Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[drinkanddestroy]

I didn't like that film because it hung on a stupid conceit. Why didn't Tracy just mention why he was there in the first place? This is the perfect example of what Roger Ebert calls the Idiot Plot: the whole story wouldn't have taken place if Tracy had been marginally more direct about his intentions. Contrived" is the perfect word for this movie.

I understand and agree with you on this point in general. A perfect example of that is Sergeant Rutledge, a film which (though I enjoyed for its visuals, acting, and production design) had a ridiculous story. How many times did they ask Woody Strode to explain himself, and he simply refused, saying something like "this is a white girl issue" or something like that. I must have shouted at the screen a million and one times "THEY ASKED YOU TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED -- JUST SAY IT AND YOU MAY GO FREE!!"

But in the case of Bad Day at Black Rock, it's different. As explained very well by the commentator: Tracy had no reason to be suspicious. If someone would have asked him, in the beginning, in a non-suspicious manner, what he is there for, he would have told them. In fact, he did initially say "I need to get to Adobe Flats (or whatever the place was called).
But as soon as he gets off the train, the whole town acts wary and suspicious of him. He does nothing wrong, but everyone is treating him like he is a criminal. He asks simple questions like "can i rent a car" or "can I get a hotel room," and he has no idea why they are treating him as they are. So it's only natural that he figures out that there is something wrong going on here, and that he would decide to be less than forthcoming with his story.

So while I generally agree with the criticism of the "Idiot Plot," I think that in this movie, Tracy had a good reason to be wary and not explain his intentions. The town was its own worst enemy here. If they would have acted as if nothing was wrong, Tracy would have just gone out there, seen the guy was dead, and they could have made up any one of a million stories, and he wouldn't have known anything. But their treating him with suspicion was actually the cause of their downfall.

A better criticism would be why they would suddenly now be afraid, after 4 years, that the stranger getting off the train was an investigator. Perhaps it would have been better if it was only a few months rather than 4 years. I know that they had to say 4 years to a) span the time between Pearl Harbor and the end of the war; and b) to show how the town has deteriorated and become all paranoid in that time (which perhaps take a long time to happen). But I think the town's suspicion of Tracy may have been more believable if less time had passed

[T.H.]

I didn't like that film because it hung on a stupid conceit. Why didn't Tracy just mention why he was there in the first place? This is the perfect example of what Roger Ebert calls the Idiot Plot: the whole story wouldn't have taken place if Tracy had been marginally more direct about his intentions. Contrived" is the perfect word for this movie.

That's a shallow criticism to dismiss a movie because the character doesn't act the way you want them to. This is a board that wouldn't exist if not for the mysterious stranger character for christsakes. Why don't the same rules apply to Harmonica or Mortimer or hundreds of other characters?

I avoid drinkandestroy's posts because he hates movies for the most inane reasons (which is quite a statement round these parts). CASABLANCA IS TERRIBLE, WHY WOULD ALL OF THOSE CHARACTERS SPEAK ENGLISH.

[Groggy]

That's a shallow criticism to dismiss a movie because the character doesn't act the way you want them to. This is a board that wouldn't exist if not for the mysterious stranger character for christsakes. Why don't the same rules apply to Harmonica or Mortimer or hundreds of other characters?

Because Harmonica and Mortimer need to keep quiet - their motive is secret for a reason and revealing it would get them killed. Tracy's character in this film has no such excuse.

[drinkanddestroy]

That's a shallow criticism to dismiss a movie because the character doesn't act the way you want them to. This is a board that wouldn't exist if not for the mysterious stranger character for christsakes. Why don't the same rules apply to Harmonica or Mortimer or hundreds of other characters?

I avoid drinkandestroy's posts because he hates movies for the most inane reasons (which is quite a statement round these parts). CASABLANCA IS TERRIBLE, WHY WOULD ALL OF THOSE CHARACTERS SPEAK ENGLISH.

 The point is that characters should act in a reasonable manner. And if they don't, then a movie is not believable.  As I explained in my previous post, I disagree with Groggy specifically about this movie, cuz I think that Tracy's mysteriousness was warranted. But in general, I definitely agree with Groggy's point about Ebert's "Idiot Plot."

Your comparison with Harmonican and Mortimer is just ludicrous. The point is not that every man has to in all situations explain his full reasoning behind all his actions. The point is that in a case where it makes sense that a man should be forthcoming,it is not believable if he acts all mysterious. It makes a lot of sense that Harmonica and Mortimer are mysterious about their backgrounds. It makes sense to me that Tracy does not fully explain his intentions upon encountering the suspicious-acting townsfolk. But if it doesn't make sense that he acts that way (which is how Groggy felt), then a movie is not believable.

If you take your comment that you can't dismiss a movie because a character "doesn't act the way you want them to" to its logical conclusion, then I guess nobody can ever criticize how a character acts in a given situation, because you just have to accept everything as is, right? There is no room to argue with the reasonableness/believability of a character's actions, right?

"CASABLANCA IS TERRIBLE, WHY WOULD ALL THESE CHARACTERS SPEAK ENGLISH." Yeah, that is precisely what i was thinking.

I make no apologies for the fact that I want a movie to be believable at a certain level. At some point or another, virtually everyone here has mentioned the term "contrived plot," or some variation thereof. But I guess they are all wrong, cuz they can't expect characters to act "the way you want them to."

 I have a refined palette in drink, music, movies, and girls. Sorry if it's a bit too refined  

And I don't know if you read this properly, but it was Groggy who had that criticism of the movie, not me 

[dave jenkins]

I didn't like that film because it hung on a stupid conceit. Why didn't Tracy just mention why he was there in the first place? This is the perfect example of what Roger Ebert calls the Idiot Plot: the whole story wouldn't have taken place if Tracy had been marginally more direct about his intentions. Contrived" is the perfect word for this movie.

Not only that, but instead of making nice to Tracy, hoping they can satisfy him so he'll go away, they antagonize the guy, ensuring that he'll hang around. WTF? The best way to get someone to leave is to politely answer all their questions and make a show of being helpful. And you don't have to say all that much. Japanese family? Oh yeah, they used to live here, but they moved away. Don't remember much about them. Nice folks, though. Sorry we couldn't be more help. Can we help you with your bags?

[Groggy]

Gunga Din - 8/10 - 2nd viewing

[Groggy]

Hour of the Gun - 7/10 - Well, after years of waiting to see this I was bound to be disappointed. It's not a bad film at all but it definitely feels like a TV movie in spots, with lots of dialogue scenes that drag the pace to a crawl. For a movie that boldly proclaims its historical accuracy at the onset, it makes some pretty obvious errors (Curly Bill and Ike's deaths). Still, it definitely has its merits: some nice shootouts, pretty scenery (when we go outdoors), a nice Jerry Goldsmith score and an interesting cast. I wasn't impressed by Garner, but Robards and Ryan pick up the slack. See if you can spot a young Jon Voight.

[drinkanddestroy]

Hour of the Gun - 7/10 - Well, after years of waiting to see this I was bound to be disappointed. It's not a bad film at all but it definitely feels like a TV movie in spots, with lots of dialogue scenes that drag the pace to a crawl. For a movie that boldly proclaims its historical accuracy at the onset, it makes some pretty obvious errors (Curly Bill and Ike's deaths). Still, it definitely has its merits: some nice shootouts, pretty scenery (when we go outdoors), a nice Jerry Goldsmith score and an interesting cast. I wasn't impressed by Garner, but Robards and Ryan pick up the slack. See if you can spot a young Jon Voight.

I enjoyed this very much (much more than it's "part1", ie. GAOKC), the pace is much quicker on this one, they're on the move a lot, great scenery, Robards is good as Doc. Garner and Lancaster are pretty much a wash as Wyatt, though I may give Garner a slight edge.... Kirk Douglas as Doc is an iconic performance unmatched anywhere (I don't wanna hear about Val Kilmer).....


So to summarize.... Hour of the Gun is  very good film; I'd raise it to perhaps a 7.5/10

[Richard--W]

Hour of the Gun is almost too literate and historically informed to be a western.

It's one of my favorite westerns of the 1960s. I watched it again recently because I came across the soundtrack and had to buy it, and then I had to watch the film again. I'm very impressed with it. The writing is quite good, better than most westerns at the time, and it always has something to say. Extensive dialogue scenes were expected in American cinema when this film was made and do not indicate TV origins. John Sturges did not work in television. I quite like James Garner's atypical, stoic, steely-eyed performance.



His Wyatt is a radical departure from previous Wyatts because he's conflicted, obsessive, seeking vengeance, crossing ethical lines like the national boundary he crosses illegally, and an all-around darker character than had been depicted before. Previous Wyatts were angels compared to this one. Doc Holliday always steals the show, and this time it's Jason Robards, who is superb. The direction by John Sturges is inventive, muscular, carefully choreographed, and classically composed. This is his best of several superior westerns. His decision to not use background extras invests the film with a visual austerity. To start with the gunfight and then show the social and political implications, and the personal cost of it, was a bold move in the 1960s. Somebody got the facts jumbled, but at least there is an honest effort to tell an historical story. Previous films about Wyatt Earp were pure myth. Hour of the Gun is a maturation ten years after the purely mythological Gunfight At the O.K. Corral (1957). 7.5 out of 10 is a relatively high rating and I think a fair rating for Hour of the Gun.

 


I have two bookcases devoted to the history of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, Cochise County, and the Tombstone A.T. conflicts, and I belong in the camp that says Wyatt killed Curly Bill. Or at least he sincerely believed he did. Ike Clanton was a vicious and sleazy drunk, a terrible business man, and a wholesale rustler and smuggler. Hardly the classy guy played here by Robert Ryan. I've always believed Robert Ryan, when he was a younger man in the 1940s or early 1950s, had the right personality to play Wyatt Earp. Kind of dour and ambivalent, but inwardly a decent guy. Physically he resembled Wyatt more than any other actor who played him. Right around the time Ryan played the heavy in The Naked Spur (1953) he would have made a perfect Wyatt Earp as written for Hour of the Gun.

Richard

[Richard--W]

I really hate this image and I despise the program it comes from:



It really dominates the thread.
Can't you shrink it in size so that it ain't so damned obnoxious?


Richard

[cigar joe]

Hour of the Gun is almost too literate and historically informed to be a western.

It's one of my favorite westerns of the 1960s. I watched it again recently because I came across the soundtrack and had to buy it, and then I had to watch the film again. I'm very impressed with it. The writing is quite good, better than most westerns at the time, and it always has something to say. Extensive dialogue scenes were expected in American cinema when this film was made and do not indicate TV origins. John Sturges did not work in television. I quite like James Garner's atypical, stoic, steely-eyed performance.



His Wyatt is a radical departure from previous Wyatts because he's conflicted, obsessive, seeking vengeance, crossing ethical lines like the national boundary he crosses illegally, and an all-around darker character than had been depicted before. Previous Wyatts were angels compared to this one. Doc Holliday always steals the show, and this time it's Jason Robards, who is superb. The direction by John Sturges is inventive, muscular, carefully choreographed, and classically composed. This is his best of several superior westerns. His decision to not use background extras invests the film with a visual austerity. To start with the gunfight and then show the social and political implications, and the personal cost of it, was a bold move in the 1960s. Somebody got the facts jumbled, but at least there is an honest effort to tell an historical story. Previous films about Wyatt Earp were pure myth. Hour of the Gun is a maturation ten years after the purely mythological Gunfight At the O.K. Corral (1957). 7.5 out of 10 is a relatively high rating and I think a fair rating for Hour of the Gun.

 


I have two bookcases devoted to the history of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, Cochise County, and the Tombstone A.T. conflicts, and I belong in the camp that says Wyatt killed Curly Bill. Or at least he sincerely believed he did. Ike Clanton was a vicious and sleazy drunk, a terrible business man, and a wholesale rustler and smuggler. Hardly the classy guy played here by Robert Ryan. I've always believed Robert Ryan, when he was a younger man in the 1940s or early 1950s, had the right personality to play Wyatt Earp. Kind of dour and ambivalent, but inwardly a decent guy. Physically he resembled Wyatt more than any other actor who played him. Right around the time Ryan played the heavy in The Naked Spur (1953) he would have made a perfect Wyatt Earp as written for Hour of the Gun.

Richard

Nice write up Richard and a great Poster for "Hour of the Gun". One of my favorite Garner Westerns.

[Groggy]

Yeah that's a badass poster.

The concept of the film is certainly interesting but I found it indifferently executed. It assumes a background knowledge of the Wyatt Earp story (which granted, most Western fans would have) and because of this, it doesn't bother to develop characters much. I didn't mind the courtroom scenes as much as some, but having Doc stop to heckle Wyatt about his callousness every now and then was pretty irritating.

I don't normally critique films for historical inaccuracy unless it really bugs me, but a film that proclaims "this is how it happened" in its opening credits is asking for scrutiny. Certainly it's more accurate than previous Earp films but that's like saying the Pacific Ocean is deeper than a puddle. I will give it credit for not showing Morgan and Virgil shot on the same night, mistakes the two most recent Earp films made.

[drinkanddestroy]

Yeah that's a badass poster.

The concept of the film is certainly interesting but I found it indifferently executed. It assumes a background knowledge of the Wyatt Earp story (which granted, most Western fans would have) and because of this, it doesn't bother to develop characters much. I didn't mind the courtroom scenes as much as some, but having Doc stop to heckle Wyatt about his callousness every now and then was pretty irritating.

I don't normally critique films for historical inaccuracy unless it really bugs me, but a film that proclaims "this is how it happened" in its opening credits is asking for scrutiny. Certainly it's more accurate than previous Earp films but that's like saying the Pacific Ocean is deeper than a puddle. I will give it credit for not showing Morgan and Virgil shot on the same night, mistakes the two most recent Earp films made.

no Westerns are historically accurate, no matter what they proclaim. i mean, the Gunfight itself -- the incident that this movie is responding to -- was depicted in a purely fictional way. Sure, once it was depicted that way in GAOKC, it would have been dumb to depict it accurately in HOTG. But still, it was not historically accurate.

(As I recall,  Tombstone and Wyatt Earp (which correctly depict the Gunfight as not having actually taken place in the OK Corral) depict Morgan and Virgil as being shot on the same night... I could be wrong, have't seen either of them in a while, and don't plan on seeing 'em again... Does anyone remember whether those movies depict Morgan and Virgil as being shot on the same night?)

[dave jenkins]

I really hate this image and I despise the program it comes from:



It really dominates the thread.
Can't you shrink it in size so that it ain't so damned obnoxious?

Richard

But the whole point of it is to get up your nose. You've just given Groggy the satisfaction that the rest of us were denying him.

[Groggy]

But the whole point of it is to get up your nose. You've just given Groggy the satisfaction that the rest of us were denying him.

Nailed it.

If it makes the gentleman feel any better, I change my sig picture regularly. If not, I'll make sure to get a bigger one next time.