halfbreed teenager?



Does the film tell us anything about his age? Otherwise he is as old as he looks, and that's ok.

He is surely no anti-hero, but TWNN is also not one. ;)

What do you think is in NS typical for 60s violence in US films? The rape scene, yes, a bit, but apart from that? The production code in the USA fell later, in 1968 I think, at the time of the making of The Wild Bunch

But even the NS rape scene is not that different in impact from similar stuff in the 1958 westerns The Last Train from Gun Hill, Bravados or Man of the West.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 218



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
0.04628