Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 20, 2017, 07:34:12 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
 81 
 on: Yesterday at 09:25:50 AM 
Started by Moorman - Last post by Moorman
I recently watched this on a Criterion Blu Ray i purchased.  I wanted to get it based on the fact i saw the remake, AND, Peter Lorre is in it.  I thought i was gonna see the original of a carbon copy of the remake done in 1956. I was hugely wrong.  The original was almost totally different than the remake.  I don't know if seeing the remake before i saw the original, tainted my view of the original. I don't think so. I believe that Hitchcock himself wasn't very happy with the original himself, and thus the remake of his own movie.

On its own, the original is a OK movie.  I loved the cinematography. The opening snow scenes were nice.  The city of London itself was nice. ( It looked remarkedly like the setting of The Informer).  The acting was OK.  I thought Lorre's character, though ruthless, didn't come across as scary as i would've thought.  The really bad scene for me was the chair throwing scene in the church.  It went into slapstick territory.  I rate this movie a 6 out of 10...  The remake was WAAAAY better...

 82 
 on: Yesterday at 09:12:24 AM 
Started by drinkanddestroy - Last post by Moorman
I saw this a couple months back on TCM.  It was a pretty good movie. The reason i'm gonna purchase this is because i saw two things that i KNOW directly influenced the scarface movie which starred Pacino.  The most obvious is the scene where Cagney's character brings the loot home to give to his mother.  This scene was reworked and done over again in the scarface movie with Pacino.

 The second scene was when Cagney and his partner were holed up in the apartment, not knowing the machine gun is waiting on them to exit.  Again, scarface loosely redid this in the final act when Pacino is gunned down in his mansion.  So, from a movie historical perspective, i believe this is a must have movie for anyone to purchase.  On its own, i would rate it a 7 out of 10...

 83 
 on: Yesterday at 09:08:32 AM 
Started by Jupa - Last post by noodles_leone
Both films are 95% implausible to me Grin
But both also work in their own world. GBU is supposed to feel cartoonish.

 84 
 on: Yesterday at 09:06:28 AM 
Started by cigar joe - Last post by Moorman
Watched this again on the new DVD released & all I can say is WOW, I was impressed. This film has vaulted into my top 20 Westerns.

First of all from beginning to end its hitting on all cylinders. This is a Stage Station film in the tradition of "The Tall T" & "Comanche Station" of the later Bud Boetticher/Randolf Scott Ranown series, all of the action takes place in the stage station and its immediate surroundings.

The opening sequences of a stagecoach crossing the rugged barren wilderness including shots of it passing through snowbound passes are just spectacular. The Black & White cinematography is gorgeous, and add to that the historically accurate use of a team of mules pulling it makes this film one of the best portrayals of stage travel I've seen.  Even the stagecoach itself is adorned with a "headlight" type lantern for night travel.

This is one of those films where you learn some bits of Western lore, its a good example of what was prevalent in that "golden age" of the Western 1950 -1971 when the audience through both films like this and the abondanza of Westerns on TV were innundated with things western where you were  in the aggregate going to a sort of "Western University".  Its a knowledge that is getting lost now and a good example is the illogical stupidity and implausible scenarios in the recent remake of 3:10 to Yuma.

But I've been digressing. Lets get back to Rawhide.

Care is also taken to show how the arriving  team of mules is changed out for a fresh team. For those who are not familiar with western staglines most stage stops "stations" were located between 15 to 20 miles apart so that fresh teams could replace the arriving team.  Each tandem of driver & shotgun made a run of about 100 miles a day, so they would go through between 5-7 stage stops in a shift.  At some stage stations they had lunch or dinner for the passagers, All the aspect of working a stage station was depicted spot on. The set is perfect.

Dir Henry Hathaway does an impressive job in this film,  his shots and compositions are beautiful & all the actors are convincing. This film boasts Edgar Buchanan's finest performance as Stationmaster Sam Todd, and Jack Elam is his creepiest as Treviss, Tyrone Power is Tom Owens, Susan Hayward as Vinne Holt  a tough ex-saloon singer turned protector/surrogate mother of her dead sisters daughter,  Hugh Marlow as the gang leader, George Tobias as Gratz, and a great performance by Dean Jagger as the slow on the uptake "one horse horse thief" Yancy. Its got a very well intergrated low key un-intrusive to the story "love interest" between Power & Hataway a good example of they way it should be handled in all Westerns.

This film should be in anybodies Western Collection, 8/10 or better.

I can't believe i hadn't already commented on this film.  I agree with everything cigarjoe said.  This is a VERY underrated western.  I too have it as one of my top 20 westerns. I agree that it also was better than the Tall T and covered the " station change" process better.  I loved everything about this movie.  Jack Elam played what i consider his best western role in this one. If there is one he did better, please let me know.  I saw this on TCM and will be getting this on dvd or blu ray.  I rate it a 8 out of 10...

 85 
 on: Yesterday at 09:00:09 AM 
Started by cigar joe - Last post by Moorman
I'm gonna revisit this film also.  At the time i wrote my review for it, i was still new to noirs. I have a few under my belt now, so i believe i can go back and give it a more credible review. I also intend to purchase this on dvd or blu ray.  I love the write up Jessica Rabbitt gave also. 

 86 
 on: Yesterday at 08:54:05 AM 
Started by Jupa - Last post by drinkanddestroy
They are both fabulous movies, but GBU had too many instances where Leone wanted me to accept the implausible.  The scene were Blondie is rescued by the mortar fire.  The whole scenario where Angel Eyes suddenly pops up with RANK and RUNNING a prison camp. I didn't like the civil war angle of the movie at all and felt it padded down and dragged the movie.  Tuco is OK, but bordered on slapstick.  Again, GBU is a great movie. I just think that Once Upon a time is the more serious and plausible movie. If i was a professor giving a class to art or film making students, Once would be the movie i would use to teach...

Angel Eyes doesn’t merely “pop up” running the prison camp in the long version - there Is an explanation at the “fort scene”: the Confederate soldier tells him that if Bill Carson is alive he would be at Betterville. This explains why Angel Eyes specifically enlists to work at Betterville. Assuming he had been an officer before the war, it’s not implausible that he enlists and asks to be assigned to the prison camp.

 87 
 on: Yesterday at 08:49:30 AM 
Started by aussiedave - Last post by drinkanddestroy
Thanks for correcting me. You listed some great movies. I gotta go back and watch Casablanca. I tried watching it also back during my movie marathon. I half paid attention to it so I know I didn't do it justice yet.

Casablanca may well be my #1 of all time, besides Leone’s movies.

 88 
 on: Yesterday at 08:48:41 AM 
Started by drinkanddestroy - Last post by drinkanddestroy
I loved him in Key Largo as the heavy. He is one of my favorites also.

I agree. Key Largo is a good performance by him as a gangster - because he is not doing the silly slang, tough-talking gangster as he does in Little Caesar and some other 30’s gangster films. I don’t like the overdone slang tough-talking that is a feature of so many 30’s gangster movies, not only by Robinson. I don’t love Bogie’s earlier gangster films either. But in High Sierra he was great.

 89 
 on: Yesterday at 08:37:53 AM 
Started by Jupa - Last post by Moorman
They are both fabulous movies, but GBU had too many instances where Leone wanted me to accept the implausible.  The scene were Blondie is rescued by the mortar fire.  The whole scenario where Angel Eyes suddenly pops up with RANK and RUNNING a prison camp. I didn't like the civil war angle of the movie at all and felt it padded down and dragged the movie.  Tuco is OK, but bordered on slapstick.  Again, GBU is a great movie. I just think that Once Upon a time is the more serious and plausible movie. If i was a professor giving a class to art or film making students, Once would be the movie i would use to teach...

 90 
 on: Yesterday at 06:51:27 AM 
Started by Jupa - Last post by noodles_leone
From a technical standpoint, OUATITW is better than GBU but the difference isn't as great as between GBU and everything that came before. I think the difference isn't enough to differenciate the two movies for most people (it could be enough for me).

GBU is easier, lighter and funnier to watch.
OUATITW is more serious, ambitious and sad.

So it really depends on your mood. I have a strong preference for OUATITW because I have a thing for ambition and it talks to me on a deeper level (while the teenage nihilism of GBU is borderline ridiculous), but I've watched GBU more often.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.111 seconds with 15 queries.