News: Now showing in theaters: CRY MACHO, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - The Man With No Aim

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
Great questions, Satu.  I hope we get some more posts in this thread, because although I don't think we can actually get at any answers, it's interesting to share our different interpretations of who Preacher is, and why he's there.

I am curious.

There has been much discussion in other threads re Preacher, by myself, and, others, much of it very insightful and genuinely inquiring into the very questions you still now raise.

What are your reasons for rejecting and ignoring all the previous points raised concerning Preacher?

The Man

All of which he plainly spent on his car.

Me want dat CAR or one exactly like it.


That's good, 'cause I'm way behind. Just about to start Play Misty for Me! :o

I'll see your one movie behind and raise you three.

My Fistful Of Dollars disk and my Few Dollars More disk ran away and hid under something and now I discover that my Dirty Harry disk is hiding too. They are obviously afraid of being overworked by being played too much, the cowards.

So I am three movies behind and on top of that, I don't have Joe Kidd ! Never even seen it in a movie store. I saw it on tv in the hospital last August.

Woe is me. The shame of it all.

Working from memory, Dirty Harry was a phenomenal film when I saw it in its first run in a downtown Memphis movie house. The first ten minutes or whatever were as realistic as a documentary. Amazing. And the screen presence of Eastwood was something I had never seen in any film before. A unique experience.

When I saw Joe Kidd for free a few months ago, I was pleasantly surprised at how slick and flawless the production was. Because of that, I felt like I could be watching a news documentary and not a made-up movie. Everything about it satisfied me just fine. In my book, there ain't nothin about this movie I don't like.


Did anyone see the similarities between The Beguiled and Misery, the horror film based on Stephen King's novel and starring Kathy Bates?

I'm not sure King wasn't greatly inspired by The Beguiled when he wrote it.

Have not had the good luck to have happened to see Misery, but will be on the lookout for it now.

Kathy Bates is the counterpart of Sister girl school owner in Beguiled, I guess? She is GOOD in edgy roles.


I always regret not buying Play Misty For Me on DVD years ago. I waited for it to come down in price. It never did and I've never seen it rereleased down here, apart from being in sets. Which I ended up getting just for one movie.
Call me Mister Lucky.

About two years ago, or maybe three, in all the excitement I lost count myself, I found a 3 disk set in the cheap store for about $5 US.

It has Beguiled, Misty, Eiger Sanction, and, Coogan. All good faves of mine.

Hope your luck improves.  :)


PS I advise against improving your luck the McB method. Look what it did for him.  :buck2:

It's completely possible, but did no one notice the very small flashback scene with Hallie and Martha's brother in the barn?  There was a pitchfork involved and I just wondered if that had anything to do with his disappearance.  Like Matt said, maybe there's another sack buried on the property.  The scene goes by very quickly, but it was quite amazing when I went through it step by step to get the screencaps below.  The flashback occurs while McBurney is talking to Hallie while he's preparing to go down into the cellar to get drunk.

It really adds up good that Brother vanished because of the misadventure with Halle.

Halle told McB that "Brother finally broke up me (Halle) and Ben." Why would Halle take it personally unless Brother had taken it personally with Halle?

Halle was a ball of fire. If Brother had tried to rape her, there is no doubt in my mind that she would have tried to defend herself. Successfully.

Or maybe Halle just scared away Brother without harming him.

When Sister found about it, she would have been really pi$$ed that Brother lover had betrayed her love, and may well have not accused Halle of murder. Or maybe Brother was still alive but was scheduled for a dinner he would remember for the rest of his life.

Unravelling this plot is like peeling an onion. Take off one layer, and there is still one more to go.  Always one more to go.


I haven't re-watched The Beguiled yet, but isn't it possible that the brother was killed in the war? ??? I seem to recall thinking that when I've seen it before.

Best I have been able to figure out, the setting of the film is supposed to be the first 6 months of 1863 during which Grant and the Union army was actively battling round about Vicksburg to gain control of the Mississippi River as a grand military tactic. Perhaps confusingly, the film was actually (partially) shot down round Baton Rouge where they found a convenient old huge plantation mansion. But, I think, it was supposed to be set near Vicksburg during early 1863.

We are shown several Sister memory flashbacks in which the lovers are a decade or maybe two, younger than they are in the real time of the film. We would expect that a fond memory of a loved one would be the most recent available memory of Good Times with them. But the memory flashbacks are at lest ten years before film real time.


Just finished watching Play Misty for Me.  I think I appreciated it more this time around.  I hadn't forgotten how it ended, but I'd surely forgotten the chain of events leading to the finish.  I think the one thing I noticed this time was how the passage of time and the lulling of fear (because they think Evelyn is safely out of the way) is portrayed.  It lulls you along with it.  I really like the pacing of the whole movie.  I'm not fond of the story line because it's just not my type, but it sure is good story telling.  I really didn't like it the first time I saw it, but it seems to have grown on me.

That's it the pacing.

I think I remember saying that I could watch this film over and over again, but was not able to pin down exactly why, the PACING is one of those important factors adding up to my having that opinion.

Thank you for saying it whereas I was unable to express it well.

This is really a very watchable Eastwood film.


Play Misty For Me. The original Fatal Attraction? I'm sure Glenn Close would have watched this to get some tips on how to play a psycho. If there were rabbits in this film, I'm sure Evelyn would have boiled them. I always rated Andy Robinson the best psycho from an Eastwood film but I could easily say Jessica Walter each time after viewing the film. That was such a great performance. It's a shame she didn't work with Clint again.

This was Clint's directorial debut and he did a great job. And to show off his hometown of Carmel and have Don Siegel in the cast as well.

One thing that nagged me watching yesterday was at the end when the police sergeant turns up at Tobie's place and it's all dark, he doesn't pull out his gun, just a torch. I mean if there is a psycho on the loose, wouldn't a cop be ready to defend himself?

I could say the same about both movies this week.

Yeah, I was jarred by that same thing too. I finally guessed that maybe the Carmel community is so laid-back that even the constable is expecting no bad outcome and is therefore not living in a state of FULL ALERT.


That was a great post, Man.  McB even tried to manipulate Hallie with something other than sex to try to gain his escape: the promise that if he got free he'd find her Ben, even if he had to go all the way to General Grant to do it.

That's what I'd always thought too... but now I think it might be darker than that.

If Martha is that jealous over McB sleeping with Carol instead of her that she'd cut off his leg, what would her reaction be if she knew her brother was after Hallie? Did she threaten him, force him to leave? Or is he buried in a similar sack in the front yard?

Martha says to McB "He isn't here now, he never will be." and she seems certain of it.

No one seems to be worried about him, even though there's a war going on, or expecting him back.

Was that the first poisonous mushroom dinner?

Things we will probably never know......

Well, Matt, you have certainly raised some possibilities that really fall into place good, although, I'm ashamed to say that I failed to get them until you wrote them here.

No doubt about it, I got to dig up that disk and watch it again, this is one Southern Gothic that may have more dimensions to it than first hits the eye.

The 12 year old girl sure seemed to be confident about which mushrooms were happy meals and which ones killed you cold dead.


Oh, that other film, Misty....

Misty is at the top of my personal list of Eastwood films that I really enjoy watching. It is not The Great American Novel or an epic like GBU or Josey Wales, but it is a flawless showcase for Clint's acting talent and star quality. At times I have thought of Clint as a role model, and this film personifies that model.

He is flawed to a degree, available to other women even while hoping for the renewed attention of his True Love, but exercising limited and poor judgment about their "reliability". Through it all, he has an innocence, an expectation that it will all come out all right.

I could probably watch this film an endless number of times and never get tired of it. I'd like to BE that character and live life like that. 

And never get over lusting for his CAR, that lovely little Jaguar. Come to me, little green kitty, kitty. I've gotten to where I really like BRG. British Racing Green.


I just finished watching The Beguiled.  It's not, and never will be, one of my favorite movies.  I do think it has fantastic acting from everyone, though.  I guess my main reason for not particularly liking this film is because of its obsession with sexual attraction, as if that's all there is in life.  I'm human, and I'll grant it comes naturally to most people, but I have a hard time identifying with stories where it's the prime motivating factor for everything that happens.  There are so many other reasons why people choose to do things, and they have nothing to do with sex.  The other major factor throughout the story that I can't identify with is jealousy.  It is something I was taught not to indulge in as a child and that has carried through into adulthood.  I'm sure that a natural disinclination toward jealous behavior helps, but I just can't understand letting it take over one's judgement.  I can understand Amy being more easily swayed by her emotions as she's still a little girl (although 12 isn't that little) and hasn't learned how to control them as well.

I've always been fascinated by the question of who is actually beguiled in this film.  Some of the definitions of beguile include: charm or enchant (someone), sometimes in a deceptive way; trick (someone) into doing something; or help (time) pass pleasantly. Another way of putting it, beguile is "thoroughly to deceive".  To some degree, all these meanings are present within the story.  Frankly, they all seemed intent on deceiving each other for various reasons.  They all seemed to deserve each other thoroughly.  McBurney was definitely no bargain.  Those flashbacks that show what he was really doing while he was weaving his stories to suit the occasion were very revealing.  It is those that keep me from feeling somewhat sorry for him.  He's definitely an opportunist, but he obviously never considers the risks of getting involved with so many women.  I've never liked guys who thought that they were charming fellows.

This was my second viewing and I noticed some details that I missed the first time around several years ago.  One thing in particular I wondered about.  Does Miss Farnsworth have the slightest idea what (or who) caused the sudden disappearance of her brother?  That seems fraught with strange possibilities.

I guess my main reason for not particularly liking this film is because of its obsession with sexual attraction, as if that's all there is in life.  I'm human, and I'll grant it comes naturally to most people, but I have a hard time identifying with stories where it's the prime motivating factor for everything that happens.

I respectfully submit to you that, in my impression, McBurney was manipulating all the inhabitants of the Girl School, not always simply indulging in his lusts. I assure you, it is possible for a man (or woman) to have a strong and almost never-stopping sex drive, but to control his drive in order to accomplish necessary goals. He was totally vulnerable and his life was obviously at stake. He had to use every "weapon" at his disposal to have any chance of surviving. As soon as he realized that this Yankee man without a tail was attractive to some of the girls in the Girl School, he set about to use their sexual lust for him as a lever to try to assure his survival. 

The other major factor throughout the story that I can't identify with is jealousy.  It is something I was taught not to indulge in as a child and that has carried through into adulthood.

I regret to have to tell you that jealousy is a very powerful and very pervasive part of human relationships. It seems that you have had a somewhat sheltered life and I am very happy for you, that you have not had to deal with the ubiquitous and strong jealousies that I have witnessed and suffered so many times in my own virtually non-sheltered and rough life. Toward the end of the film, the jealousy between the teacher and the teen girl was at a titanic level and had to result in a cataclysmic conclusion. And when the 12 year old girl suffered both her great jealousy for the Yankee with no tail, and the murder of her dearest little friend, the outcome was inevitable.   

This was my second viewing and I noticed some details that I missed the first time around several years ago.  One thing in particular I wondered about.  Does Miss Farnsworth have the slightest idea what (or who) caused the sudden disappearance of her brother?  That seems fraught with strange possibilities.
It seemed plain to me, although I may well have taken a unique personal opinon  that could well be wrong, that the brother and sister were, in light of the discovered old letters, having an incestual sexual tryst. According to the letters, I concluded that the brother eventually lost interest in the relationship and decided to move on. My surmise was that the sister had the ruling hand within the family, and the brother had to get away in order to end the incest.


General Discussion / Re: Eastwood Movie Challenge
« on: February 29, 2016, 01:40:35 AM »
We're one month into our challenge and have seen 9 films. 10 if you saw The Witches.

How would you rate the movies in order?

A Fistful of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, Hang 'em High, The Witches, Coogan's Bluff,  Where Eagles Dare, Paint Your Wagon, Kelly's Heroes, Two Mules for Sister Sara

My list would be:

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
For A Few Dollars More
A Fistful of Dollars
Hang 'em High
Kelly's Heroes
Paint Your Wagon
Where Eagles Dare
Coogan's Bluff

Will I be accused of "fighting" if I disagree with you?

Never mind, it's really not very important to me.

My list, best at the top and going down to worst....

The Beguiled
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
For A Few Dollars More
A Fistful of Dollars
Play Misty For Me
Paint Your Wagon
Coogan's Bluff
Hang 'em High

I've already watched Beguiled and Misty, have never yet seen those erased from the copied list.


This will be the thread for members taking part in the Eastwood Movie Challenge to discuss the Week Six films, The Beguiled and Play Misty For Me. Post any thoughts you have on watching or re-watching these movies here. Week Six runs from February 29 through March 6.

For the rest of the schedule, please see this post: Eastwood Movie Challenge schedule.

I'm starting the thread a couple of days early, so people will have time to find, borrow or buy the movies. If you've actually started watching early, feel free to post your comments while the memory is fresh.

(By the way, the Beguiled poster is by Bob Peak.)

And if you haven't already, make a post in our Eastwood Movie Challenge Journal and add the movies and dates you watch them, and keep updating it as we go through the Challenge so we can all keep track of where everyone stands.


The gun in the poster is apparently a Model 73 Peacemaker, first manufactured in 1873. I'll guess the setting of the movie is about 1863, ten years earlier. Definitely in the middle of the civil war, but I'm too lazy to look up when the Union Army was actively battling around Baton Rouge.The film itself is very period-correct including both props and behavior of the characters. And the film perfectly captured the ambience of southern Louisiana

Everything about Beguiled is absolutely top-notch. It should have garnered much more critical acclaim than it did. It could have easily won some Oscars.

Misty is a star vehicle and does the job without any disappointment. It also is a top-notch production. It cold have easily won the Oscar for Best Star Vehicle.


This is such a truly joyful comedy of a film, anybody who doesn't just relax and GET IT, doesn't deserve to.

My vote No. 1 best movie to be with your best buds, and girlfriends as the case may be, and get drunk and laugh and laugh, and of course sleep on the floor until you are sober enough to legally drive home again.


The Dirty Harry Films / Re: Time between Dirty Harry and Magnum Force?
« on: February 15, 2016, 07:23:01 AM »
Didn't Harry throw his badge in the sea at the end of Dirty Harry? With my old man trick memory I am not too sure of anything any more. That gesture indicated to me that Harry had some really important issue about continuing to be a cop. An issue of such gravity that it would not be settled in just one day and 98 minutes.

I can easily imagine that it would have taken Harry every bit of two years to resolve the issue and get back into the groove of being a righteously aggressive cop, as he was in Magnum Force.


I agree with you completely that they were motivated by Greed, and not Need.  And, I do think they would have wanted a nice lifestyle if it was available to them. They're not first rate citizens, Tuco is a rapist, a murderer, a thief, the list of offenses they read off were comical, so when I write that they didn't have any problem with killing a few people to get the money, I'm not talking about your average person doing it as well.

Blondie is more of a con-artist, but he doesn't mind killing. He's a bounty-hunter, and he's killed his share of men.

But, seriously, Man... I mean no disrespect, but I can't figure out how you mistook what I said as a RIGHT to a middle class home. You said they would have been stinking rich if we converted the dollars to today's dollars. But, if we convert that amount to today's dollars, we have to adjust for the cost of living, and that's not rich. Maybe it would be plenty to retire on if you were close to retirement and already had a home, but they weren't. I took into account that they had at least 40 years to live, and no homes. They were drifters. As I pointed out, a middle class home would eat up pretty much what they had, not leaving enough to get through the next 40 years.

Even when I looked up the most modest cities in the country to live, homes are still over $100k median. The opportunity is literally in their grasp to be literally rich... billionaires by today's standards, or close to it. Yes, those men (not me) wouldn't settle on the middle class lifestyle. They were, as you said, too greedy for that.

Uhhh, Matt, do you have an unusually short attention span? I just got through explaining plainly to you that I am living proof that a person can retire, buy a functional dwelling, and live without feeling tortured, in a $11,000 dwelling, annual living expenses of $11,000, and a retirement savings stash of nearly zero. Do I need to write it in 2X font size?

In terms of NEED, Tuco and Blondie could have stopped lying, stealing, and murdering halfway through the film. 


I don't think there is any doubt that greed was behind the characters' actions in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Now, if Stevens had gone after the gold, that might have been more a case of need.

But MWNA, where did you get your figure of a "more than 100X" inflation rate since 1862? This site says one 1862 dollar would be worth less than $24 in today's dollars. That is, Blondie and Tuco made about $24,000 apiece the first time they pulled their scam, and around $36,000 the second time (when the price on Tuco's head had risen to $3,000). That's only $60,000 total, certainly not "filthy rich" by any standards. Even if they had done it a few more times than the two we saw, I don't see them earning enough from it to assure a carefree future. And it was dangerous. Word would surely get around about it, and how soon would it be before Tuco got hanged off in the desert somewhere where Blondie wouldn't have a chance to get close enough to shoot the rope? Or before Blondie himself got captured? And of course ... Blondie did miss the rope, the second time, though that time he recovered quickly enough to save Tuco, just barely.

Way back, once upon a time, I bought a lovely little book. An exact reprint of a 1900 Sears Roebuck catalog. At that time, many years ago today, I had just recently discovered guns, having recently bought a repro 1851 Navy Colt, a Ruger "Luger" (the cute little 22 Long Rifle pistol that looked like a Luger), and a Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 magnum). One thing that caught my eye in the 1900 Sears catalog was the price of guns. A Winchester lever action rifle was priced at $4.95. Yes, no typo, FOUR DOLLARS and NINETY FIVE CENTS. Today a comparable gun would sell for about $495. That is 100 X.  Many other items were priced at very roughly the same 100 X money factor. Shoes, whatever. And that comparing 1900 to 2016. I figure inflation had been happening since 1862 to 1900 also, so 100 X is a conservative factor on the low side.

Another example is the 1847 Walker Colt. The Army paid $25.00 for them. The modern day equivalent would be the Auto Mag 44, which starred in the 4th Dirty Harry film, which would have had to be sold for about $2,500 for the manufacturer to make a fair market profit. That's 100 X. 


But they're both still young, and they'd be buying a house at today's prices. Today's real estate market does have middle class homes at approximately $200,000 all over the country. I'm not talking about my home... I"m talking about the U.S. Middle Class home values of 2016.

Here's a chart:

It has nothing to do with MY personal circumstances, and no rub on anyone. It's just about facts. It's like I said, it would be enough for a middle class home in today's economy, and not enough to retire on. They're looking at about 40 years to retirement. They needed more money.

But, Matt, your comments undeniably insist that any human has a RIGHT to a middle class home and retirement stash of cash even though such a condition is far above the set of circumstances that is survivable without feeling tortured. I have proved my case by being retired for 10 or 12 years, I forget which, in all the excitement I lost count myself. I have never had the smallest temptation to lie, steal, or murder so as to climb up the economic ladder to have a more luxurious retirement. Tuco, and even Blondie, could have quit nefarious activities after the two reward scams displayed in the film and survived without feeling tortured just like I have done. The FACT that they did not quit, but continued lying stealing and murdering, shows that the characters were motivated by GREED, not need.

Do you believe that, if your personal circumstances were changed to those I presently have, you would be justified to lie, steal, and murder, so as to raise your comfort level?

In a like way, I claim that the film characters, Blondie, Tuco, and Angeleyes were all motivated strongly by GREED, and this must be understood to then properly understand the plot of the film.


We only see Blondie turn in Tuco twice. Let's say that's all there was. Using your numbers, that's $200,000 in today's dollars each, which isn't rich. It buys a middle class home, but it's not enough to retire on.

So, yes! I would think they still need more money! And neither of them seem afraid or upset at having to kill a few men to get to it.


Dear Matt, dear fellow, you were obviously born into, and have lived in, circumstances much different than my own.

I was born in the foothills of the Appalachians, and lived in a very small shack in the country, in Oak Ridge, smaller than the one Johnny Cash lived in in the recent film about his life, to give you a perhaps common reference point. Next we lived in a 30' 1948 Shult house trailer which sheltered me until I got married and moved out at the age of 22. My bride and I moved into a small 2 bedroom apartment that was the cheapest I could find in Memphis. In 1965 my rent was $35, equal to about $350 in 2016 money.

I am retired and I presently live in a dwelling which I own and which cost me $11,000, recently enough bought for that to be the current fair market value. By coincidence my annual living expenses are about $11,000 on the average .

I have been noticing that many people pay far more than me for housing, a fine car, and everything. However it is not fair for you or anyone else to point to your own extravagant financial lifestyle and say that you are living in a bare and frugal way and your circumstances are normal.

You have cleverly diverted attention away form the nexus of my original post. The nexus I presented was that obviously Blondie and Tuco have lived in poor circumstances which, as I have now revealed, to be familiar to myself, though equally obviously you are not personally familiar with living in limited circumstances. Both Blondie and Tuco (and The Man With No Aim) would consider $200,000 in 2016 money to be "filthy rich" compared to much of their and mine financial history.

Counter to your assertion, let's imagine that Blondie and perhaps Tuco also have performed their ruse many times before, but Leone already knew his movie would be too long and did not care to document every one of a dozen or two times they had acquired $1,000 apiece. One dozen times? Blondie has $1,000 X 12 = $12,000. Now, to see it in 2016 money, $12,000 X 100 = $1,200,000. Blondie is rich enough to afford to hire a gunsmith to custom build a fine gun and manufacture cartridges for it. Tuco has to rely on a severe historical anachronism to obtain a fine gun and cartridges for it.

Therefore, I raised two points which I consider to be important to understanding GBU.

1. Belatedly I have realized that Blondie had enough money to get his highly anachronistic gun and its cartridges.

2. Neither Blondie or Tuco were driven by any kind of NEED, but rather by naked GREED.

Matt, my living expenses are one twentieth of what you have called ESSENTIAL, but I do not feel driven by NEED to steal or murder to get a $200,000 house like yours or a retirement stash of $200,000 like yours. I have retired on a cache of cash which is much closer to $1.98 than to $200,000.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28

C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T