Jump to content

ol' eddy wrecks

Members
  • Content count

    179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ol' eddy wrecks last won the day on January 13

ol' eddy wrecks had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

99 Neutral

About ol' eddy wrecks

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. ol' eddy wrecks

    The Last Picture Show

    Despite listening to a movie podcast whose title is inspired by this movie, this is the first time I've seen it (or any Bogdonovich movie it looks like - For some reason, I did not decide to watch To Sir, with Love II, after In the Heat of the Night), and I'm still not sure what I think of it overall. I think I can confirm that I do enjoy the sound of wind blowing in movies. Even in movies, I still don't know how I entirely feel about them. Also, apparently it has to be in black and white. I guess to make it feel more desolate?
  2. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    Weird - at least in the sense that speaking as someone who was starting to really find her loose usage becoming problematic, I just kind of sighed a breath of relief when she said she was using the term wrong. Maybe not so much weird in the sense of... people. I've been trying to cut back on facebook in general, but even before that, I found myself perusing the group less and less. I suspected the disorganization of facebook's UX for the sake of ongoing discussions, as opposed to forum threads, contributed heavily to it. Even for neutral topics, it started to get tedious. I don't know if not being a member of the group and thus not interacting with the posts had a big impact, but after a while, I don't think it did. I do wonder (and suspect) that those UX shortcomings exasperate any underlying issues (in terms of quantity of nitpicking or vocal disagreements). e.g. Every time someone wants to weigh in on something Amy said that they disagree with, FB basically encourages creating an entire new post on the matter (equivalent to a thread in a forum) - as opposed to a single post in an already existing thread about the week's movie/episode. And the reply functionality doesn't really encourage multiple back & forths, so it has to just keep happening and isn't conducive to actually progress on the discussion - and that's the good faith take on the matter. By the time I kind of stopped checking in on it, I was quite sick of the, "Hi, I just joined and am catching up on episodes. I just got to episode __________ and boy, Amy was wrong about _________," post. In a forum, they could at least reasonably find the existing thread, and see if someone else had already expressed their qualms (and if there was any further discussion). I mean... they could. With facebook, even if someone was trying to be reasonable, doing the equivalent of that wouldn't be realistic. Especially with the high activity that group had.
  3. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    You had my curiosity at "not sure fans of the genre would even consider it a Western". Adds to ever-increasing queue. When I posed that question above, I think I forgot the HDTGM forum has a thread for January for people to talk about westerns.
  4. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    Coincidentally, the first person to recommend I go back and give Unforgiven a watch was in response to me talking about No Country for Old Men. There were things about True Grit that I didn't like, but lots of things I did. I enjoyed them both a lot more than Unforgiven. Though I do want to toss this out there for everyone, because I'm now wondering after a few comments. If there was a Western you'd like to see on the AFI (or whatever list), what would it be? (If it's already on there, e.g. we have to cull the number of westerns on the list, which one would you really want to keep). As part of that question, vaguely (detailed if you like), what's your take on the genre as a whole? i.e. Do you watch a lot of it? Which subgenres (classic vs. spaghetti vs. modern ones vs. indie/etc) My answer: I've mentioned it a couple of times, and mentioned it upthread, McCabe & Mrs. Miller. It's more of a historical drama revisionist take on a western, though at a high level, it is still a western (though, very much, an anti-western). And as I said upthread, I have historically not been big on the genre and didn't even watch spaghetti westerns until late in life. I've come around a bit on them more recently, but that's mainly recent ones and spaghetti westerns. I still have seen very few classic westerns (I think only: The Searchers, The Oxbow Incident - over 25 years ago, and now High Noon).
  5. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    On the tonal reverse of the ending of the movie, I'll throw out another example of media of that did something similar (spoilers ahead for the third season of The Wire - apologies, I've seen people do hidden blocks of text on these forums, but I can't figure out where in the UI, how you do it). In the third season of The Wire, up through the end of the season (and the two seasons prior), you get the theme of how the war on drugs has effectively become a war on the lower class. Continuing it is blocking any chance to really address the issues that come with drugs and destroying communities in the process. One of the plot points of the season is a police chief actually covertly halting the war and the consequences that come from it (good and bad). At the end of the season that whole experiment comes crashing down in front of a news crew and you get this political speech from Carcetti that he is not going to give up on the poor communities of the city, that he will fight the scourge of drugs regardless of who is afflicted. It is all very rousing and moving and plays that way. It is totally "just more of the same." And David Simon said in the commentary on the DVD that people reacted to the finale with, "so, I guess The Wire now pro-drug war now." And his response was, "Only if you haven't been paying attention to everything up until this point. I guess that's the power of media, to make you empathize with the person who's perspective you're following." I would say artistically, by making it feel like the show was believing in what Carcetti was saying, in the moment, it makes the viewer realize accurately how drug war is presented and why people continue to believe in it. And if they get moved by Carcetti's speech, they could be moved by it in real life, by real politicians. That said, I still can't get myself on board with wholly believing the film did that on purpose, and it wasn't Eastwood just reverting to basic instincts of presenting himself as the hero. I think it might just be, I didn't feel on board watching the movie in general up until that point, and didn't care for Eastwood's handling of the material. The over-acting (and the poor acting) and over-directing, made so much of the points feel heavy-handed up until that point, so doing the tonal shift feels more clever than the truthy part of my gut wants to give credit to, even if so many signs point to that I should.
  6. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    Whoa there, Nelly! Actively holding someone down while they get their face cut up isn't exactly nothing. In terms of a full-throated denial of the death penalty by Little Bill, in the beginning Alice (I'd say, depicted with what seems like a blood-lust), asks if he's going to hang them. And that's when he says he's going to whip them, which isn't no small thing. And, as what would have been called in more stereotypical westerns, bounty hunters show up for the reward, Little Bill keeps calling them the much less dignified term, "assassins". This seems a lot more complex in deconstructing why it's offscreen than I would have gone. The important part of Ned's death is Will's reaction shot to it. And the slow drawn out, starting to drink shot requires a somewhat lengthy delivery. If they were to show Ned's death, they'd be showing and the recapping what you just saw. Something about that redundancy doesn't play well in my mind. My take on that feels like a much darker one - change brothel to a frat house, cowboys to frat bro's, and the slicing, well, to a frat-party rape. I feel like the film does come down hard on Alice, but in the sense of someone taking someone else's tragedy and making it their cause, despite the victim's wishes. Hence above, me wondering if the movie intended for us to infer Alice exaggerated the wounds when telling patrons about the reward or if it purely magnified on its own in retelling. Which, given the analogy (which I think was supposed to be present, at least by the 1990's filming, if not the original 1970's script), is... well, it's something. Though, in what happened in the film, it does seem like a very direct line between, not having a deterrence in physical punishment does not really discourage something like that happening again in the town, which does put all prostitutes at risk (i.e. Alice, though not a direct victim, is hurt by it.) If asked what I think happen based on what the film provides, both happened (she exaggerated and then it was exaggerated in retelling). I could go into why, but the short version is the parallel with how the stories of the shoot-outs got mythologized (and also the sense of desperation to get outside help by lying about how much money they have for the reward). Exaggerated after it happened, and then exaggerated even more in later re-tellings. The issue the analogy does highlight that does give the greatest flaw in the premise of the script is Delilah. I can see her wanting to be done with the whole thing and wanting to move on from it. I have a hard time with how the movie made it feel like she basically forgave the holder and just came across so much of a naif. But admittedly, I don't have a lot of first or second hand accounts on the matter to draw from to know how far-fetched that is or not.
  7. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    It's interesting seeing how people are splitting on the take away of the ending (see upthread discussion).
  8. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    Well, it isn't inherently. Subversion is often a type of criticism or re-evaluation, but that doesn't preclude it from being lazy or inaccurate in its own right. It might be a bit like satire in that sense. I think with westerns, just the common notion of clear-cut good guys and bad guys (and the general representation of Native Americans), that it's not very accurate in its representation of history or human interactions gives large room for people to criticize, revisit, and/or reconsider these myths. And one of the ways it's done is through subversion. We're just focusing on these movies because we (or rather, people who make up the AFI) think they did it well. Once Upon a Time in the West made the BFI lists (unclear if it's eligble for the AFI) and I recall nothing subversive about that (at least compared to the rest of the 70s and spaghetti westerns). Btw, my read on the sheriff - and I can't separate this from the knowledge of Eastwood being a mayor of a nearby town back around when Unforgiven came out (at least same era) and was a self-identified libertarian - was the consequence of the state trying to exercise its monopoly on violence and the potential abuses of power that comes with it. Something, something, second amendment. Though that reading doesn't give enough weight to the detail the script was mostly untouched from the 70s. Though, again, he isn't wrong about people showing up to be assassins. I mean, justice wasn't served to the prostitutes (who he ultimately viewed as property), but vigilante justice for hire (in the form of capital punishment) is problematic. I guess the example may not have been the thought experiment or case study to analyze I was hoping for.
  9. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    Well, by modern, if we mean, "in the US, starting in the late 60s, and and 70s," from when this script was written. Then, maybe. But then again, it's not like the protagonist of Double Indemnity was the good guy either (or John Wayne in The Searchers). I'm sure Shakespeare had a few plays where the protagonist. e.g. There was an adaptation of Richard III in 1955. But I asked the question because I took the movie trying (and trying very hard) to do subversion through mimicry. Basically, play out like a genre entry that you're familiar with, but drop in details (large ones in this case), that make you reinterpret how you perceive the white hat, to realize they're actually the black hat, which then acts as historical revisionism to remind you a lot of the heroes in the movies you love, in reality, were probably black hats. Some of those details, Little Bill literally calling them "the villains", calling them "assassins" (not inaccurate), and making the point, very, very hard, for whatever guilt the holder had in being complicit (though seems to be brush over, being actively complicit) in a horrible crime, he felt really, really sorry. I'm being a bit facetious there, since the film tried to drive in the point so hard of what a nice guy he was when he was bringing in the horses*. While I felt that scene was a bit much, it was to drive home the point that while he deserved more punishment than what he received, he didn't deserve to be killed, let alone through means outside of the law. *: Whether the subsequent flinging of horse dung was the movie repudiating that self-nice guy mentality or if it was playing around with the idea that offenses and their justice or lack-there-of sometimes are taken out of the hands of the victims, without authorial clarification (of which there are two, both the screen writer and the director), might be up more to interpretation. Just to clarify, there is a shot of Delilah in that horse scene, being touched by the gift of horses, and it was stated earlier she didn't mind anymore for more justice. The whole act of wanting justice was Alice's. Whether the exaggeration of the wounds inflicted on Delilah started with Alice or grew along the way is unclear. Though it also plays into another thing the movie is playing around with, which is the mythologizing of normal-ish events into larger than life stories; making the bad guys worse and more sadistic than they actually were. However, if the exaggeration started with Alice, then that would be yet another shade of grey being aspersed onto one of the main components and characters in the conflict for justice. Back to the topic of subversion through mimicry, and some things I started to allude to in The Searchers thread. I'm still not sure how I feel about the ending. At least in the execution. I know it's supposed to want you to question the violence you've enjoyed in past spaghetti westerns, but somehow it plays like it's reveling in it in a way that still glorifies it. Which leaves me wondering if it's a shortcoming of "the movie thinks it in its head, but doesn't feel it in its heart," type of issue, or if it's a, "We really want to make the audience feel uncomfortable, and we're going to play it like the older movies play it, so the audience is rooting for the protagonist to win. But he's the villain. So we're being really subversive by making the audience root for the guy we've explicitly set up as the villain in the movie." The latter just isn't working for me here. That type of subversion has worked for me in other movies (e.g. Let the Right One In, Straw Dogs), which has lead me to wonder, if the viewer not really big on the genre before seeing that type of subversion, if it just falls flat for the viewer. Also, I think I just don't like Clint Eastwood as an actor. I've only seen this, and then went back and saw the four classic Sergio Leone westerns Once Upon a Time in the West, A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (listed in the order I watched them). And I'm not saying the reason why I liked the one without Clint Eastwood the most wasn't because he wasn't in there, but not having him in there didn't hurt. But yeah, my take away the first time watching this movie about 5 years ago was, "hmmm... I see how people like this movie, because there is a great movie somewhere in there, but to me, became only a good movie somewhere in the execution." This time around, I decided to pay attention to see how much of the problem might be in the script vs acting/directing. And my main take away is, I don't know. Some of the lines feel too on the nose, but some of the lines that seemed like real clunkers, I couldn't help but wonder if a better actors could have sold them. e.g. the line Eastwood gives about not wanting to engage in prostitution... oh boy. That was a clunker. But maybe if someone who wasn't so wooden could have made the line sound right. Like, it's not like anything Morgan Freeman said sounded weird or trying too hard. Gene Hackman, for the most part yes as well, but there were a few lines where I was going, "hmmm..." I don't know. I could see myself rewatching this movie again because someone else wants to see it, or maybe it pops up for discussion for something like this podcast, but it's not one I'd be actively seeking out to rewatch on my own. Though I'm not that big on the stereotypical western genre, though there have been entries in the past couple of decades that have appealed to me (The Proposition, Django Unchained, and Bone Tomahawk). Though I still prefer the non-stereotypical westerns, such as the western dramas, e.g. McCabe & Mrs. Miller or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward, Robert Ford, to the weird and comical indies, e.g. Dead Man, El Topo, to all the different things that Buster Scruggs was. ETA: One point of comparison in terms of subversion of a genre with a genre entry (related to the topic of subversion though mimicry). I have not seen Black Panther, but a lot of people talked about how amazing and subversive it was to bring in the topics of race into a large blockbuster, super-hero movie. I have not seen it, but if you drop that part of, "into a large blockbuster, super-hero movie," how subversive was it? I mean, compared to say, Fruitvale Station, Sorry to Bother You, or BlacKKKlansman. (Like I said, I haven't seen Black Panther, and of the three listed, I've only seen Sorry to Bother You, but I'm going to guess Black Panther isn't substantially more engaged on the topic of race than those, and there's good chance that it's less) We could be getting a whole, subversive heightened-response because of the genre (and by genre, I mean stars of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood) of The Searchers and Unforgiven. Which gets back to the similar point of, I wonder how much one cares if they aren't that big on the genre versus someone who is a really big fan of the genre.
  10. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    I've only read (listened to audio book) of The Odyssey. My knowledge of The Iliad is more "vague idea, well more, I just know it's about the Trojan War." So I can't weigh in on the accuracy of the reading. My best follow up question though is, so, how would the relation of the two inform what you take away from the latter (Unforgiven)?
  11. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    Just getting this in now since it doesn't require any thought (only thoughts are, "eh, none of the comparative rankings seem surprising to me"). AFI (2007) - 68 AFI (1997) - 98 BFI, Critics (2012) - 588th | 228.144* (2 votes) BFI, Director (2012) - 322nd | 135.24** (2 votes) IMDB - 120th place (IMDB rating of 8.2) Metascore - 85 They Shoot Films - 233 | 111 Oscar, Best Picture (year) - nominated. winner. beat out: The Crying Game, A Few Good Men, Howards End, Scent of a Woman *: Extrapolated from 97 out of 250 US films in the top 250 **: extrapolated from 42 out of 100 US films in the top 100 Links AFI (2007) - https://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx AFI (1997) - https://www.afi.com/100Years/movies.aspx IMDB - https://www.imdb.com/chart/top TSFDT - http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films_table.php http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_films1001-2000.htm Oscar, BP winners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture
  12. ol' eddy wrecks

    Unforgiven

    Even though the stuff I'll be talking about is mostly the stuff I'm coming down hard on the movie, but I still think the overall premise/sketch of the plot is still solid to me. So, I guess I have to ask, who do you think was the good guy in this movie? Not the protagonist, but the good guy? Was there one? In most westerns, is there usually a good guy? If so, who would it be in this movie? And I think I felt it was trying to be more "subvert the genre" than be entirely revisionist (though you have to be revisionist in some of the basic tropes in order to do that).
  13. ol' eddy wrecks

    The Searchers

    Yeah, why I could ignore the flaws of one this time around and the flaws of the other became magnified (apparently like the comedy in The Searchers did this time for Amy) is the type of thing I do wonder about. The next episode is going to drop in about a day and my mind is viewing this should borderline be a two-parter on comparing/contrasting the two, so if I don't get back to this today (which is likely) I'll probably get into it in the Unforgiven thread.
  14. ol' eddy wrecks

    The Searchers

    So, The Searchers. I watched this for the first time about five years ago and am only revisiting it now. Coincidentally, I finally watched Unforgiven for the first time shortly before also around five years ago. This is my first rewatch of both now. I had decided to give Unforgiven a chance because a sibling said they thought I would like it because I *really* liked No Country for Old Men - seen quite about seven years before. The Searchers was watched because of intermittently working my way through the two BFI lists and having watched Unforgiven, it seemed like the time to watch The Searchers would be appropriate. Oh wait. This is getting a bit meandering and I wish to finish this post in less than five years. I’m voting yes on the poll, but if I’m being honest with myself, there’s a good chunk of deference to the BFI critic’s list going on there. I’m not well versed on Westerns of the era. This is the only John Wayne or John Ford movie I believe I’ve seen, and really don’t have a larger context to really judge it against. To be honest, that’s probably how I’m going to be when we get to Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (and how I feel about The Passion of Joan d’ Arc). But all three of those movies, while weren’t movies that I loved, were movies that while watching, I felt there is something there. So even if I couldn’t connect to them fully, I got the sense how other people could. I say that because I didn’t get that with L’ Atalante or Battleship Potemkin. And The Searchers, Sunrise, and Passion of Joan d’ Arc are all movies that are from eras and genres that I’m not really that well exposed to. So if the really well regarded critics list says there good and I sense at least something, I have at least some deference. Though I approached going through that list not so interested in making rulings of, “does this movie belong on the list of all time greats,” but rather as, the critics list seems like a canonical representation of world cinema throughout the decades (I think I’ve said before, I find the BFI director’s list more in line with the movies I enjoy and love. They just seem less diverse of types of movies - appropriately with that statement, The Searchers is way down near number 50). Many of which are blindspots for me. Let me see these and see which ones click. Some will, some won’t. And having seen all but two movies of the top 50 in the list, I’ve found they usually had some hook to put in me or were interesting. Even the ones I didn’t really click with. Extrapolating from the movies on the AFI list from which I feel more comfortable saying, “yeah, I don’t think this is very good,” I don't feel as much deference to it. I say all this because, deference to some other list as belonging on a list of great movies isn’t a great argument in and of itself. And yet, here I am, doing it. Maybe if I did a deep dive on classic westerns, I’d change my opinion. Anyhoo. I will say, the first time I saw it, I did get the ambivalent sense of, this isn’t the full throated subversion I was expecting. Though it did seem to be there, and yet, possibly not as much there as people lead me to believe. Wasn’t entirely positive if people were reading more into it than was there. And that was the better half of the movie. The other half seemed trapped in the style of how I imagined John Wayne westerns - the type of westerns I’m not really interested in. So, I am sympathetic to, well, this, opinion: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/17/most-overrated-films-the-searchers Because it’s quite possible it’s correct. I think this is close to the place where Paul landed. However, on this second watch, John Wayne does seem much more the anti-hero. And I mean the Dustin Hoffman Straw Dogs anti-hero, i.e. the villain who happens to be the protagonist, but because of narrative conventions, it isn’t really obvious unless you’re paying attention. And it just worked a lot better for me this second time around. That other half of the movie that seems not so good. Not so good, but maybe expecting the bad parts dulled it a bit. Maybe having seen The Ballad of Buster Scruggs 3 or 4 times in the past two months has made Mose (and Vera’s suitor) seem less grating (just an attempt at humor that really doesn’t work for me). They really seem like something out of a Coen brothers' movie. Well, something in that vein. Just not one that works for me. Actually, I need to hit the hay, but some notes I scribbled down relistening to the podcast. * Them going over the original ending with Natalie Wood - yeah. That is way more interesting. But I wonder if the talk of people reacting very strongly emotionally to the ending - I wonder if that's in reference to the door shutting, not the not-shooting of Natalie Wood. The shot of the door ending is the most iconic thing about the movie to me. It's what always gets shown/talked about when summarized in a short line/one shot. It's the first/only scene I knew of the movie going in 5 years ago. There's something emotional about the hero no longer having any place in the world and having the door shut behind him, heading off to the isolation of the open plains. * Paul talking about Scar being offscreen and it being anti-climactic... Actually, I took Martin killing Scar to be a thematic point of, John Wayne is no longer the hero of this world and has no place in it when I first saw it. But if we go with the anti-climactic interpretation. No Country for Old Men also did this (even more offscreen!) - and would have been a lesser film if it hadn’t. For this, it would be to emphasize that Scar isn’t the villain, and the building up of him is the mislead/subversion/critique. The character you’re used to being the hero always needs someone to chase, so let’s deflate that myth by not giving him the showdown. * Amy said there's nowhere in Texas where it goes from Martin being shirtless in the morning and then it's snowing in the afternoon. I took that to be something like a six month time lapse. There’s some dialogue to the effect they had been searching for a year. It did make me think of Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian because they had a situation where it went from being really hot to snowing very shortly. I assumed they were in mountains though. Also not sure where. Unforgiven went from raining weather to snow in just a single day though. * Them coming back in time to interrupt the marriage, eh... Other stories did the concept of these obsessive pursuits ruining lives better. Namely coming back in time. Usually the quest is something more obviously shallow though, like the quest for money, power, skillmanship (usually at killing people) - I think Mizoguchi’s Ugetsu is coming to mind. This could have been potentially a stronger part of the movie. I did like the meandering aspect of this movie though. If a movie is about a multi-year search with lots of false leads and dead-ins, then if it isn’t meandering, I would think that’s a false representation of the journey. * I think Paul said, "Death wish came out a few years later." Um... Death wish came out nearly 20 years later. But then again, The Ox-Bow Incident came out in 1943 (nearly 15 years earlier). That’s a western I channel surfed across once in high school. I would like to revisit that one. Watching it as an adult, it could very well turn out to be heavy handed virtue signaling, but it also seems like it could be subversive seeming to this day. * Amy mentions that the treatment and death of Martin's wife was cruelly handled. She focuses on the breadcrumbs that maybe she was going to betray them, but I'd point out that he also bemoans that she was killed for no reason. I feel like, there’s something about killing the Other who was dehumanized as comic relief that points out the savagery of the white soldiers is kind of subversive in a weird kind of way. Even if it is at the same time problematic because it dehumanized a Native person for comic relief, and even more problematic in the sense that I suspect the film was that smart and did it on purpose. Which I guess also goes to the situation of subverting a genre by resembling it in many ways. And I think I was planning to write more on that when I first started this. It’s a topic that might come up in the discussion of Unforgiven as well. And I do wonder if it lands better to viewer who are fans of the genre being subverted - and to those it isn’t, it’s just, “okay, you have some subversion in here, but you’re also just kind of another entry in this genre, I don’t like.” Because there are instances where it really works for me, e.g. No Country for Old Men, Let the Right One In, Straw Dogs And there are others where it did not - A.I., Unforgiven, and I think, The Searchers. And it is something I do wrestle with and can only leave it at, I do wonder about it. Oh, and I left off one aspect on me voting yes. When I went into Unforgiven, I was told there were shots in it that were just beautiful. I was mostly unmoved. Maybe because I existed in a world where I had seen movies such as There Will be Blood, No Country, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward, Robert Ford. I went into The Searchers having read that Ford was known for his majestic filming of the southwest. I’m not that big on the terrain of the southwest, but I was fairly impressed by the landscape shots. So that is worth something. I can’t compare to Lawrence of Arabia though, because the last time I saw that was in college. On VHS. On a 12-inch CRT tv/vcr combo. I think that’s the only time I’ve seen it. Maybe in high school. That said, in terms of westerns, I still think McCabe & Mrs. Miller is the best western (and Altman) I've seen. I'll save my thoughts for Unforgiven for when it comes up, but, oh boy. It seemed to go the opposite route of The Searchers for me on the rewatch. The flaws seemed even worse this time around. Okay. Too many words and meandering thoughts.
  15. ol' eddy wrecks

    The Searchers

    List comparisons for The Searchers AFI (2007) - 12 AFI (1997) - 96 BFI, Critics (2012) - 7th (78 votes) BFI, Director (2012) - 48th (11 votes) IMDB* - NR-th place (IMDB rating of 8.0. 250th spot has a rating of 8.0) Metascore - ... there aren't any ratings They Shoot Films - 9th Oscar, Best Picture (year) - not nominated. winner: Around the World in 80 Days (nominees: Friendly Persuasion, Giant, The King and I, The Ten Commandments) Links AFI (2007) - https://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx AFI (1997) - https://www.afi.com/100Years/movies.aspx IMDB - https://www.imdb.com/chart/top TSFDT - http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films_table.php http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_films1001-2000.htm Oscar, BP winners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture Quick Note on the history of The Searchers for the BFI poll Critics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sight_%26_Sound 1952-1972: not in the top 10, didn't quickly find archival lists of past decades 1982 - 10th place (11 votes) 1992 - 5th place (17 votes) 2002 - 11th place (15 votes), http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/polls/topten/poll/critics-long.html 2012 - 7th place (78 votes) BFI Directors: 2002 - 24th place (7 votes) 2012 - 48th place (11 votes) So, quasi-interesting things to note. If you use the critic's list and the TSFDT aggregate list, it looks like the 1997 AFI placement is the anomaly, and the the 12th place ranking in 2007 is a smidge lower than those lists, and it looks like with the BFI critic's list, it's been floating mostly around in the top 10 for the past 35 years. However, the BFI director's poll is... lower, but notably higher than the AFI 1997 poll, which is also quasi-interesting because in the podcast, all of Amy's examples of people championing the film were directors (it appears to be more popular with critics). I still need to rewatch it, so I'll refrain mostly for now.
×