News: Having trouble registering?  Please feel free to contact us at help[at]clinteastwood.org.  We will help you get an account set up.


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Unforgiven: The Best Movie Eastwood has made or an overrated piece of work?  (Read 30022 times)
Christopher
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6080


The real me


View Profile Email
« Reply #60 on: August 06, 2012, 09:15:41 AM »

That is an interesting comparison to Goodfellas--I don't recall seeing that comparison elsewhere either.
Logged
Perry
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 822


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #61 on: August 27, 2012, 03:32:55 PM »


 It's two fold. I think it's a good movie. I just never thought it should had won for 'Best Picture. From a personal standpoint I always felt Eastwood's 'Josey Wales' was his defining achievement as a Western and still do. I even remember seeing Orson Welles on The Merv Griffin show going nuts about how much he loved that movie. Obviously, Unforgiven even in this Site is rated Eastwood's #1 movie which I find amazing- even over Dirty Harry. I wouldn't personally put Unforgiven in the top 10, but the reality is 20 years later and a box office of over $150,000.000 Unforgiven overrated or not still packs a wallop.


                                              Ox-Bo
Logged
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2517



View Profile Email
« Reply #62 on: September 02, 2012, 05:57:18 PM »

I had been meaning to rewatch this. I did last night. From the standpoint of a moviegoer, I really didn't enjoy it. From the standpoint of its place in filmmaking, I recognize the achievement. "Unforgiven" was the first film that I have seen that so thoroughly de-mythologized the Western. Up until that point, the Wild West had been romanticized and idealized. I think "Unforgiven" showed things closer to the way things actually were. For that, Eastwood and everyone involved with "Unforgiven" should be given great credit. As for my previous comments about the ending going against the anti-violence theme, I still do feel that the ending is inconsistent with the theme, but on the other hand, the ending wasn't constructed in a way that romanticized Munny's actions. Munny himself seemed to really be regretting a lot of the things that he was doing, and when Kid kept trying to get him to retell his old stories, or speak in glorified terms about his experiences, he would just shrug and say "yeah, I guess," as if he wasn't interest in romanticizing his past. He knew what he had done was wrong. I don't think he was interested in re-living it. The audience isn't either. 

Ultimately, "Unforgiven" presented a nuanced portrait of people, that we are all good, and yes, we are all bad. In my own view, I think Little Bill was the hero of the picture. He was always doing what he thought was right. He used violence, but he did it to protect his town. He didn't seem to enjoy it. He seemed to do it out of what he felt was necessity. He beat up English Bob to provide a warning to anyone who might want to come into town to kill those cowboys that this would be their fate. He didn't want to see anymore bloodshed. He had already been apart of far too much of that. He did the same to Will Munny, for the same reasons. He beat up Ned so that he could catch what in his mind were the killers who had brought havoc upon his town. He didn't want to see any more people getting killed. He had a job to do, and a town to protect. Today, we have the rule of law to protect people, and to punish the wrongdoers, but in the time of the West, those institutions had not yet taken root. Justice has replaced lawlessness. The rule of law has replaced brutality and bloodshed. Those are good changes. I don't agree with everything that Little Bill did. I wouldn't be able to do many of those things myself, but I understand why he did what he did, and why he thought it was necessary.

I didn't understand why Will Munny did what he did. Why did he agree to go on the killing in the first place, and why did Ned agree to come along with him? He had his farm, and his kids, and he seemed to be doing okay. Why risk all of that? He had to have known how it would end. He'd seen it all before. So, why did he agree to go on this killing? He kept saying over over again that he had changed, but had he really? Who was he trying to convince?

Before he kills Little Bill, he says "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." If this is true, than why kill him? What did he mean by this? He killed Skinny for displaying Ned's dead body with a sign in front of his bar. He seemed to believe that Skinny deserved to die for this. If he didn't, why is he dead? How can nobody deserve to die when they are all being killed? 

"Unforgiven" is not among my favorite Eastwood films. It's a crowning achievement, but it's not a film I enjoy watching. I don't get a visceral, powerful emotional reaction when I watch this film. I get an intellectual understanding, an intellectual appreciation, a recognition of "Unforgiven" as a film that will forever change how we all see the Western. It enlightens, but it did not entertain, and for me, that's pretty important.
Logged
Perry
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 822


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #63 on: September 03, 2012, 06:59:09 PM »



I rather watch 'Joe Kidd'
Logged
bdc28
Classic Member
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294



View Profile Email
« Reply #64 on: October 25, 2012, 05:21:29 AM »

AKA,

I think alot of your questions, contribute to the idea that this was a movie of the human conditions. "Why did he go with Ned?" is very similar to our life questions (why did I date that woman?/move to New York?/Take that job?)...its left to be open ended because life is open ended.

There is a distintion between a killer and normal people, and that is there is a line they are willing to cross that lowers the value of human life, at least to them, at that moment.

In the man with no name movies, he as an entire character was a mystery. He had no past, for all intent purposes he was never shown to have a future...his motivations werent made apparent. He was just, a killer. He did what he did because....??

In my mind, UNFORGIVEN was supposed to be a "supposed alternative epitaph to the Man with No name"..but with a touch more reality.

To answer the question, I think the unforgiven person in the movie, was William Munny, to himself. He never forgave himself for who he was and what he done. It was why he lived such a tragic life...it didnt have to be so despair. It was pennance.
Logged

"I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing wearing my pajamas I have no idea..."
Lin Sunderland
Guest


Email
« Reply #65 on: October 26, 2012, 03:45:18 PM »

That is a thoughtful post bdc28. I can "see" your take on the movie and the character of Will Munny.
Logged
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30924


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #66 on: October 26, 2012, 10:09:44 PM »

I agree, and I've always thought that Munny was the chief "unforgiven one," though the title could be interpreted in a number of different ways.
Logged
exit00
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


Dying ain't much of a livin'


View Profile Email
« Reply #67 on: October 27, 2012, 07:12:01 AM »

I agree, and I've always thought that Munny was the chief "unforgiven one," though the title could be interpreted in a number of different ways.

Yeah, I agree with what you say.... I've always thought that the title "Unforgiven" was meant in more broad terms than just for Munny. It might apply to almost all of us with Munny just this one example.
Logged
Speggeti Lover
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile Email
« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2016, 09:18:09 PM »

If this movie is consider good, could you just imagine what Leonie would have said about this movie, remember he didn't even like High Plains Drifter? Imo this movie sux , put a fork in it !

!!!
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 09:22:13 PM by Speggeti Lover » Logged
Conan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2940


JP


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2016, 02:07:27 AM »

If this movie is consider good, could you just imagine what Leonie would have said about this movie, remember he didn't even like High Plains Drifter? Imo this movie sux , put a fork in it !
!!!

I imagine that Sergio Leone would like "Unforgiven", so why exactly does it "sux"?
Logged

KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30924


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2016, 06:15:46 AM »

No, no, Conan ... Not Leone. "Leonie," whoever she is!
Logged
B.C.
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4746


View Profile Email
« Reply #71 on: March 07, 2016, 06:05:31 AM »

I just came across this thread and thought I'd posted here.  I wasn't sure so I skimmed through and discovered I haven't.  I wouldn't say Unforgiven is an overrated piece of work, not at all.  I think it's perfect.  I used to think it was a great tour-de-force* but that implies a previous failure and that would be wrong.  Well, I used to consider Pale Rider a failure.  I was not a fan of that film for a very long time.  It took me 30 years to really appreciate that film and now I love it.  Unforgiven, however, is better out of the two.  Upon first viewing it on the big screen, I was extremely happy.  Hell, I was elated that Eastwood had not only returned to the western genre, but did it so damn well!  I returned to see it four more times with various friends and family.  That more than made up for my then disappointment with Pale Rider. 

Speaking for myself, however, Unforgiven isn't as good as the Leone trilogy.  I consider A Fistful Of Dollars, For A Few Dollars More and The Good, The Bad And The Ugly not only Eastwood's best westerns but they are my favorite of the genre by any actor.  John Wayne is a very close second but the "spaghetti westerns", to me, are the ultimate in western movies.  You have the introduction in A Fistful Of Dollars, feeling Eastwood's characters is selfish in his actions with regards to money but isn't all bad in that he helps Marisol, her husband and son escape.  You have the great sequel with Colonel Mortimer in For A Few Dollars More.  First, a rivalry and then a partnership that evolves into respect and even, possibly, friendship.  Of course, the ultimate follows in The Good, The Bad And The Ugly with the scene stealing Eli Wallach as Tuco and the return of Lee Van Cleef, this time, as Angel Eyes.  To this day I can't see the value of Once Upon A Time In The West, also directed by Sergio Leone.  No offense to those who enjoy it.  I think it's great that there are fans of that film out there, I'm just not one of them.  Perhaps I'll give it another chance someday. 

So when I compare Unforgiven to the Leone/Eastwood trilogy, especially The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, the 1966 western wins hands down, no contest.  I still consider Eastwood's 1992 western to be among his best, though.  It's a great story, beautifully produced and directed and with great acting all around.  I may have finally come around to loving Pale Rider, but am glad Clint's last western, possibly, could be Unforgiven.  What a way to go out! 

*The way I heard the phrase tour-de-force growing up, seemed to always imply a comeback, of sorts.  Like an entertainer or sports figure who was once great, wasn't anymore and then 'came back' with a great performance.  That's what I meant when I said 'implies a previous failure'; just my impression on how the phrase was used as I heard it in my youth. 





« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 06:08:51 AM by Jed (Brian) Cooper » Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Go Up Print 
 




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