Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 16, 2017, 02:22:08 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Films of Sergio Leone
| |-+  Other Films (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  The Man from Laramie (1955)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Man from Laramie (1955)  (Read 12609 times)
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #75 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.

Logged

Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #76 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.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8447

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #77 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  Wink

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
mike siegel
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Call me Kowalski, like the guy in Vanishing Point


View Profile WWW
« Reply #78 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 Smiley.

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.

Logged


New Sam Peckinpah forum online!  www.earnedinblood.com
mike siegel
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Call me Kowalski, like the guy in Vanishing Point


View Profile WWW
« Reply #79 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 Smiley. 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)

Logged


New Sam Peckinpah forum online!  www.earnedinblood.com
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8447

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #80 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.)

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Moorman
Gunslinger
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 251


View Profile
« Reply #81 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...

« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 05:32:25 PM by Moorman » Logged

Spikeopath
Guest
« Reply #82 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

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.042 seconds with 19 queries.