Sergio Leone Web Board

General Information => General Discussion => Topic started by: cigar joe on June 11, 2006, 08:41:24 AM

Title: In todays NYT
Post by: cigar joe on June 11, 2006, 08:41:24 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/movies/11scot.html?pagewanted=1
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on June 12, 2006, 08:25:15 AM
I saw this article yesterday and watched the vid online. Please I implore all western fans to buy at least The Searchers, if not the whole Ford/Wayne boxset  :)
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: dave jenkins on June 12, 2006, 08:44:35 AM
A good article that does everything except explain why The Searchers isn't a very good film. I'm not even sure how influential the movie has been really. Ford generally, sure, but The Searchers in particular?

I would rather save accolades for Ford's best work: Young Mr. Lincoln, How Green Was My Valley, My Darling Clementine. And of course, John Wayne did his best work for other directors.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on June 12, 2006, 08:55:12 AM
I'd say The Searchers is a much more influential film then Young Mr Lincoln (which I like immensly) but that is my opinon as is yours that it isn't a very good film.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: dave jenkins on June 12, 2006, 09:08:45 AM
I never said that Young Mr. Lincoln was influential, just that it was a better film. Ford's influence on cinema is considerable, unmistakeable, but that influence does not radiate from any particular film. Rather, it is Ford's entire body of work that has helped shape modern film. It is silly to try to put it all off on The Searchers.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on June 12, 2006, 09:20:23 AM
Agreed in terms of Ford's career, perhaps Stagecoach could be seen as his big turning point in both his career and the history of the western.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Peacemaker on June 12, 2006, 02:58:42 PM
I first saw The Searchers last year at the Film Forum art house theater in Manhattan. I was lucky, I got to see The Searchers for the first time on the big screen...in 2005!
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Firecracker on June 12, 2006, 03:35:22 PM
First saw "The Searchers" a couple of years ago. wasnt impressed.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Peacemaker on June 12, 2006, 03:40:15 PM
First saw "The Searchers" a couple of years ago. wasnt impressed.

Really!?! I loved it. John Wayne was so sick in that movie! The other characters said about Wayne's character that you can see something in his eyes when he hears the word apache and it's true! You can really see the hatred in John Wayne's eyes.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Firecracker on June 12, 2006, 03:59:49 PM
John Wayne was so sick in that movie!

Wayne wanting to kill his own niece but then chickens out and decides not to is not what I would call sick.

That scene is the best part of the film though. Very powerful. It leaves an impression(the rest of the film doesnt).

"stand aside!"

"No you dont Ethan, Ethan no you dont!"

"Stand aside"

I like the little twirl Wayne gives his gun in that scene. :)
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: grandpa_chum on June 13, 2006, 02:10:49 AM
personally I love the film because although I love ford's simplistic no frills aproach to directing a film, the searchers is the only time he actually took some risks with the camera and had a style that blew me away(for a whole movie anyway, there are points in liberty valance where his talent shines through and of course the flashback in the quiet man)... but aside from those few instances the searchers is the only film where ford really explores his filmmaking past on-horse action sequences and straight up old-fashioned directing... he moves the damn camera for once, he shows a little pizazz, and personally I love it... not to mention as much as I love fords other work I don't tend to like lighter wholesome cowboy/indian good guy bad guy john wayne type stories, this one is a little different, it's by no means dark or sick like some people make it out to be, but it is the darkest and sickest movie john ford ever made, which makes it his best in my opinion, specially when you add that it's his best directed film. As for being influential, simply inspiring the buddy holly song "that'll be the day" is enough for me to call it a success... and there is still no doubt in my mind that it inspired paul shrader greatly when he wrote taxi driver, which i actually don't think is as great a movie as the searchers is... it just baffles me how much people love to discard the searchers as overrated but yet most western fans at least, accross the board, love red river... i prefer the searchers simply because i believe it to be the better directed film but all the other comparisons are astounding... they are both not-so-dark but dark for the time westerns that chicken out of an obviously better and apparent dark ending, and they both have great performances from john wayne(which don't get me wrong, doesn't always happen)... not to mention the story where wayne is basically a one man army in rebellion of something... now i don't think they are the best films in the world(they aren't even close) but I think they deserve all the credit they get, it's a bit of relief to hear film-snobs at least rant about something other than citizen kane and casablanca... i'd take red river and the searchers any day of the week.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: dave jenkins on June 13, 2006, 08:19:37 AM
... it just baffles me how much people love to discard the searchers as overrated but yet most western fans at least, accross the board, love red river... i prefer the searchers simply because i believe it to be the better directed film but all the other comparisons are astounding... they are both not-so-dark but dark for the time westerns that chicken out of an obviously better and apparent dark ending, and they both have great performances from john wayne(which don't get me wrong, doesn't always happen)... not to mention the story where wayne is basically a one man army in rebellion of something... now i don't think they are the best films in the world(they aren't even close) but I think they deserve all the credit they get, it's a bit of relief to hear film-snobs at least rant about something other than citizen kane and casablanca... i'd take red river and the searchers any day of the week.
Those are interesting comparisons you raise, gramps, and since RR is now part of the discussion we can also consider how it contrasts with The Searchers. I'm one of those who like RR (in spite of it's cop-out ending) and who doesn't care for The Searchers (whose cop-out ending is the last in a long series of cop-outs). The Searchers begins with an utter disregard for reality (farmers in Monument Valley?) and never looks back: absurdities are multiplied as in no other Ford film. Yeah, the film looks good (except for the tacky studio sets sometimes used), but there is more to cinema than cinematography (credible plot, anyone?). John Wayne's dark side is revealed in the film? I say that dark side is always present, and is merely highlighted in this (as it is in RR). I can, however, understand people who don't like John Wayne liking this film: Ethan comes off looking pretty bad.

And that is why RR is so much better: we never entirely lose our sympathy for Wayne's character in that one, but in The Searchers Ethan is either a racist or a misanthrope or both. Tsk, tsk! Ethan, you bad boy. We in the audience are your moral superiors. Too bad you can never rise to our level of smugness.

RR, however, has two lead characters who are equally compelling. We can understand the point of view of both men, especially Wayne's character when he feels betrayed by Monty Clift. Male betrayal is one of the great themes (as SL knew) but comes up infrequently in cinema (outside of Westerns and Mutiny on the Bounty remakes). By dividing our sympathies between the two leads, Hawks creates a tension not found in many Westerns. Who should we root for? How should the conflict be resolved? The fact that Hawks was unable to bring the ending off shows, at least, just how thorny the matter is. But still, we have a full-blooded character in Tom Dunison (and Monty makes 2): in The Searchers we get little more than John Wayne playing a John Wayne type, not even a John Wayne character. As much as I like scenic vistas, give me deep characters (and deep conflicts) every time.

Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: grandpa_chum on June 13, 2006, 05:18:17 PM
personally I relate and have more sympathy for morally negative characters... so I do have sympathy for ethan, more so than most wayne films, because he's a real person who has faults, and not just a western hero... but i see your point, and you are right... I loved red river for a while, but the ending really brings me back down, otherwise it's an outstanding film that i'll admit is an immensely superior film in every way except in direction, which coincidentally is the most important thing in my eyes, so they go back to being just about even.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Juan Miranda on June 14, 2006, 10:57:30 AM
The basic tale of THE SEARCHERS was hugely influential, and shows up in the work of several of the "movie brats". If you strip the plot to its bare bones you'll see that TAXI DRIVER, THE DEER HUNTER, HARDCORE and APOCALYPSE NOW are all virtual re-makes.

TAXI DRIVER is the most blatant. Harvey Keitel even looks like Chief Scar, and pointedly calls  Di Nero "Cowboy". Remember the gang in MEAN STREETS go and watch THE SEARCHERS at the movies. Clearly an enormously important work for Scorsese and Paul Shrader, who re-staged TAXI DRIVER/THE SEARCHERS all over again the shape of HARDCORE.

A loved one is kidnapped by a so-called "primative" culture, and is searched for and saved by a hero conversant with "primative" and "civilised" culture, but deeply ambivilent to both of them.

I've even read people comparing THE TERMINATOR with Eathan Edwards character, who just keeps going and going.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: cigar joe on June 19, 2006, 09:01:49 PM
Quote
it's by no means dark or sick like some people make it out to be, but it is the darkest and sickest movie john ford ever made, which makes it his best in my opinion, specially when you add that it's his best directed film.


Just watched it tonight, LA & Groggy are correct, get this and watch it, the cinematography and Monument Valley are just fantastic, if you are curious about Ford watch this film, it has all of his basic elements in perfect balance, I find most of his other films a bit too heavy handed in one way or another, but this one, for me anyway, just clicks.

However that said Monument Valley is not Texas, and the 1868 date of the film should not have everyone using Colt Peacemakers or Winchesters.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Tim on June 23, 2006, 04:29:22 PM
  The Searchers isn't my favorite Duke western, but it is one I'll watch whenever it's on TV.  JW is great as is the supporting cast, especially Jeffrey Hunter, very underrated IMO, and Ward Bond.

  Wayne started to work with darker characters in Red River, his Tom Dunson is great, but he perfected that dark, driven character with Ethan Edwards.  It's a Wayne unlike any other movie role he had, and for me that helps set The Searchers apart from many other westerns.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Peacemaker on June 24, 2006, 11:13:53 PM
I liked The Searchers a lot. I still can't decide whether The Searchers, The Quiet Man, or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is my favorite John Ford film.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on June 25, 2006, 04:31:43 AM
Over at the DVD Forums and at the HTF there's a discussion that the color for the new WB's release is way off. I'm still waiting for my boxset to arrive so I can't comment but it seems the film is rather muted, certainly compared to the clips shown in the accompanying doco.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: dave jenkins on June 26, 2006, 09:19:33 AM
Having never seen the film in a cinema I am unable to comment on the colors myself, but I'd trust what Robert Harris over at HTF is saying. Apparently, the biggest problem is with day-for-night scenes: they come off looking like day-for-day. The problems, we're told, will be corrected for the HD release. Gee, thanks.......
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: cigar joe on June 26, 2006, 08:46:10 PM
Mine looked just fine, the vistavision is amazingly clear, but I guess they couldn't do closeups with it, but its a fantastic release worth the $19 anyway.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on June 27, 2006, 03:49:18 AM
Well Mr Harris at The DVD Forums has just announced that Warners are already fixing the transfer.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: cigar joe on June 27, 2006, 04:14:48 AM
Again mine looked just fine all colors nice and bright focus is sharp, makes a ig diff seeing it this way.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: titoli on June 28, 2006, 05:38:50 PM
Watched again the movie yesterday and found it wonderful as usual. .
But I wonder if it was absolutely necessary to shoot those "night" scenes in a studio: they surelly break the visual continuity.
I don't like the overslow Wayne's delivery, making him sound too studied.
An element which always strikes me for his beautiful political uncorrectednes is Hunter kicking his acquired wife downhill. That scene always takes me by surprise.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: cigar joe on June 28, 2006, 06:51:42 PM
Hank Worden as crazy Mose is great im the film also  ;)
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: titoli on June 29, 2006, 10:54:56 AM
Well none of you mentioned the special features, i.e. the making of the movie as it was televised and hosted by Gig Young. The best thing are the ads of cigarettes: I would like to have tons of those ads. Also I like Gig "going to Utah" (ahahah) and interviewing Natalie Wood who, between a shot and the other has a chance to grow up 5 in. That was telly.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: cigar joe on June 30, 2006, 03:46:13 AM
All good stuff.  8)
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: dave jenkins on July 05, 2006, 08:14:21 AM

An element which always strikes me for his beautiful political uncorrectednes is Hunter kicking his acquired wife downhill. That scene always takes me by surprise.
I’m all for transgressing PC codes, but Look is an atrocious character. She was invented only for comedy relief, but what comedy relief. Ford asks us to laugh at an ugly fat woman because she’s ugly and fat. Oh, that witty Mr. Ford. And once her usefulness has ended, she’s killed, off screen. Martin finds her corpse, wonders about her visit to the Indian camp, and then never thinks about her again. She was, after all, only a plot device, easily forgotten, one of many in this terrible film.

She is, however, emblematic of the contempt Ford shows for most of the characters in The Searchers. The only characters who are fleshed out are the Ward Bond character, Mose Harper, and the Mexican go-between who leads Ethan and Martin to Scar's camp. The others are poorly drawn (and keep in mind there is a great difference between character and performance), existing only to further the mechanical plot.

Here is another example of what I'm talking about. The film begins with a patent fraud: a title announces a Texas setting but we are immediately shown Monument Valley, which looks nothing like Texas. Of course, filmmakers do this sort of thing all the time, substituting location for setting, but here the discrepancy is egregious and calls attention to itself. Even more troubling is what the location does to the logic of the story. The Edwardses and Jorgensens are farmers; why then, are they homesteading a desolate wasteland? There’s a reason Monument Valley was never developed, why it sat pristine until it could be filmed by Ford and others: it is incapable of sustaining life. To suggest that farming families would actually try to settle there shows more than contempt for the audience’s credulity; it shows contempt for the film’s characters themselves. They must either be idiots . . . or puppets.

We are left , then, not with what John Ford may have intended us to view but what we actually see before us: a family that exists only to fulfill its plot function, a family that exists only to be massacred. This being obvious, my sympathies are restrained. I don’t really feel bad when the Edwards family is murdered because that’s what they’re there for. (Shame that the Jorgensens aren’t also massacred, as they are the most annoying family this side of a TV sitcom.)

And so, on we go, through the film, filled with performances (some good, some bad) but very few characters. The blame for this must rest partly on the screenwriter, of course, but most must fall on the shoulders of the director. Ford was capable of greatness (My Darling Clementine, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon), but he came up short on this project. Scenic vistas are no substitute for characters.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: titoli on July 05, 2006, 10:26:42 AM
Quote
I’m all for transgressing PC codes, but Look is an atrocious character.

You have loads of atrocious characters in Ford's movies. Which does explain why most of his movies are so awfully dated. Atrociousness is to be found also in some of the traits of not fundamentally atrocious characters.  Those adults behaving like grown-up adolescents maybe were still tolerable in the '50's, but that's what '70's cinema got rid of. Also the narrative schemes were, thank god, swept away by, firstly, Leone.
Still the case of Look is different from other sugary Ford's characters in that she is treated badly with no fusses.   There's no attempt at an idealization. So she surely is fundamentally but a plot-device, but even as such she is not subjected to that sugary-coated treatment Ford subjects ususally this kind of characters to; and also the abruptness of her demise is, if I remember well (I stopped watching Ford's movies since a long time, with some exceptions),  highly unusual.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: dave jenkins on July 06, 2006, 08:53:13 AM
Agreed. And I could forgive Ford for Look if he'd only made her funny (that was, after all, her purpose), or if he'd put at least one real character in his film.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 06, 2006, 10:14:18 AM
We should change this thread's name to " The reasons why I hate The Searchers. "  ::)
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Sandman_USMC on July 07, 2006, 06:44:11 AM
Definitely a great movie.  What really catches my eye in this western is Wayne's ingrained hatred for the savage indians.  You really get a gut feeling that as a former soldier he fought the indians for a good reason...to keep them from slaughtering innocents.

The film reviewer notes how this movie influenced subsequent movies and the view of the west, the war on terror, etc.  I certainly see a comparison.

Shortly before 9/11 I was researching native American tribes and studying the west & western history.  I read the Lewis & Clark journals too and got a really good feel for how savage some indian tribes truly were.  The cycle of one tribe slaughtering and even exterminating another...and the countless stories of early pioneers being attacked and killed by indians really stuck in my head.

While I was doing this reading all of a sudden 9/11 happened and I wanted to know more about the idiots who did it...so I started studying the Afghan tribes.  There is a shocking similarity between native American tribes and Afghan tribes.  Both tribes put being a warrior at the forefront and revenge attacks are a way of life.  I often read about the spring "fighting season" in Afghanistan, and of course the native Americans did the same thing.

If John Wayne were alive, I know he would have viewed the Taliban & Al Queda much like he viewed the Comanche indians in the Searchers.  While some may want to run from this truth, I know John Wayne would face it head on.  Savages are savages and they must be dealt with!
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: cigar joe on July 08, 2006, 03:19:29 AM
Ya gotta deal with them the way the Romans dealt with them none of this namby pamby democratization.

Cathage was destroyed its fields salted. And you can just go on down the list of the barbarian tribes that were decimated, if they ain't gonna be civilized wipe them out.

Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: dave jenkins on July 10, 2006, 12:02:42 PM
Slate article on The Searchers:

   http://www.slate.com/id/2145142/
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on July 12, 2006, 07:28:51 PM
Both of my boxsets arrived today. Flipped through most of them, look forward to seeing The Searchers again. Gonna read through the Comic book tonight I think  ;D
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: titoli on July 12, 2006, 09:18:36 PM
Have read the Slate criricism. I think what the bunch of the critics miss is the "adventure" quality of the movie, losing themselves too much around Wayne's character. What I like about the movie is the weaving of episodes (nobody seems to get aware of them in those criticism) and not a reflection on Ethan's motivations that, to me, are just something deviced to give interest to the end of the search. But the movie itself is based principally around the search itself, not the outcome of it. 
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: dave jenkins on July 13, 2006, 08:05:28 AM
If that were only true......... In fact, the movie constantly throws up digressions to divert us and the characters from the search.

The one thing that the Slate article does a good job of, IMHO, is explaining why the "art" film crowd has taken the film to heart. It's always seemed odd that people who don't like Ford, don't like John Wayne, don't even like Westerns, like The Searchers. Not so odd, as it turns out.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: titoli on July 13, 2006, 03:02:37 PM
The digressions work as restplaces from the search. It is a matter of rhythm. 
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on July 13, 2006, 06:22:03 PM
Reading the Dell Comic book from the films release, more is made of the interuptions then the search (the 'santised' sections from the film in the comic book are humerous)

I put this (The Searchers) on our 62" HD TV using an Samsung HDMI DVD player/Recorder and the opening shots in Monument Valley were stunning on the new DVD (apart from the color scheme being out of sorts). Also popped on Cheyenne Autumn. The newly restored DVD also looked fantastic.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: dave jenkins on July 14, 2006, 08:10:04 AM
The digressions work as restplaces from the search. It is a matter of rhythm. 
Except very little searching actually goes on. After the initial pursuit of Scar, not much screen time is devoted to the process of finding Debbie. Instead we get scenes from the homefront, the "comic" business with Look, the attempt at bushwacking by the evil trading post guy. If we'd actually seen all the details of how the men go about their search the movie would have been better, and the title would seem more appropriate.

As it happens, we get any number of occasions to delay the search. One of the worst excuses comes in the scene where Ethan decides to go home because it's winter, as if that season somehow made searching more difficult. Of course, winter is the easiest time to search, because nomadic peoples stop moving about then. Later we learn that the tribe they're looking for has been wintering up around Ft. Whatever. No surprise, as the plains Indians would move about in the warm weather, then head back to their reservations to sit out the colder months (and maybe score some handouts from the Whites). The point is, winter is probably the easiest time to search for someone among the tribes, but the film falsifies reality for the sake of plot convenience.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: titoli on July 14, 2006, 03:42:55 PM
It's the same as having a farm in the desert. You have to suspend belief exactly as you accept the fact that some scenes are blatantly shot in the studios.   
I could agree about the fact that the initial part of the search is more engrossing but the trading post episode is as much part of the search as the Look episode. Less successful than the preceding ones, but part of the search nonetheless.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 15, 2006, 12:43:40 PM
It's the same as having a farm in the desert. You have to suspend belief exactly as you accept the fact that some scenes are blatantly shot in the studios.   
I could agree about the fact that the initial part of the search is more engrossing but the trading post episode is as much part of the search as the Look episode. Less successful than the preceding ones, but part of the search nonetheless.


I don't mind suspending belief as long as it's somewhat credible and not over-the-top. Things like in Kill Bill when Uma Thurman just destroys over one hundred samurai with a sword by herself is just too hyper. If Tarantino had showed Thurman about to face them off then cut to a different scene showing something different and then cut back to see the carnage, that's just cool. Plus it gives both the film and the character a supernatural element without going too unbelievable.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: titoli on July 18, 2006, 09:40:21 PM
Quote
Reading the Dell Comic book from the films release, more is made of the interuptions then the search (the 'santised' sections from the film in the comic book are humerous)

Worst drawn comic book I ever laid my eye on.


Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on July 19, 2006, 03:11:59 AM
I agree with you there Titoli, it did look very rushed, not like the Marvel Westerns of the period.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Firecracker on July 19, 2006, 12:40:28 PM
not like the Marvel Westerns of the period.

DC comics I believe you mean LA.(dont quote me on that).

Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on July 19, 2006, 01:23:48 PM
Sorry, I did mean Marvel as I haven't seen dc comics from the 50's (Hex was 70's I believe). Marvel have released a whole series of westerns recently and whilst I prefer Hex, they are intersting to read. 
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 19, 2006, 01:26:24 PM
Sorry, I did mean Marvel as I haven't seen dc comics from the 50's (Hex was 70's I believe). Marvel have released a whole series of westerns recently and whilst I prefer Hex, they are intersting to read. 

There's a comic brand called Hex?
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Firecracker on July 19, 2006, 01:41:04 PM
There's a comic brand called Hex?

yes Jonah Hex.
An interesting character. And a wonderful comic series. sadly I havent been able to pick up the newer versions.
after the success of Jonah Hex...DC made another western character called Bat Lash. Needless to say he is nowhere near as spaghetti like or entertaining as Jonah is.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on July 19, 2006, 03:03:42 PM
It's a great series Peacemaker, I think you'll love it. Also try Loveless from Vertigo comics, very Deadwood in tone
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Firecracker on July 19, 2006, 03:18:42 PM
. Also try Loveless from Vertigo comics, very Deadwood in tone

how is that? any better than Hex?
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on July 19, 2006, 03:55:40 PM
In many ways it's completely different to Hex so I don't think I prefer one or the other. Both have points I like and Dislike, Loveless' main drag is that sometimes the writing can be way too up it's self.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Firecracker on July 19, 2006, 04:09:32 PM
In many ways it's completely different to Hex so I don't think I prefer one or the other. Both have points I like and Dislike, Loveless' main drag is that sometimes the writing can be way too up it's self.

what is it you dislike about Hex?
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on July 19, 2006, 04:13:28 PM
I hadn't liked the art on some of them, but the most recent issue, No.9 was the best yet, great story and art.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Firecracker on July 19, 2006, 04:16:26 PM
I really enjoy Hex's stories. They are always simple minded excursions but well written simple minded excursions.

basically like any spaghetti western out there.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 19, 2006, 04:17:09 PM
I really enjoy Hex's stories. They are always simple minded excursions but well written simple minded excursions.

basically like any spaghetti western out there.

True most spaghettis are traveling movies.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on July 19, 2006, 04:17:56 PM
I love the old Hex's, I meant the art on some of the recent releases. My DC legends collection is very entertaining.  :)
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Firecracker on July 19, 2006, 04:38:01 PM
I love the old Hex's, I meant the art on some of the recent releases. My DC legends collection is very entertaining.  :)

There was a cartoon episode of Hex fighting Superman.
Hex had some how acquired kyptonite slugs into his twin revolvers. I think Lex luthor gave it to him.

in case your wondering...Hex was something of a time traveler later in his life and ended up on Metropolis some how...
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 19, 2006, 04:39:16 PM
There was a cartoon episode of Hex fighting Superman.
Hex had some how acquired kyptonite slugs into his twin revolvers. I think Lex luthor gave it to him.

in case your wondering...Hex was something of a time traveler later in his life and ended up on Metropolis some how...

Hex is evil!
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Firecracker on July 19, 2006, 04:44:17 PM
Hex is evil!

no he isnt.

he is basically an anti-hero.

Luthor paid Hex to bring down the man of steel.
But Hex thought superman was an evil outlaw from another planet, so the whole situation cannot be blamed on him.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on August 08, 2006, 04:12:45 PM
First saw "The Searchers" a couple of years ago. wasnt impressed.

 :o, I adore this film, re-watched it on my set and it's one of those films for me that I immediatly get lost in, from the score to cinematography, to the dialogue.

"As long as you live don't ever ask me!"
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 08, 2006, 04:47:04 PM
:o, I adore this film, re-watched it on my set and it's one of those films for me that I immediatly get lost in, from the score to cinematography, to the dialogue.

"As long as you live don't ever ask me!"

It's a great film. Maybe John Ford's best picture.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: cigar joe on August 08, 2006, 07:55:52 PM
right now its on the top of ny John Ford list,  8)
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 08, 2006, 08:42:15 PM
right now its on the top of ny John Ford list,  8)

For me, I can't decide if The Searchers, The Quiet Man, or The Man who Shot Liberty Valance is my favorite Ford film.
Title: Re: In todays NYT
Post by: Leone Admirer on August 09, 2006, 04:13:45 AM
I've gone for The Searchers as my fave John Ford (and IMO his best film), closely followed by Stagecoach. Non-westerns, I think The Informer was Ford's best work.