love

Author Topic: Once Upon a March in the West -2016  (Read 21476 times)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Once Upon a March in the West -2016
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2016, 10:12:21 PM »
I knew this was going to be long because I'm not hiding that this is a salespitch. I left out many details that keep me coming back to Destry, like the unflappable, corrupt Mayor in the Abe Lincoln hat, the whole subplot about the pants and Billy Gilbert as the flustered bartender. (Gilbert is famous from Laurel & Hardy films and was the voice of Sneezy in Snow White.)

p.s. Today's re-watch was coincidence. It was the final 1939 film in my Marathon with Mrs. 1SO of DVDs we own. Destry's final dependable actor count was 14. Later in the day His Girl Friday topped it by 2.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 10:14:31 PM by 1SO »

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Once Upon a March in the West -2016
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2016, 03:32:10 PM »
After a few days of not being able to post, I finally get to reply and say, it's your earlier "salespitch" that got me to see it! So a big thanks!

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Once Upon a March in the West -2016
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2016, 03:35:27 PM »
And it was your experience that gave my new pitch more focus and balance, so thanks back to you.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Once Upon a March in the West -2016
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2016, 03:48:03 PM »
:)

You've got me almost liking Dietrich... almost.  That picture alone softens my heart just a bit.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Once Upon a March in the West -2016
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2016, 06:56:04 PM »
Lonesome Dove: Part 1-- Leaving

Robert Duvall is a business owner who partners with Tommy Lee Jones in a tiny town in Texas.  They decide to do a cattle drive to Montana.

In an hour and a half, that's what the story boiled down to.   The four-part, four and a half hour miniseries is based on Larry McMurty's novel of the same name, and it feels like an epic novel.  Slow, lots of character detail, and at the beginning not much is going on.   But because it's the first part, I'm willing to wait.

This is why I appreciated Prometheus and other films.  Although they were slow and not much happened, I know it's just the first part of more to come.  I like a good, slow buildup, as long as it goes somewhere.  I get the feeling all of this background and character setup is going somewhere. 

Overall, it feels like a TV movie, the cinematography isn't fantastic, and at the end there's some weird special effects, which just looks weird not interesting.

I am glad, moreover, to have watched Red River and other films that explains cattle drives, why they do it and the economics of it.  Nothing is really explained here.  Cattle drives is just something cowboys do.  Who knows why.  So while there is a lot explained about character, there is little given us about the driving forces behind the major action.  Why are people in this sleepy town?  Why do some leave and come back?  Why does Tommy Lee Jones think that a cattle drive is a good idea?  I just don't know.  I don't know if I care yet.  I'll let you know at the end of part 2.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 06:58:14 PM by oldkid »
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Knocked Out Loaded

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • I might remember it all differently tomorrow.
Re: Once Upon a March in the West -2016
« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2016, 05:47:58 AM »

Border River (George Sherman,1954).

Clete Mattson (Joel McCrea) arrives in Zona Libre, a safe haven for outlaws south of the border, to acquire guns for the Confederates. The rumor of his means is however preceding him....

This felt more like a suspense film than a western and the plot could be staged almost anywhere, like when a Californian biker gang went to Northern Ireland to negociate. You mentioned Joel McCrea in your first post 1SO, but here I never felt he was invested in his here role and there were no sparks between him and Yvonne De Carlo, who played the female lead. Bland fist fights and stereotyped Mexicans made this a forgettable start of the marathon.

20°
Extraordinary (81-100˚) | Very good (61-80˚) | Good (41-60˚) | Fair (21-40˚) | Poor (0-20˚)

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Once Upon a March in the West -2016
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2016, 06:14:02 AM »
Lonesome Dove: Part 1-- Leaving
The four-part, four and a half hour miniseries is based on Larry McMurty's novel of the same name, and it feels like an epic novel.

QFT. My favorite novel I think.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

tinyholidays

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3715
  • It's a hard world for little things.
Re: Once Upon a March in the West -2016
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2016, 08:02:27 PM »


The Magnificent Seven (1960) - directed by John Sturges, screenplay by William Roberts

I get why The Magnificent Seven has endured in the cultural psyche. It's a fun film that tells the viewer that they are both right to indulge in watching gunslinger movies and in living their ordinary lives. The movie is designed to excite, a feeling reinforced by the thrilling and iconic score. And the icon wagon also makes a stop in the casting department to grab Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen, two leads who make me feel safe and happy to be in their capable presence. Especially Brynner. And the rest of the actors arrive in fun introduction vignettes, proving that they are worthy men to take on the quest to free a village of Mexican farmers from Eli Wallach.

The proceeding action reminds me of an Uncharted-type video game. It appeals by letting the viewer participate in its shooting gallery activities. Can you catch the snipers in the windows? Could you clap faster than Yul Brynner? And the fun rolls on with obstacles and traps. You can't beat obstacles and traps for promoting a sense of adventure.

While bringing the style, The Magnificent Seven also asks the substantive question of why does anyone fight. And it offers several answers within the characters- to protect what you have, to do what is right, for money, for glory, for want. Bernardo (Charles Bronson) has a speech about how the fathers of the village are braver than the seven because they carry the heavy stone of responsibility. I imagine those lines must connect well with an audience watching gunslinging adventurers but going back home to their bills. But the outsider gunslinger whose rootlessness is both his strength and his weakness doesn't feel fresh, even for 1960. So, after marveling at what a successful adventure movie this is, I'm not left with any distinct message to hold on to, to push it further into the higher echelon of my esteem.

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Once Upon a March in the West -2016
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2016, 03:04:48 AM »
The Good Dinosaur
Peter Sohn (2015)

Bear with me here.

The Good Dinosaur is not an obvious Western. It is, after all, about dinosaurs. But there is something off about the movie from the first scene we meet the protagonists. The dinosaurs live in a farm. Now, I am no paleontologist, but I did listen in school and I am pretty sure dinosaurs did not live in house-type shelters or farm the land - even herbivores. I could be wrong.

I dismissed this oddness at first as the eccentricity of one family of dinosaurs in an otherwise normal dinosaur world. But as the movie moves on to the second arc we meet new characters and it becomes evident that something is afoot. There are violent roamers of the wild who distribute their wanton violence on a whim, hillbilly cattle thieves and, most strikingly, a family of T-Rex herders. By the end of the movie you realise that, with the exception of the occasional ability to fly, all the characters are perfectly interchangeable with classic Western types.

You have your peaceful family of farmers, utterly isolated in a boundless wilderness ; desperados and gunslingers ; soft-hearted stone-faced strong men ; and the faithful animal companion.

The obvious question is Why would Pixar choose to animate dinosaurs rather than people then ? Is it just that it is funner and more Pixar-like to animate non-human characters ? That is not their way. There are always good reasons for them not to go the human route. Toy Story is a story about humans ; A Bug's Life beautifully exploits the richness of the diversity of insects ; etc.

But here the reason eludes me more. There is the tenuous rationale that Spot had to be human for it to work. Okay, I guess. And I suppose that they do take advantage of each dinosaur's particularities. But nothing in the dinosauriness of the characters makes them have to be giant lizards. It feels a bit unnecessary.

That said the film works, mostly. Arcs two and three competently develop Arlo as a character. When he crosses lines he never before dared it does not feel unearned but coherent. Perhaps more importantly, his relationship with Spot is just as, if not more, believable. We understand where the bonding between the two of them comes from and the emotion is genuine. Too genuine. There is a scene in the movie that is the most emotional devastating thing to come out of Pixar since the opening to Up and another one towards the ending that is a contender for the title. Damn you Pixar, this was supposed to be second-class end of year work ; where is this coming from ?

That power, coupled with how well those two last arcs work, would propel The Good Dinosaur much higher in the ranking of Pixar works if not for the first arc. It is hopelessly and cliché and infuriating ; especially when you consider what the studio can do, has done, does later in the movie. It centers on presenting us with Arlo who is thoroughly unlikable and déja vu. His problem is almost pedestrian: his cowardliness makes him for all intents and purposes useless at everything. The narrative of the coward teenager who learns to overcome his fears and stand up to danger is not only one of the most overdone things in movies about children ; here it relies on a fallacious and irritating equivalence : Arlo is small and physically weak, therefore he becomes craven. I was annoyed by the causality if only because it was unnecessary ; and later because it became insulting. That a frail person should scream at the mere sight of any creature capable of moving is absurd and utterly grotesque when it happens to be a dinosaur facing chihuahua-sized animals.

For half an hour I was rooting for Arlo's siblings to bully him into oblivion so tiresome was he as a character.

Pixar never had such a weak, boring premise before. It usually goes for much deeper, clever themes. What gives?

But what comes later eventually washes away the bad taste, Arlo becomes more likeable and the film gets much better. Yet i neither forgive nor forget.

7/10 - Two thirds of a quite good movie

PS: Did I mention how cliché the father's death also was ? Honestly the entire story is very uninspired and pushes through only through effective emotion and good writing/directing.
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Once Upon a March in the West -2016
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2016, 07:27:02 AM »
I agree THE GOOD DINOSAUR certainly contains elements of a Western. That struck me right away as well. As for the use of Dinosaurs instead of humans, I'm not sure why either, other than the concept of "what if the asteroid missed and dinosaurs didn't go extinct?" I know THE GOOD DINOSAUR had a tumultuous production history, where the original story and team were scrapped and redone, so I wonder whether the original story wasn't anything western like this at all, but still played off the "what if" scenario. So that when the new filmmakers took it up, they were pigeonholed into the title, THE GOOD DINOSAUR, and the concept of the "what if", but decided to tell a Western story instead. Really don't know if that's the case, just a hypothesis.

What did you think of the animation, by the way? I thought it was among the best computer animation work I've ever seen. Endlessly photo-realistic and beautiful.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."