Nah. But I might be giving it as a Christmas gift . . .
Anyway, as far as the "trilogy" goes my favorite is El Dorado because I prefer Mitchum in the Dean Martin role and James Caan in the Ricky Nelson role.Also, we get outta the town for a little bit so it feels a bit more cinematic.
Depends. This year, have you been naughty or nice?
Well, we agree on this. My major complaint on all these films is that they are too town-bound.
Wayne is sometimes good, sometimes bad. It just depends on the film.High Noon sucks. First, it is annoyingly didactic. Second, its message is patently untrue: American communities don't cave when threatened; if anything, the danger brings everyone together against the common threat. Third, as Howard Hawks rightly observed, having a law enforcement professional running around begging for help is ludicrous: such people don't want civilians getting in the way and mucking things up. Fourth, setting up a character to be a practicing Quaker and then having her repudiate her beliefs in a very crass way at the end is an insult to Quakers and thus the very height of bad taste. Fifth, we have to wait a very long time to see what little action the film contains. Sixth, having to listen to that gawdawful song all the way through the picture while waiting for what little action the film contains is reason enough to absolve anyone from ever having to watch the damned thing again. Seventh, who let Grandpa Coop out of the home?
Woah, I was about to post a response to Dave's post, and I turned on the TV, and High Noon was on. Crazy, man....Anyway, I see where DJ is coming from (except I like the song!). I don't remember the the thing about the Quaker, I guess I'll see here now that it's on tv, but if it's like DJ says that is pretty tasteless.Anyhow, I think that the plusses of High Noon outweigh its minuses. I like a lot of things about the film, like Cooper's character, the way it unfolds in real time, the bleak black and white cinematography, Grace Kelly, and I also think that the action at the end is satisfactory. Even if it's not a lot of action, it's the way it builds up that makes the action great. ...
...But I think i'll once again have to disagree with you on what is being "gilded." You may think it's a turd, but I still think it's something great. The cornerstone of the film is not the cowardice of the townspeople, but the bravery of the Sheriff. I don't think the film is criticizing American society, but rather emphasizing the good aspects of Kane, willing to do what's right when the odds are against him. I mean, it's commendable that this film builds up so much suspense and tension, even though everyone knows who is going to live and who is going to die in the end. Same goes for the comparable and beautifully shot western 3:10 to Yuma. But still, I understand why you don't like this film. I can see why you think it's preachy and the like, but I'll just have to disagree, I think it's a good message and even though you know from the beginning how it's going to end, it's exhilarating when you see the good guy pull through (and this is the reason that the remake of 3:10 to Yuma had an absolutely shit ending).
There have been many instances when the public in a group turned its back on a crime being committed. It happens all the time, in fact. There have been actual events in the American west that parallel the situation in High Noon. But even if that were not the case, I dig the song, I love watching Grace Kelly and Katy Jurado, I think Lon Chaney Jr should have been nominated for his supporting role which he plays with great feeling, Gary Cooper is a hero I want to be like when I grow up, and the film is masterpiece of structure and editing. So far as I'm concerned it's an outstanding western flaws and all.Richard
High Noon is 100% successful as a suspense film and as a western.The script is strong and smart and the direction is perfect.It's a story well told.I enjoy the hell out of the film, and I think highly of it no matter what anyone says.Richard