Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Lets pretend one is better for the sake of the thread, our forum community, and because arguing about movies can be fun too.

First topic...

Tombstonehttp://www.profilemile.com/images/143.jpg or Unforgivenhttp://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...en-Posters.jpg
SPOILERS

For me you wanmt to say Unforgiven, but if you think about it Tombstone was just loaded with good scenes and performances. Freeman and Hackman were awesome in Unforgiven, but Kilmers performance as Doc Holiday was comparable to Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lector in Silence Of The Lambs.

Best ending goes to Unforgiven hands down. "but that didnt scare little Bill did it?!" as Eastwoods swiggin off the bottle getting his blood up, and everyone in the theatre watching Clint be a bumbler thru the film is rewarded completely with the real deal! That ending shows how Clint Eastwood is the only man on the planet on par with John Wayne.

Hackmans performance reinvented the bad guy, and Clints directing reinvented the western. Yeah Unforgiven is better for impact on film, but Tombstone was a blast entire. Kurt Russell, Sam Elliot, Bill Paxton, Val Kilmer, Michael Biehn, Powers Booth, and even ol Billy Bob Thornton delivered the best performances in each of their careers, AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME. That movie was an adrenaline rush, and laden with the best quotes in film.

Maybe a way to decide this is comparing Holidays "Im your hucleberry" scene against the ending to Unforgiven with Muney drunk. Idk. Your thoughts?

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

My thoughts? Well, since you asked....

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...40/9534111.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:..._mustaches.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:.../tombstone.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...toneSPLASH.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...om/24qltw0.jpg

I think Tombstone is a horrid piece of *****, a Western made for people who don't like or know Westerns. I find it to be poorly made from a hack script that badly steals from three dozen better movies without any wit or craft, and on top of that it is badly acted. Val Kilmer's performance is amusing in and of itself, and his anachronistic Doc from the planet Mars is memorable, but it doesn't fit with any other performance or element in the entire bad movie. It'd be better suited for a Western parody, which sadly Tombstone is not. Well, not an intentional one, anyway. There aren't many movies I out and out hate, but Tombstone is one of them. And while some of that hate comes from how bad a movie it is, what really makes me furious is that kids who were ten or fifteen when they first saw Tombstone, likely as their first Western, regard it as a fantastic movie. It's not even competent, but in their limited knowledge of the genre and cinema in general to hail it as magnificent makes me want to scream.

Unforgiven is a masterpiece, not just as a Western but as a piece of cinema, and to me having to defend it against a smoldering turd like Tombstone is the same as defending Lawrence of Arabia against The Waterboy. It's both patently unnecessary and a complete waste of time.

http://www.moviemaker.com/magazine/i...Image_0001.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...forgiven01.jpg

But, you know....your mileage may vary.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Unforgiven by far...

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I don't like westerns, but this isn't even a competition. Unforgiven. By mmmmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllleeeeeeeeesssssssss.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

"Let's pretend one is better", eh? There isn't any pretending about it. Unforgiven is better.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

While I'm inclined to agree with Holden on some level, I don't know that I would go so far as to call Tombstone a "piece of ****". It had it's moments. This is pretty funny actually, because this is sort of a bone of contention with me and one of my friends. We often got into a battle of Wyatt Earp vs. Tombstone for some reason, and I always argued on the side of Wyatt Earp, extolling the virtues of the more timeworn and aged "authentic" look of the wardrobe and set design in Wyatt Earp to the more bombastic Hollywood flourish in Tombstone. I think really though it was that Costner was able to convey a sense of stoicism you instinctively relate to a time like that, where Tombstone just seemed a bit more contrived. Tombstone felt like I was watching Kurt Russel trying to be Wyatt Earp, and Val Kilmer trying to be Doc Holiday. It just smacked of big Hollywood production, straining to convince the audience.

To compare Tombstone to Unforgiven is almost criminal, it's not even in the same league as far as I'm concerned. If you're looking for action for the sake of action, explosions and one-liners, then yes, Tombstone is your movie. I'd personally say go rent The Long Riders, and get your moneys worth, but Unforgiven is a whole other league of movie. The type of movie that warrants Academy Award nominations, for its sweeping epic cinematography, its uncompromising attention to detail, it's compelling character acting, and most importantly an incredible story about a real person that suffers real problems. Life is cheaper in the Unforgiven, and you get this sense of fallibility in its starring characters that you don't see enough of in movies. It's that vulnerability that makes the audience relate so well to both Munny and Logan. When he rides into town, it matters quite a bit more than in the typical western where that has become obligatory.

These are two different movies, and they don't compare like Wyatt Earp and Tombstone do. If you're asking me to choose between Unforgiven and Tombstone, I'd say Unforgiven hands down. If I was 12, I might say Tombstone, but thankfully, I'm not.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Wow. I thought it would be close. Now I do agree Unforgtiven is better, but dayuuuuuum y'all are treatin Tombstone like a narc at a biker rally! Easy now it was a good movie, and even if you found no enjoyment in it realize that everyone still talking and watching it as much as Unforgiven. Much more than Wyatt Earp. Idk I liked Tombstone, and people still regard Vals' Holiday as the second best part in his career (behind The Doors) so describing it as a Pauly Shore level of performance is a gross exagerration.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Who are those "people" who assessed Kilmer's career that you refer to? And who here compared Val Kilmer's performance to Pauley Shore?!? You're the one doing the exaggeratin', Tex.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Which movie is better, and why?!
I select, Tombstone.
I like the great dialog in the movie.
I use lines from Tombstone in my daily life.
Here is an example.
Doc Holliday: Nonsense, I have not yet begun to defile myself.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

i think tombstones reasonably good ok val kilmer is a bit ott i preferred quaids version.tombstone is one of those films that you can put on and get a dummys guide to wyatt earp but unforgiven is more akin to conventional westerns im sitting on the fence because i can watch both depending on my mood.holden pike im gonna go out on a limb on guess you dont like silverado either

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I actually appreciated "Wyatt Earp" more than "Tombstone". "Tombstone" seemed to be produced as the main feature for patrons of Short Attention Span Theater whereas the screenplay for "Unforgiven" is one of my favorites and can be appreciated without even seeing the film.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Unforgiven... hands down. I watch Tombstone for some mindless Hollywood type action/western fair. But Unforgiven is one of the finest movies I've ever seen.

I'm not the best judge though I've barely scratched the surface of what a good western even is. But for my money Unforgiven is one of them.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Are you naming Pauly Shore because of the Waterboy remark? That is Adam Sandler, in case you got them confused. Although many people would put them on the same level.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

No no no! Adam Sandler is a thespian extraordinare compared to Pauly "What's Up Buuuuuud-dy!" Shore. Oh! Once I had to take a girlfriend to see Biodome. Damn movie gave me a headache. Ex wife made me see Ernest Scared Stupid.

Ok Unforgiven is the winner by the roar in unison of approval from the crowd! Holden Pike I enjoyed your posts though I disagree with your description of Tombstone.

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/up...caddyshack.jpghttp://media.bladezone.com/contents/...ingsaddles.jpg
Caddyshack or Blazing Saddles

To me its Caddyshack. Bill Murray, Ted Knight, Rodney Dangerfield, and Chevy Chase were in the zone. Mel Brooks flick is a classic, but it didnt make me laugh as much as Caddyshack. When it comes to comedies thats all thats important imo. For instance if anyone laughed harder, and more often in Annie Hall than both of these flicks you might have a smart answer why, but I doubt a convincing one.

Spoilers
Funniest scene in each flick. Blazing Saddles I have to go with the campfire scene, and their beans. Caddyshack had to be the Baby Ruth in the pool. When Bill Murray says "Its ok!" then bites into it somewhere up there the Bambino laughed his balls off.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I'd actually rather watch Bio Dome than either of those flicks right now. But if I did have to pick between those two, I would definitely go with Caddyshack. It's just a lot funnier, ya know? They're both waaay overrated, though. I love Bill Murray and everything, and I realize his gopher schtick in Caddyshack has become borderline iconic, but I think it gets old fast. You've still got Chevy Chase on the very the top of his game, though, and the movie in and of itself has held up pretty well. As for Blazing Saddles, I think of that film as the perfect microchosm of Mel Brooks' career. It certainly has its moments, but it's very uneven and very hit-or-miss. And, ultimately, it just leaves me feeling very unfulfilled.

Caddyshack is funny, though. :yup:

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I see you've moved onto another argument, but I love this post and agree 100%. I think Wyatt Earp is seriously underappreciated. And Michael Madsen steals the film!

And as to Tombstone v. Unforgiven -- is there really any debate here? Unforgiven is pretty amazing piece of work.

And I pick Blazing Saddles. I gather that is because it's uproariously funny and the best parody of westerns ever made. :)

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

I honestly didn't care for either. However, I did like the gopher in Caddyshack.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

http://www.homevideos.com/freezefram...Saddle141.jpeg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...ng_saddles.jpg http://www.homevideos.com/freezefram...Saddle117.jpeg

I like Blazing Saddles a lot, but at the same time I don't think it's anywhere near as good as Young Frankenstein or even The Producers. But it is a groundbreaking comedy, has tons of classic bits and characters, and I've seen it well over thirty times. Gene Wilder, who was a last-minute replacement as The Waco Kid, really adds a layer of charm to it all, and I've always thought Cleavon Little's contribution is consistently underrated - no, he's not Richard Pryor, but he's wonderful. However it's the supporting cast that makes the movie what it is, most especially Western character actor Slim Pickens as the henchman Taggert and the lovely and talented Madeline Kahn doing her best Marlene Dietrich as Lili Von Shtupp ("A wed wose; how womantic..."). Then you throw in Harvey Korman, Alex Karras, Burton Gilliam, David Huddleston, John Hillerman, Mel Brooks himself...it's a terrific cast.

It's one of those comedies where Brooks just throws everything he can think of at the wall and sees what sticks. Some of the jokes fall flat, especially upon repeat viewings, and in general I wish he would have tread more closely to a parody of the Western genre, like the perfect use of Frankie Laine for the opening theme song, instead of just general anachronistic craziness - although one of my favorite and least-mentioned gags is the reveal of Count Basie and his entire orchestra out on the prairie playing "April in Paris" after Bart's made Sheriff with his Gucci saddlebag- great stuff, and like something out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon! As a matter of fact, the great Warner Bros. cartoons are referenced directly with the candygram that finally subdues Mongo.

http://www.morethings.com/fan/blazin...addles-515.jpg
*CLICK on the photo above to see the scene via YouTube

So while I suspect it might have benefited by staying closer to the genre, which I believe is the root of the genius of Young Frankenstein, it's silly to argue with the results at this point. Blazing Saddles isn't perfect, but it is a comedy classic. A scatological, irreverent, anarchic, insane classic.


http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.c...evy_chase2.jpg http://entimg.msn.com/i/BillMurray/C...ck_300x298.jpg

Caddyshack too is flawed, but also an inherently rewatchable classic with dozens of hysterical moments. For me Caddyshack has many more dead spots than Blazing Saddles, as when the story focuses on Danny and the young caddies it invariably slows down and the laughs are less frequent. But whenever Chevy Chase, Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight or Bill Murray are on the screen, chances are something funny is happening. Murray and his demented groundskeeper often feel like they're in another movie and clearly Bill was given room to just do whatever in the Hell he wanted, but it yielded some all-time classic lines, first among them the story of caddying for the Dali Lama ("So I got that goin' for me, which is nice..."). I'm an unabashed Chevy Chase fan, no matter how his career petered out, and he has some great moments, too. Rodney is great being Rodney, of course, but for me other than Murray's best bits the element that makes me laugh the most over and over again is Ted Knight's deliciously over-the-top uptight Judge Smails. This was Second City Alum Harold Ramis' directorial debut, and for how chaotic and seemingly improved as it must have been he manages to pull it off. But while it's full of so many classic moments, it's definitely not the tightest piece of cinematic comedy you'll come across. If you read the script it wouldn't be confused for a Preston Sturges or Billy Wilder piece.


So, a close one. But since I don't think there would have been an Animal House or Kentucky Fried Movie or Airplane! or Caddyshack without Blazing Saddles, well, blazing the trail, I'm gonna have to give the edge to that comedy touchstone and, to paraphrase one of its lines, say, 'Screw you, I'm goin' with Mel Brooks!'


But I do watch Young Frankenstein at least ten or fifteen times for every one viewing of Saddles.

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

Re: Which movie is better, and why?!
 

OK. I thought you were confused about who starred in The Waterboy.

Get out of here!

It's a tie for me. I love both films. I'll agree, Young Frankenstein is much better than Blazing Saddles. I honestly don't believe that I watch either one of these movies, anymore than I do the other. If I were made to watch one right now, which I do own the both of them, so this is very possible . . . Anyway, I'd choose Caddyshack. So there you go.

Caddyshack

Yes, I know that that was a pathetic way to choose one.


p.s. I never voted earlier, but my vote surely would have been for Unforgiven. :yup: