Western Hall of Fame II

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.

I think there are three groups of movies. Group one has the John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies that most love, and I think I'm the only one that hates them. The exception is Liberty Valance, because it's the only one that I actually liked. The second group are more realistic movies, The Shooting and The Great Silence. The third group are the movies not many particularly like, especially The Salvation. But The Cowboys is probably the weakest of the John Waynes and will likely come in a low position too.

The questions I have are:

How highly did people rate The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? Did a lot of people place it high, or did a lot of people choose less obvious choices over it and place it more in the middle?

Two that are obviously in the running for first place are The Shooting and Who Shot Liberty Vallance. So what are the other three?

It could be The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Rio Bravo, The Ox-Bow Incident or The Great Silence. Of those four, only one isn't in the running based on what ahwell said. I'm really not sure which one though. But, I do think Ox-Bow is most likely in the running.

It'll be interesting to find out in a few days when ahwell does the results. I'm guessing some loved it, some disliked it, and some are middle of the road. I looked at all the reviews of it here at MoFo and it's pretty highly rated.
https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/...higher/429/any

I don't think The Shooting is a contender for first place. A cool nom as it was basically an unknown western to us and a lot of people liked it, but that like wasn't universal. But on the other hand I can't think of anyone who hated Liberty Vallance, so I'm guessing that will finish high. I'm interested to see the final results. And I'm thinking of my nomination for the next Western HoF.

Ox bow, Liberty, the shooting and Silence seemed to be top reviewed.
My prediction is as follows:

8 The Cowboys (Zotis is correct in his summation of it being the weakest of the Wayne nominees
7. the salvation
6. the Good the Bad and The Ugly
5. Rio bravo
4. The great silence
3. The shooting
2. Liberty valance
1. Ox Bow

Please not this does not reflect my ballot

Reading this makes me realize you’re more correct then I was

Interesting reading erveryone’s predictions! No one has got it completely right yet (and of course evil Dr. Ed has yet to ruin the current placement with his ballot )

Ha...I think I'll wait for evil Dr. Ed to send his nom, then I'll make a prediction.

That's nice of you to say. I think it's easy to forget some details when certain impressions linger as our memory evaporates. Her charm and likeable personality must have had a strong impact on you. I think that it really speaks volumes of the writing of the movie, the directing, and the actors, that they were able to pull it off so well. That a villain could be so magnetic, charming, and likeable, that people can easily want to imagine she's a better person than she actually is.

To execute such realistic characters you have to have three people with a lot of self-awareness and understanding of psychology, the writer, the director, and the actor. It's very rare that all three come together like this. But for me this sets the bar for the par excellence that I hold other movies to. Which is why I wasn't impressed with the drunk acting in Ox-Bow, even though Ox-Bow was still a very good movie.

Well, ahwell said The Shooting could surpass the top 4, so I guess it's in 5th place, but it's very close.

My prediction:

8. The Salvation
7. The Cowboys
6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
5. Rio Bravo
4. The Great Silence
3. The Ox-Bow Incident
2. The Shooting
1. Liberty Valance

I basically copied and pasted Wyldesyde19's and swapped a few.

And this is not my first tipping over of the dessert cake trolley, either.

though I gotta admit this will be the first time I'm seriously aware of how much my down to the wire turns everything into a roulette wheel. I'm actually a little nervous about it all.



Not a lot. Just a little.

__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes

~Mr Minio

That's exactly what I was seeing as well. And expressed FAR BETTER than I could.

well, looks like I'll be the caboose on this lil ole train ride, huh?
Oh well, that's how the prairie biscuit crumbles. . .

It definitely had some great performances and had real tension throughout. Thinking back on it, reading your review makes me think I may have short changed it some. The ending was a bit jarring, with the sudden freeze frame, but that’s really a minor quibble.
This is definitely a movie I need to rewatch. It deserves it.

Then you can't take seriously an overwhelming majority of celebrated filmmakers, respected critics or even fellow MoFos, like Mr Minio, whose taste you seem to admire. Tarantino has gone on record calling The Good, the Bad and the Ugly "the greatest achievement in the history of cinema." It's fine that you don't think it's a good movie, but this elitist attitude and dismissiveness toward anyone whose opinion differs from your own is what people find so consistently off-putting about you.

Your criticism centers around all the little details you found unrealistic, but spaghetti westerns were rarely concerned with realism. They're fantasies of the Old West with superheroes who wear cowboy hats and six-shooters instead of capes or cowls. Everything's exaggerated. Everything's operatic. Style reigns supreme. Obviously that cinematic approach clashes with what you typically seek from the medium, but that's just a matter of taste.

__________________

That is correct.


Address my criticisms of the film instead of making ad-hominems.

And, Spaghetti Westerns are rarely any good. Reality is what all fantasy attempts to portray, and the more realistic the better the fantasy. Take acting for example. If an actor is pretending to be sad, he is considered better than another actor if his portrayal of sadness is more realistic. Only specific forms of art are not compared to realism, such as comedy, melodrama, and surrealism. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly has comedic elements, which I call cheesy because they are not funny, but fall flat and conflict with the more serious tones of the film.

It's not just a matter of taste. I did point out that it's style over substance. You may love the melodramatic style, but it's not just a matter of taste. There is quality melodrama and mediocre melodrama, and in the case of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, I think it's cliche, unfunny, and boring. I understand that it's a popular film and lots of people love it, but they aren't people who share my taste for the most part. They also aren't people who really seem to care about subtle detail and say dismissive things like, "It's just a movie," and "It's fantasy," without actually addressing any of my arguments.

If you like the movie that's fine, but it's not fair or right to slander me by calling me elitist without demonstrating that I am, and actually addressing any of the criticisms I made, and I made a lot. It's fine to enjoy the style, melodrama, and cheesy comedy of the movie, but it's not grounds for saying it's a great movie. You may find it to be a very entertaining movie, but it's not quality art. It's superficial and cliche.

No hard feelings, Captain Spaulding. You're a great guy. We can agree to disagree, but I wouldn't mind if you actually looked at the criticisms I made of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and tried to address some of them. I just want to make sure there aren't any hurt feelings though. I didn't take offense to anything you said, and please don't take offense to what I'm saying. I like a good debate.

I'm quoting this again, because this is perhaps the best defense of the film. I do for the most part agree with this. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is pure fantasy, heavily exaggerated, operatic, stylistic, and takes a cinematic approach that clashes with what I typically seek from the medium. I don't like these type of films, just like I don't like most superhero movies. I like movies with substance, and art, because I consider cinema a medium of art first and foremost. I'm not interested in superficial entertainment.

To be fair, it isn’t slander. If it’s anything, It’s libel. 😏

I can concede that for the type of film that The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is, it's probably the best. Other similar films I would say are the old Django films and They Call Me Hallelujah. Where the protagonist is unashamedly a Mary Sue, cliches are fully embraced, and realism is thrown out the window in favor of dramatic effect. I did like the closeup shots in the cinematography. But for a good Wetsern it's the furthest thing from what I want and look for, and for cinema it's a style that I don't enjoy at all.

According to google dictionary:

Libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Slander: the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

Well, it's not spoken, and it's not published either. But it's spoken in the sense that you call what someone wrote in a post, "You said this, or that." I'd say it's slander, since libel is more of a publication issue.

That’s pretty fair, however you must understand not everyone shares the same view. Saying something dismissive such as “I can’t take anyone seriously who likes this film.” Can and will be viewed, as already pointed out, elitist. And I don’t mean that as a ad-hominem response.
Remember your response to Citizens review of Soldier Blue? You didn’t 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.
I’m not interested in a debate, over this, really. Just something to think on.

Libel is specifically written, as the definition you helpfully provided pointed out. It doesn’t necessarily have to be published, as writing a blog for all to see on say, Facebook, would open one up to libel. It doesn’t have to be published to become so.
It isn’t spoken in any context, no matter how you try to frame it.