Western Hall of Fame II

Tools    





Thatís pretty fair, however you must understand not everyone shares the same view. Saying something dismissive such as ďI canít take anyone seriously who likes this film.Ē Can and will be viewed, as already pointed out, elitist. And I donít mean that as a ad-hominem response.
Remember your response to Citizens review of Soldier Blue? You didnít like it. Think back to how you felt over a mere review, before you feel the need to denounce people over their preference in movies.
Iím not interested in a debate, over this, really. Just something to think on.
Okay, but when you say something like this it warrants a response, so please don't respond to my response with something like, "I don't care."

My feelings towards Citizen's review of Soldier Blue have to do with double standards, not merely that he criticised a movie I like.

To be fair I don't think I said I can't take anyone seriously who likes The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. I believe I said I can't take seriously anyone who thinks it's a great movie. A person can like a movie without considering it great. I don't mean to split hairs, but I loved Jupiter Ascending and it was complete garbage.



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Libel is specifically written, as the definition you helpfully provided pointed out. It doesnít necessarily have to be published, as writing a blog for all to see on say, Facebook, would open one up to libel. It doesnít have to be published to become so.
It isnít spoken in any context, no matter how you try to frame it.
Oh, I see, but it is spoken in a figurative context.



Thatís pretty fair, however you must understand not everyone shares the same view. Saying something dismissive such as ďI canít take anyone seriously who likes this film.Ē Can and will be viewed, as already pointed out, elitist. And I donít mean that as a ad-hominem response.
Remember your response to Citizens review of Soldier Blue? You didnít like it. Think back to how you felt over a mere review, before you feel the need to denounce people over their preference in movies.
Iím not interested in a debate, over this, really. Just something to think on.
Okay, but when you say something like this it warrants a response, so please don't respond to my response with something like, "I don't care."

My feelings towards Citizen's review of Soldier Blue have to do with double standards, not merely that he criticised a movie I like.

To be fair I don't think I said I can't take anyone seriously who likes The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. I believe I said I can't take seriously anyone who thinks it's a great movie. A person can like a movie without considering it great. I don't mean to split hairs, but I loved Jupiter Ascending and it was complete garbage.
Sorry, I realize that came off a little dismissive. Youíre entitled to a response.
This is true, I did misquote you. However, just because you didnít think itís a great movie, doesnít mean it isnít. It just means you didnít like it. which is fine, not everyone will, and you donít have to. But you shouldnít think it makes others less credible for thinking it is.



I think she was obviously a spoiled brat. She was very high maintenance, very demanding, and lacked empathy. I think her personality and certain subtle details hinted that she came from a rich family and was used to being pampered, and she was also used to men serving her like slaves because she was pretty. She was narcissistic. I viewed her as a villain. The way she manipulated the young man who was clearly in love with her, had no sympathy for him, justified her own cruel behavior towards him, and would have killed him gladly and manipulated him further if not for his friend who actually saved his life when they left him behind (though he still lost his life later). What I liked was how she seemed charming and sympathetic at first, but you got to know her true character gradually. It was superb writing. I think The Shooting is my favorite on this list, and it will also place high on my Western Countdown list. I liked it more than my own submission.
One of the reasons I liked the movie so much is because so much is left unsaid which allows our imagination to fill in the blanks. I still don't think she was spoiled but she was definitely demanding and lacking any empathy. Why? I think it may have something to do with her husband (?) and kid (?) being "run down" in town. The movie never tells us the exact relationship but that's what I got. Always thought she had money (inheritance, married rich who knows) because she's paying anybody she can to find Coin and protect her and also, a small touch, she seemed to dress a bit more upper class. I do think she was one of the villains because of how she was portrayed but how many movies have there been where a guy hunts his child/wife's killer and is considered a hero all while leaving a trail of dead bodies in their wake? There's a few of 'em. Very little empathy from them but they're still considered heroes. The guy who was infatuated with (I wouldn't say in love) was of no use to her but he also wasn't a danger. He was left alive in the beginning when Leland was shot so I got the impression that she wasn't a cold blooded killer she just wanted the guilty to pay, but if someone got in her way and died so be it. Maybe (maybe not), knowing he was innocent, she was trying to save him by pushing him away figuring that him and Billy...that wasn't going to end well. She didn't want him to come along in the first place. I think when hunting the people who killed your spouse and kid (my interpretation) the last thing you would be interested in is a little flirting from a somebody you don't even want there and who is buddies with the killer(s) but smooth talking them early to get them to do what you want? Seems reasonable. But, then again, I could be wrong about all of it.



Sorry, I realize that came off a little dismissive. Youíre entitled to a response.
This is true, I did misquote you. However, just because you didnít think itís a great movie, doesnít mean it isnít. It just means you didnít like it. which is fine, not everyone will, and you donít have to. But you shouldnít think it makes others less credible for thinking it is.
Everything you say is true, but I don't think it isn't a great movie just because I don't like it. I think it isn't a great movie because it's content lacks depth, the editing is sloppy, and the acting is not very good (many many lines are wooden, and they used a lot of untalented locals for extras, and Eli Wallach isn't very good as one of the leads). The only acting performance I thought was any good was Lee Van Cleef. Anyone who thinks they're more credible than I've described them as is welcome to try actually refuting my arguments. So far no one has even attempted. Everyone who's defended this movie against my criticisms has resorted to ad hominem, appeals to authority, and other evasive logical fallacies. (I should point out that I'm not only talking about now, but in the past too.)



One of the reasons I liked the movie so much is because so much is left unsaid which allows our imagination to fill in the blanks. I still don't think she was spoiled but she was definitely demanding and lacking any empathy. Why? I think it may have something to do with her husband (?) and kid (?) being "run down" in town. The movie never tells us the exact relationship but that's what I got. Always thought she had money (inheritance, married rich who knows) because she's paying anybody she can to find Coin and protect her and also, a small touch, she seemed to dress a bit more upper class. I do think she was one of the villains because of how she was portrayed but how many movies have there been where a guy hunts his child/wife's killer and is considered a hero all while leaving a trail of dead bodies in their wake? There's a few of 'em. Very little empathy from them but they're still considered heroes. The guy who was infatuated with (I wouldn't say in love) was of no use to her but he also wasn't a danger. He was left alive in the beginning when Leland was shot so I got the impression that she wasn't a cold blooded killer she just wanted the guilty to pay, but if someone got in her way and died so be it. Maybe (maybe not), knowing he was innocent, she was trying to save him by pushing him away figuring that him and Billy...that wasn't going to end well. She didn't want him to come along in the first place. I think when hunting the people who killed your spouse and kid (my interpretation) the last thing you would be interested in is a little flirting from a somebody you don't even want there and who is buddies with the killer(s) but smooth talking them early to get them to do what you want? Seems reasonable. But, then again, I could be wrong about all of it.
Well, thanks for articulating your perspective even though we disagree.

I think the revenge stories we consider heroes are killing criminals and mob henchmen for the most part, and I would take them on a case by case basis. But they aren't needing to be convinced not to kill people who are helping them and who are in love with them. They usually have some love interest that they empathise with. For example, Denzel Washington's affection for Chloe Grace Mortez in The Equalizer. He empathised when she was abused. The damsel in distress is a popular theme in these type of revenge movies. Millie Perkins didn't even have a shred of empathy for Jack Nicholson who was on her side and more like her. She wouldn't have succeeded in her revenge if not for the people helping her, and she would have killed, abused, and abandoned all of them if she had been stronger (eventually she did abandon them all, the moment she didn't need them anymore. She left Nicholson behind and didn't help him because she was close enough to her revenge without him). It was out of reluctance and necessity that she let the people who were helping her live and continue helping her.

I have noticed how a lot of movies idolise a character that kills indiscriminately and feels justified if the people they kill are so much as in the same room as someone they consider bad. Those tend to be the more superficial movies, like Taken. The Shooting was not like that, it was a much more realistic movie. I prefer movies like The Shooting that delve deeply into their characters and don't paint clear-cut good guys and bad guys. It's one of the reasons I don't think the Lord of the Rings movies or Star Wars (original trilogy) are great movies even though they're very entertaining and a lot of good hard work went into them. And it's why I don't really care for movies like Ghost Busters and Back to the Future even though they're pop culture icons and many people consider them classics.

Even if you think a woman is entitled to justice for being raped, do you condone the death penalty for rape? Would you seriously sentence a criminal to the electric chair on one account of rape? They don't usually sentence people to die except in the strictest states and for particularly heinous murders, or many murders. She murdered her rapist, so what's worse, murder or rape? If her rapist deserved to die for rape, then surely she deserves to die for murder because that's even worse.

(Edit: I edited this a few times)



Sorry, I realize that came off a little dismissive. Youíre entitled to a response.
This is true, I did misquote you. However, just because you didnít think itís a great movie, doesnít mean it isnít. It just means you didnít like it. which is fine, not everyone will, and you donít have to. But you shouldnít think it makes others less credible for thinking it is.
Everything you say is true, but I don't think it isn't a great movie just because I don't like it. I think it isn't a great movie because it's content lacks depth, the editing is sloppy, and the acting is not very good (many many lines are wooden, and they used a lot of untalented locals for extras, and Eli Wallach isn't very good as one of the leads). The only acting performance I thought was any good was Lee Van Cleef. Anyone who thinks they're more credible than I've described them as is welcome to try actually refuting my arguments. So far no one has even attempted. Everyone who's defended this movie against my criticisms has resorted to ad hominem, appeals to authority, and other evasive logical fallacies. (I should point out that I'm not only talking about now, but in the past too.)
I donít bother to refute many claims towards a movie because, really I could care less to. Iím not here to try and change someoneís mind. They donít like it, itís their business.
I obviously felt it had better editing then you suggest, and better acting. It was overlong and could have cut about 20 mins from its runtime.
Certainly better then The Great Silence, anyways. Neither really had great depth to it.



The Good, The Bad and The Ugly....For me: some of the cinematography was truly great and there was some well executed scenes...and the cast and the characters they played were iconic to the nth degree. But on the flip side it's too long and too self indulgent and smacks of the director showing off. I use to consider it one of the greats but after this last watch that opinion dropped some.

The fact that Tarantino says it's the greatest film of all time has as much weight as 'Biff the gas station attendant' telling me that. But I don't care if Orson Welles himself said he loved it , which I doubt he did...We all get to decide what we like or dislike and changing our opinions to fellow the crowd isn't for me. So if some love it, cool...if some hate it, cool.



I donít bother to refute many claims towards a movie because, really I could care less to. Iím not here to try and change someoneís mind. They donít like it, itís their business.
I obviously felt it had better editing then you suggest, and better acting. It was overlong and could have cut about 20 mins from its runtime.
Certainly better then The Great Silence, anyways. Neither really had great depth to it.
Well, I am willing to consider that I could be wrong. If you make a good argument I will listen. In fact I would love to be wrong because I would love to be corrected if I am wrong. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong whether I realise it or not. I would rather realise it and correct my thinking and grow and learn.

You don't have to think of it as a chore. You're right that you don't have to refute my claims. It doesn't matter what any of us say, the truth is still true in spite of everything we mere mortals articulate. But, it is good practice to write your argument out. It helps you understand your own position, articulate your thoughts, and gives you the practice and ammunition you'll need if you encounter a situation face-to-face with someone who has an argument against you.

I believe I did point out some of the editing slips in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. There are cuts that don't line up with the sound, and a ton of voice acting that doesn't match up with the live acting. Almost every scene has sloppy dubbing even by Italian dubbing standards from the same era. I suppose for Italian dubbing from the era it was fairly normal, so most critics overlook it, but there are some excellent films that demonstrate there's no excuse for it. It's just lazy. I don't really understand how you can consider laziness and sloppiness great, but I'm sure all of the elements you love about the movie outweigh its flaws in your eyes.

I'm really glad I rewatched The Great Silence, because I could put my first impression into perspective. I was blown away by it the first time I saw it because I'd never seen a movie like it before and didn't know Westerns from that period could be like that. Now I've seen even better older Westerns, so it's not as impressive. Now I see some of its flaws more. It does have some of the cheesy elements that I criticise The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly for, namely in the sheriff character.

We can agree to disagree and that's fine too. The Great Silence didn't have great editing either, but it did have better editing. And most importantly it had more depth. It didn't have as much depth as The Shooting, but there is a lot to talk about in the characters and the things they say. Namely the argument between the villain, Tigrero and Silence who speaks with actions rather than words. Tigrero justifies his bounty killing. Silence never draws first. Both have a certain moral code, and those are pitted against each other. There is also the sad reality of how good doesn't always triumph in the end, and that is a stark contrast to the obvious moral self-righteousness of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Even after I read your review, I'm not sure why you didn't like The Great Silence. I'm not sure if you're sure either.



I donít bother to refute many claims towards a movie because, really I could care less to. Iím not here to try and change someoneís mind. They donít like it, itís their business.
I obviously felt it had better editing then you suggest, and better acting. It was overlong and could have cut about 20 mins from its runtime.
Certainly better then The Great Silence, anyways. Neither really had great depth to it.
Well, I am willing to consider that I could be wrong. If you make a good argument I will listen. In fact I would love to be wrong because I would love to be corrected if I am wrong. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong whether I realise it or not. I would rather realise it and correct my thinking and grow and learn.

You don't have to think of it as a chore. You're right that you don't have to refute my claims. It doesn't matter what any of us say, the truth is still true in spite of everything we mere mortals articulate. But, it is good practice to write your argument out. It helps you understand your own position, articulate your thoughts, and gives you the practice and ammunition you'll need if you encounter a situation face-to-face with someone who has an argument against you.

I believe I did point out some of the editing slips in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. There are cuts that don't line up with the sound, and a ton of voice acting that doesn't match up with the live acting. Almost every scene has sloppy dubbing even by Italian dubbing standards from the same era. I suppose for Italian dubbing from the era it was fairly normal, so most critics overlook it, but there are some excellent films that demonstrate there's no excuse for it. It's just lazy. I don't really understand how you can consider laziness and sloppiness great, but I'm sure all of the elements you love about the movie outweigh its flaws in your eyes.

I'm really glad I rewatched The Great Silence, because I could put my first impression into perspective. I was blown away by it the first time I saw it because I'd never seen a movie like it before and didn't know Westerns from that period could be like that. Now I've seen even better older Westerns, so it's not as impressive. Now I see some of its flaws more. It does have some of the cheesy elements that I criticise The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly for, namely in the sheriff character.

We can agree to disagree and that's fine too. The Great Silence didn't have great editing either, but it did have better editing. And most importantly it had more depth. It didn't have as much depth as The Shooting, but there is a lot to talk about in the characters and the things they say. Namely the argument between the villain, Tigrero and Silence who speaks with actions rather than words. Tigrero justifies his bounty killing. Silence never draws first. Both have a certain moral code, and those are pitted against each other. There is also the sad reality of how good doesn't always triumph in the end, and that is a stark contrast to the obvious moral self-righteousness of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Even after I read your review, I'm not sure why you didn't like The Great Silence. I'm not sure if you're sure either.
I donít debate often because Iím not here to really impress anyone with my reviews. Iím not so insecure that I need to defend every point. But if pressed I can. What I donít like is debating people who come off as if they have some sort of deeper understanding of film criticism then anyone else. I usually just stop, since they have their minds usually made up. And I can only take so much of that kind of elitist thinking.

Iím pretty confident in my reasons for not liking The Great Silence. Thank you so much for suggesting I donít. 😒
It wasnít a good story. It didnít have great dialogue.
Itís also hard to believe that the hero was able to survive his throat being slit.
Weíre supposed to believe a young boy somehow survived having his throat slit so deep it severs his vocal cords, in a time where medical practice wasnít that great?
Please.
And donít get me started on the romance that was shoehorned in there.
I will admit youíre correct when pointing out the differences between Silence and Tigrero. I forgot about that. But it wasnít that deep.
But thatís not much depth to go on. I suppose one could say it is more then TGTBTU, but a film doesnít have to always have depth.
A movie can just be enjoyable. I enjoyed TGTBTU, but not by a lot.
I did not enjoy The Great Silence. It was nice to look at however.



The Good, The Bad and The Ugly....For me: some of the cinematography was truly great and there was some well executed scenes...and the cast and the characters they played were iconic to the nth degree. But on the flip side it's too long and too self indulgent and smacks of the director showing off. I use to consider it one of the greats but after this last watch that opinion dropped some.

The fact that Tarantino says it's the greatest film of all time has as much weight as 'Biff the gas station attendant' telling me that. But I don't care if Orson Welles himself said he loved it , which I doubt he did...We all get to decide what we like or dislike and changing our opinions to fellow the crowd isn't for me. So if some love it, cool...if some hate it, cool.
I agree that some of the cinematography was great and some scenes were executed very well, and the cast and characters were iconic in a sense. A lot of its fans extend a sort of olive branch by conceding that the run time was too long. It's funny, but that is one thing that I did not mind at all. I like long movies. Especially if you love a movie and want to rewatch it, there is just more of everything you love for you to enjoy. I'm all for movies being as long as they possibly can. I'm not for cutting things down as much as they can.

When it comes to critics and experts, and what they say. A person's words don't have weight because of who they are. They are who they are because of the weight of their words. To me Ebert and Roeper were puppets. They would give a movie a good rating if they were paid to. Their critiques are full of double standards. I don't give them an ounce of credibility as critics. In my opinion the greatest critic was Manny Farber. Tarantino is a great filmmaker, and unlike most filmmakers he consumed a lot before ever becoming one. But to be fair he's a weird guy and likes a lot of cheesy movies that I don't like. Take, Django and The Inglorious Bastards for example. I like his versions way more than the cheesy originals. That's his taste, and for those type of movies, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is the best. But I don't like those kind of movies at all, namely because they're cheesy. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is no exception. It may be the best cheesy fun movie of all time, but it's still cheesy. In my opinion that doesn't hold a candle to an artistic masterpiece. It doesn't have the depth that a movie like The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean has, a movie that has way more iconic characters, hilarious elements that aren't cheesy at all, a long run time, well executed scenes. The only thing better about The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, is the cinematography, and that it came out in 66'. But it's only good cinematography for a Western. It doesn't compete with older French films, not by a long shot. I liked all of Sergio Leone's other movies more, at least of what I've seen. His older Eastwood films, and Once Upon a Time in the West, were all better movies. The only thing his older Eastwood movies lacked was the cinematography, but the characters, story, and realism were better. None of his other movies were cheesy. I just don't get the cheese. Really the cheesiness is probably the single biggest factor for me. How can a movie be considered great when it's cheesy? It irritated me the entire time, to no end. The way they did everything was like nails on a chalkboard to me.

When I was scrutinizing the movie more thoroughly I noticed more merits than the first time I watched it. I actually liked Lee Van Cleef a lot. What I wouldn't give to see an alternate ending where he kills Eastwood and Wallach and gets the gold. And I remember people praising the closeups and wondering what that was all about. I didn't particularly notice it the first time, but second time around I noticed the closeups were great. I mean, they were really gorgeous. I wish more movies would do that.



Tarantino is a great filmmaker, and unlike most filmmakers he consumed a lot before ever becoming one. But to be fair he's a weird guy and likes a lot of cheesy movies that I don't like. Take, Django and The Inglorious Bastards for example. I like his versions way more than the cheesy originals. That's his taste, and for those type of movies, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is the best. But I don't like those kind of movies at all, namely because they're cheesy. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is no exception. It may be the best cheesy fun movie of all time, but it's still cheesy. In my opinion that doesn't hold a candle to an artistic masterpiece. It doesn't have the depth that a movie like The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean has, a movie that has way more iconic characters, hilarious elements that aren't cheesy at all, a long run time, well executed scenes. The only thing better about The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, is the cinematography, and that it came out in 66'. But it's only good cinematography for a Western. It doesn't compete with older French films, not by a long shot. I liked all of Sergio Leone's other movies more, at least of what I've seen. His older Eastwood films, and Once Upon a Time in the West, were all better movies. The only thing his older Eastwood movies lacked was the cinematography, but the characters, story, and realism were better. None of his other movies were cheesy. I just don't get the cheese. Really the cheesiness is probably the single biggest factor for me. How can a movie be considered great when it's cheesy? It irritated me the entire time, to no end. The way they did everything was like nails on a chalkboard to me.
So really this all just comes down to your lactose intolerance.
__________________



I donít debate often because Iím not here to really impress anyone with my reviews. Iím not so insecure that I need to defend every point. But if pressed I can. What I donít like is debating people who come off as if they have some sort of deeper understanding of film criticism then anyone else. I usually just stop, since they have their minds usually made up. And I can only take so much of that kind of elitist thinking.

Iím pretty confident in my reasons for not liking The Great Silence. Thank you so much for suggesting I donít. 😒
It wasnít a good story. It didnít have great dialogue.
Itís also hard to believe that the hero was able to survive his throat being slit.
Weíre supposed to believe a young boy somehow survived having his throat slit so deep it severs his vocal cords, in a time where medical practice wasnít that great?
Please.
And donít get me started on the romance that was shoehorned in there.
I will admit youíre correct when pointing out the differences between Silence and Tigrero. I forgot about that. But it wasnít that deep.
But thatís not much depth to go on. I suppose one could say it is more then TGTBTU, but a film doesnít have to always have depth.
A movie can just be enjoyable. I enjoyed TGTBTU, but not by a lot.
I did not enjoy The Great Silence. It was nice to look at however.
I appreciate your comments.

I would like to dissect some of them. For me it's not about arguing or one person against another. It's all about the truth. If I can help you learn something, come to realise something you once thought may not have been accurate or fair, and grow in your understanding, then I find pleasure in that. If I also grow and get sharper from the interaction, then I enjoy that too. It's about me. I am selfish, but helping other people makes me feel good too.

First I want to set the record straight. I didn't say you weren't confident in your reasons for not liking The Great Silence. I was saying (and I'm paraphrasing myself, not quoting), it doesn't seem to me that you fully understand why disliked The Great Silence. I do think that there were some obstacles to your enjoyment of the film that even you do not fully comprehend. Once you understand them, you may enjoy the movie more.

It could have been a better story, and it could have had better dialogue, but I still think it was a good story and had good dialogue. I'm not saying it was a masterpiece, but it stands out for the era and the genre.

It shouldn't be hard to believe the hero survived his throat being slit. For one thing, they weren't trying to kill him when he was a boy, they were just silencing him. Perhaps you thought this was a flaw because you thought they were trying to silence him by killing him. It wouldn't be reasonable to assume that he could have survived a lethal attempt, but it was more believable that he could survive an attempt to merely silence him. However, that being said, as I reflect on how massive his scar was, I do agree that it was a weak point in the film. Basically the extent of the cut, his surviving it, and his inability to speak as a result are not compatible. If the cut was deep enough to sever his vocal chords it would be fatal. They should have just cut out his tongue.

I really didn't think the romance was shoehorned. It was quite pivotal.

The content may not have been, "that deep," but it was deeper than The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

You're right that movies don't have to be deep, but they do to be considered great movies.

I enjoyed Jupiter Ascending, just not for the reasons they intended.

I'm a little sad that you didn't enjoy The Great Silence. After reading everything you've said about it, I still don't know why. You pointed out some flaws, but having flaws didn't stop you from enjoying other movies.



On the subject of cheese and movies, Tarantino is the king of cheese. He's on par with what Sergio Leone did with The Good The Bad and The Ugly. I can't image someone loving Tarantino's films and not also loving TGTBTU.



I actually think Siskel and Ebert were two of the best critics ever. You claim Ebert was paid for good reviews. Can you provide proof?
I never actually looked into it. I thought it was obvious. It would take time, and I'm not unwilling to. I'd have to get back to you on that. I just noticed that he would give good reviews to all of the obvious Hollywood movies, and he would give bad reviews to movies that went against the Hollywood industry tide with criticisms that were full of double standards. The biggest example I noticed was when Ebert praised Knight and Day and criticised Oblivion. He criticised Tom Cruise for playing a stereotypical motorcycle riding jock in Oblivion, yet that same criticism was nowhere to be found in his review of Knight and Day where Tom Cruise did even more so, and not to mention that Tom Cruise plays a cliche Motor Cycle riding jock in many many of his films. I mean... it's Tom Cruise... what do you expect? I think he only criticised Oblivion because of the Illuminati undertones, and those are the people paying Ebert.

In Ebert's review of El Topo he said something that made me really dislike him. He insulted the director's intelligence. The director, Jodoworsky, was frustrated that they wouldn't release the movie, and said they were waiting for him to die like vultures, which was true. They kept brushing him off, and as soon as he died they released it. Ebert had zero empathy and just basically ridiculed Jodoworsky's ESL. He gave El Topo a backhanded compliment criticising it while still crediting it with being a great movie. He failed to connect the dots when Jodoworsky explained all of the symbolism in the film as being about his own personal life and instead saw the symbolism as not representing anything deeper than the symbols themselves. It's some blind rule he has about symbolism which makes no sense to me. Basically I think Ebert is an idiot.



On the subject of cheese and movies, Tarantino is the king of cheese. He's on par with what Sergio Leone did with The Good The Bad and The Ugly. I can't image someone loving Tarantino's films and not also loving TGTBTU.
I don't think any of Tarantino's films were cheesy until perhaps Django. Which is why Django is the only Tarnatino film I've seen that I didn't particularly like, and I didn't even bother to watch his last two movies. He's getting cheesy now, and I don't like it.

To be honest when I heard that Brad Pitt beats up Bruce Lee, I had zero interest in seeing that.