Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 20, 2017, 06:01:13 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
 31 
 on: Today at 07:43:20 AM 
Started by cigar joe - Last post by Jessica Rabbit
Quote
The plot from The Big Sleep makes sense, and is not that difficult to follow
Stanton, wow, you're good.  Smiley I guess you'd really have to concentrate on the plot to follow it, and it's so much more fun just to watch Bogart and Bacall. I still don't know who killed Sean Regan.

Quote
And of course as in all good films storytelling and style are more important than plot or content.
I've been preaching that from the pulpit for years. Wink

 32 
 on: Today at 07:39:00 AM 
Started by drinkanddestroy - Last post by Jessica Rabbit
Quote
by the way Jessica, have you seen Doorway to Hell?
D & D, no I've only heard about it. I'll look into it.

 33 
 on: Today at 07:36:57 AM 
Started by cigar joe - Last post by Dust Devil
Watched it after a looooong time: it's a decently entertaining 7/10, though a lot seems familiar, not to say cheap in places.

 34 
 on: Today at 07:33:03 AM 
Started by dave jenkins - Last post by stanton
Dave is right.
The 3:10 remake is really too often on the stupid site of things. And the directing is often quite uninspired. A very disappointing film considering the original's quality and some fine actors, especially a very charismatic Crowe.

I think it's worse than the Mag 7 remake, which is also nothing to write home about.

When los Coens are not able to get a really good film out of a remake of a classic western, why should muddle filmers like Fuqua or Mangold succeed?

 35 
 on: Today at 07:24:38 AM 
Started by PowerRR - Last post by Dust Devil
The Words (2012) - 6/10

You won't really miss much if you don't see it, as it feels rather predictable in places. Time-waster flick.

 36 
 on: Today at 07:20:35 AM 
Started by PowerRR - Last post by Dust Devil
Looks and Smiles (1981) - 7.5/10

Now that's what you call realistic cinema, Kenny. The working class getting screwed in jolly old capitalist UK, compliments of Mrs. Thatcher. Flawless casting, but then again, having seen they weren't in anything else before or after I'm having doubts they weren't ''playing''.


* That UK (English) English, though... Lips Sealed

 37 
 on: Today at 06:45:25 AM 
Started by drinkanddestroy - Last post by XhcnoirX
I like this film and I generally watch it back-to-back with The Roaring Twenties.

Nice combo! Gladys George's Panama Smith in The Roaring Twenties is awesome (and tragic).

The reason i'm gonna purchase this is because i saw two things that i KNOW directly influenced the scarface movie which starred Pacino.

I hadn't thought about these references before, but given the director of Scarface is Brian De Palma, I'm not surprised he went to movies from the same era as the original Scarface for additional inspiration. Part of what makes his movies fun to watch (IMHO) is trying to spot all the movies and directors that inspired him (I mean this in the best possibly way, I like De Palma).

 38 
 on: Today at 06:39:58 AM 
Started by dave jenkins - Last post by cigar joe
The remake of 3:10 to Yuma had the perfect balance that i wish this movie had. In the 3:10 to Yuma remake, they made a modern western ( not avengers movie), and spiced it up with just enough entertainment to keep the modern microwave audience tuned in.

Sorry to burst your bubble here, you're judging the remake with what you yourself have admitted was a limited knowledge of Westerns to begin with. Take my point of view. Living in the 50s we were inundated with Westerns, not only on film but prime time TV had 20+Westerns spread over every night of the week.

I agree, spicing up the Genre is a good idea to attract the "microwave audience" but it's got to make what I guess we can call "Western" sense in the story, especially for Western Aficionados.

To me the Original 3:10 to Yuma is still superior to the remake. I applauded the fact that they attempted to make a Western but it's extremely hard to get that feeling from the "Golden Age" Westerns right in a lot of respects, one of the major factors for this is the lack of personnel to get it acted right, to look right, and sound right. They, you could say, sort of had a "Western infrastructure" in place in the past that was used over and over again by film personnel who knew how to do it over and over in a way that got that  Mythos of the West right, not necessarily historically correct.

Remember the first Western was "The Great Train Robbery," it was filmed when the Wild Bunch was still active and robbing trains. A lot of the Western actors, once filmmaking moved to Hollywood, were originally out of work real cowboys, or they lived during the transition from the horse and buggy days and knew how to ride horses and drive teams. They had those Western US speech patterns, regional dialects, western slang words, etc., etc. It was a hands on knowledge.

(An old timer friend of mine's father was a teamster. He hauled freight wagons around central Montana to ranches and towns. The old timer told me that things didn't really start to change out West until after WWII. Railroads, and the horse were still predominant before the war, the larger towns had some electricity but the rural areas stayed pretty primitive. After the war the perfection of the technology of tracked vehicles opened it all up fast.)

Anyway getting back to the making of Westerns, so these original filmmakers sort of just turned out these films like a stamp mill, continually polishing their craft through the years, the next generation learned first hand from the first, continuing to perfect their craft. When this second generation started to die off Western production also started to wane. (The end of the "Steam Age" was also towards the end of the 1950s a lot of the Western Shortline RRs that still used steam locomotives converted to diesel) So you also lost that infrastructure background resource for making a Western look realistic. Jet aircraft leaving contrails across big sky country screwed up a lot of Western Landscape shots.

So the hand me down hands on knowledge on how to make a Western, had no place to go and the old West and interest in Westerns was gone by 1980s. After that any Western made had to be recreated from scratch, with highly variable and inconsistent results. Today you got screenwriters who don't know squat trying to write Westerns with no knowledge of the West other than them watching Westerns and inserting PC ideas into stories, and it just don't feel right.

If you were born in the 1980s you wouldn't know the difference, and any Western made is a big deal.

I initially said (3:10 (2007)) that "It's a good worthy shot at a Western but it's not a Classic." (I was hoping we'd start improving from it.)

After that, we started seriously debating the film and getting a bit heated with each other pointing out the flaws. dave jenkins then posted in response to this

Quote from: The Firecracker on September 07, 2007, 10:50:31 PM

The 200 dollars offered by Prince was stupid as well. Would the town's folk risk being hanged by firing at a marshall? Doubtful.
Also, why didn't the Marshall make a counter deal promising the town's folk DOUBLE the amount of cash Prince was offering to fire upon Wade's gang?


this:

It's even stupider than that. The gang rides into town and sets up under the hotel window from which five armed men are overwatching. The gang are murderers, wanted men, known to law enforcement officers. The men in the hotel room include three peace officers. They have every legal and moral right to open up on the gang as soon as they appear. They also have the advantage of higher ground. No additional advantage can be gained by delaying. It is the height of idiocy that the men in the hotel room don't immediately start firing on the gang below! Further, even if they were to delay, the moment the gang starts offering the 200 dollar bounty the lawmen would begin firing just to shut the men up and discourage takers. But the men in the hotel room are completely passive. Yet this is just one stupidity in a sequence of hundreds in this stupid movie.

Equally stupid things happen on the trail from the farm to Contention. The group leaves at night, under cover of darkness. Presumably, speed and concealment are the two things the party is most concerned with. In the very next scene, however, we see them lounging about by a campfire. Why have they stopped? They want to make time, and they should want to do it in the dark. Also, stopping means having to put a watch on Wade while the others sleep. For some reason, Wade is allowed freedom of movement throughout the night (his manacled hands aren't much inconvenienced). Then, only one man is left to watch the notorious killer (a union rule?). In the morning, the watchman is dead. Incredibly, the men just write him off and proceed with their journey! All psychological plausibility goes out of the movie at that point. If you are traveling with a murderer, and he murders one of your company, you just don't continue on with the status quo ante. You reassess the situation. In the present case, you realize that getting the guy to Yuma may not be do-able, that even with your full crew it was gonna be tough, but now with one man short it is likely impossible. The guy who decided Wade had to go to Yuma (and who is bankrolling the expedition) is along, and therefore should call an audible. Even if he doesn't, the rest of the crew should prevail upon him to change the terms of the expedition. They should realize that all their lives are likely forfeit if Wade continues to live. They should do the rational thing: kill Wade on the spot.

Instead, they go merrily on their way, allowing Wade to kill again. Even then the group doesn't learn.

Then there is the "shortcut" through the pass, which we are told is controlled by hostile Indians. This shortcut requires another night and another campfire. What the f***?

Then there's the stupid digression with the mining camp. What the f***?

Finally, reaching Contention, more stupidities abound, as cited above (but not exhaustively. It would take 2 pages of text to enumerate all the idiotic things that occur there).

The original film was not flawless. It had great style and a good set-up, but the story turned stupid at the end. One problem was with the basic concept: waiting for a train. If you are traveling with a prisoner, the only reason to take him to a hotel is to conceal him. The moment his whereabouts is known, the hotel is a liability. You have enormous blind spots in a hotel room, and your mobility is compromised. Also, getting the guy from the hotel to the depot is something of a problem (as we see). Better to forget the hotel and go straight to the depot. Who cares if there aren't enough chairs for everyone, at least you have clear fields of fire in all directions.

But why wait for the train at all? Such a tactic fixes you in place, and allows the gang to catch up. A more prudent course would be to ride up the line toward the oncoming train and hail it as it approaches. You keep ahead of the outlaws, and then gain an earlier speed advantage. Also, why not use the telegraph and call for reinforcements? Maybe Contention is a worthless town, but why wouldn't there be towns up and down the line where reliable helpers could be recruited? Why not contact the army? They too have an interest in seeing Wade and his gang brought to justice.

If you do a remake of a film, you should set out to improve on the original. In the case of 3:10, a serious revision in the plot was called for. The remakers not only didn't fix the old problems, they created hundreds more. I'm really disappointed that they didn't adopt the obvious solution: put the good guys on the train early, and then have Wade's gang try to stop it. A running train battle would have been cool. The most important thing, though, would have been to have characters acting like rational beings, not pawns in a stupid plot. This remake gets 1/5, as do all stupid films.


If you want to join/revive the debate have at it the link to the original thread is here: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=6074.msg95454#msg95454




 39 
 on: Today at 06:29:36 AM 
Started by Jupa - Last post by stanton
That's pretty much the way I roll, too. Which is why I've seen GBU about 10 times more than West.

For me probably the other way round.
OUTW belongs to the films I watched the most. Next to 2001, TWB, PG & BtK, Eight and a Half and a few more. GBU is of course close, and Leone's other westerns (of which I surely watched MNIN the most) are also featured pretty high on that unwritten list.

Peckinpah and Leone are always fun to watch ...

 40 
 on: Today at 06:13:16 AM 
Started by Jupa - Last post by Cusser
GBU had too many instances where Leone wanted me to accept the implausible.  The scene were Blondie is rescued by the mortar fire. 

I started a list once detailing where pure serendipity helped in GBU.  Above, for sure.  Stevens blurting out information about the hidden gold when Angel Eyes knew nothing about that.  The carriage in the dessert at the perfect time.  Tuco and Blondie being so close to Mission San Antonio.  Tuco and Blondie ending up in prison camp where Angel Eyes was.  Angel Eyes overhearing that Wallace had called out "Bill Carson".  Tuco who knew so much about guns (shop scene) couldn't get Wallace's pistol to work.  Tuco finding his way to the town where Blondie and Angel Eyes were.  Others as well....




The war keeps intefering/intervening on the adventures of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly... that IS the story  Smiley

I first saw GBU when I was 15.  I didn't realize then that GBU is a huge anti-war film, one may gloss over that at first.  Leone definitely intended that.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.041 seconds with 15 queries.