Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Ah sorry, you’re one of those people that gets upset when someone disagrees with you. I’ll tread lightly next time.

shitpost more.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Don’t get so butthurt... people can disagree. Especially when someone says something ridiculous.

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Don’t get so butthurt... people can disagree. Especially when someone says something ridiculous.

You've posted three times and yet you haven't said a thing. That's called shitposting.

Don't get so butthurt urself.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

You've posted three times and yet you haven't said a thing. That's called shitposting.

Don't get so butthurt urself.

K, it’s a great movie. Now I said something.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

Ok let's try this again. Let's start over. Tell me, why is 'Unforgiven' a great film and what justifies its critically acclaimed ratings? I don't understand what makes this film special. I liked it decently I suppose; it was alright. But I don't think it was very good at anything. I certainly don't think it did any one thing exceptionally well. It didn't make any sort of impression on me and I didn't come away from it feeling anything.

Really just trying to understand what makes this film special. Merely subverting genre expectations does not make a film great.

I think it's a good film as I've owned it on DVD, BD, and now UHD BD. However, I don't believe it's a "great" film. For years it was on the top 100 for AFI and that always surprised me. I think the general script and production were good. Nice cinematography. I think Gene Hackman carried a good part of the movie and his performance was key for me; Harris was good too. I think Eastwood was 'okay' and has done better work; Woolvert's performance as the "kid" was the weakest of the entire cast and not very good in general. His acting did not hold up for me. The movie has a lot of scenes I enjoy watching though and how it all ends up at the end is classic in a sense with some iconic Eastwood. I would give the movie about a 4/5 stars at most. An all-time best Western? I'm not sure about that.

[cynatnite]

What makes Unforgiven a great film is that it takes the genre and turns it sideways. Clint Eastwood is a hero in western films as we know him.

In this, he's a pig farmer which is pretty humiliating work for a former badass gunslinger.

Stories of legend and truth get intermixed here. The writer here follows Little Bill around, takes down his story as if he's really the hero. That writer wants the toughest, the meanest who's also a hero.

We look at our western heroes who kill, but this movie turns that right around This line says it all: "It’s a hell of a thing, ain’t it, killin’ a man. You take everythin’ he’s got… an’ everythin’ he’s ever gonna have…"

Munny says this to the kid before he's told about Ned which is the setup for the confrontation with Little Bill.

Unforgiven is a great film because it tells the story of the so-called western hero and turns it upside down. Munny's not a hero and he knows it. He's ashamed of what he did no matter the reasons for it.

Still a brilliant film even now.

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

IMO Unforgiven lacked polish, and any sort of memorable significance. Hence so many people posting that they had to watch it a few times before they "got it".

In books, if a writer is so superfluous and meandering that an above average intelligence reader doesn't understand what he's trying to say, then it's a failure. The author fails at delivering his message. The same way a movie does not require multiple views in order for a person to conclude that they like it or understood it.

Let's not pretend there was some sort of deepness to this film. If you like it, that's great. I'm happy for you. I'm obviously very much in the minority here.

piss off. What a pointless comment.

I wouldn't call them that either. It was merely an attempted single word summary of what you called "films that lack plot in the traditional sense".

As you mentioned books and writers, I wonder if you read Cormac McCarthy or Thomas Pynchon. Both were great writers with great works, but I'd be hard pressed to say I'd enjoyed reading them. Their writing is dense, very stylistic and lack what one could call 'polish'. But that is what makes them what they are, and doesn't make either writer less than someone more polished and enjoyable to read like say Dan DeLillo.

The point of Unforgiven is that it has nothing 'special', it is gritty, down to earth and plain. And Clint Eastwood's understated direction reinforces the plainness, which is what makes the film feel real and relatable. The real west wasn't all Greek and dramatic as say in Shane, it was much closer to what you see in Unforgiven or A River Runs through it. Eastwood maintains that realism, but also retains a whiff of the romanticism which pays off in the ending in the totally subversive way. The film is what it is, and that is what makes it pretty great. One may find it not to one's tastes, but you can't deny sheer artistry when you see it. And even if the latter isn't clear as day, Gene Hackman and Clint Eastwood's performances were pretty unique and speak volumes with mere gestures and minimal dialogue. One can literally picture Munny's whole life without a single flashback or even reams of dialogue focusing on his back story, if that isn't great filmmaking I frankly don't know what is.

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by bradnoyes

I've never been a big fan of Westerns but one of the things I loved about Unforgiven is how it essentially turned the genre on its head. Nothing derivative or formulaic about it. And I love how the story unravels. Feels very organic to me, and in that way it reminds me of Blade Runner, which is one of my other all-time favorites.

And the UHD is great.

Both Blade Runner and Unforgiven were mainly written by David Peoples, and I am glad you noticed the similarities!

[ROSS.T.G.]

It’s an unorthodox western. The main character isn’t a “good guy”. The entire length of the film you wait to see him turn into the person the other characters speak of. Everything leads up to it perfectly and the payoff is worth it. There is nothing generic about Unforgiven. It’s a masterpiece.

[gwsat]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

Ok let's try this again. Let's start over. Tell me, why is 'Unforgiven' a great film and what justifies its critically acclaimed ratings? I don't understand what makes this film special. I liked it decently I suppose; it was alright. But I don't think it was very good at anything. I certainly don't think it did any one thing exceptionally well. It didn't make any sort of impression on me and I didn't come away from it feeling anything.

Really just trying to understand what makes this film special. Merely subverting genre expectations does not make a film great.

The post quoted above is at least your sixth one in the past 24 yours in which you have bashed the film. First, your first post on the subject clearly expressed your dislike for [I]Unforgiven[/I,] so we get it. Second, when you find yourself in a hole it's a good idea to stop digging.

[bradnoyes]

Originally Posted by Scholer

Both Blade Runner and Unforgiven were mainly written by David Peoples, and I am glad you noticed the similarities!

I never knew that. Pretty neat. It's funny because they're both movies that I've often watched with people who complained that they're too "slow" or "boring" and I'm always thinking "are you out of your damn mind?" Every scene is PACKED with things to get excited about. But oh well. I'm long past the point of arguing with people about this kind of thing. Their loss.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

IMO Unforgiven lacked polish, and any sort of memorable significance. Hence so many people posting that they had to watch it a few times before they "got it".

In books, if a writer is so superfluous and meandering that an above average intelligence reader doesn't understand what he's trying to say, then it's a failure. The author fails at delivering his message. The same way a movie does not require multiple views in order for a person to conclude that they like it or understood it.

Let's not pretend there was some sort of deepness to this film. If you like it, that's great. I'm happy for you. I'm obviously very much in the minority here.

I deliberately try to avoid getting into film criticism discussions on this board since I disagree with pretty much everyone about pretty much everything, but I feel compelled to comment here.

First of all, there is no hard rule about what constitutes a failure or a success when it comes to art. That said, it certainly isn't based on a hypothetical, improvable, intangible concept such as a "above average intelligence" consumer of that art "getting it" or not. Every work of art is going to be liked and disliked, understood and misunderstood, and interpreted in countless different ways by countless different people. Everyone has different criteria about what makes something good or bad or a success or a failure. There's no one, objective standard here. And noting that some viewers felt the need for multiple viewings before appreciating Unforgiven certainly doesn't prove that it conveys its themes poorly. What about people who love it after one viewing? What about people who never "get it?" There are going to be interpretations and opinions all over the map.

That said, one of the worst ways to discuss/argue/debate/whatever a film is to insinuate that people who disagree with you are somehow "pretending" something about their opinion. After years of analyzing, discussing, and all-around burying myself in cinema, I'm quite convinced this almost never actually happens. It's an easy tactic to fall back on without having to engage with a point. I'm certainly not "pretending" that I find Unforgiven to be a profound film, and I certainly don't think you're "pretending" not to like it.

Now that that's out of the way, I thought I might offer you a few of my thoughts about why Unforgiven is a great work of movie art.

There has been a lot of talk already about its subversive, revisionist take on the western genre. That's there, for sure. But that doesn't mean much if it isn't tied to a deeper theme. And I think that theme is violence. Killing. Death. These are things that have fascinated Eastwood for his entire career.

To put it into context, I view Unforgiven as the middle piece of a loose trilogy in his filmography. It begins with High Plains Drifter, moves through this, and ends with Gran Torino. These three films essentially represent an arc of how Eastwood views killing and revenge.

In HPD, violence is immediate and satisfying. The revenge wrought against the antagonists is so thrilling and just that it becomes fun and righteous, despite its brutality.

In Unforgiven, Clint is a changed man. He's older. Wiser. And a helluva lot more world weary. And killing in this movie is f**king HEAVY. There is WEIGHT behind death. Clint doesn't believe in righteous vengeance anymore. He is exploring what it means to take the life of another human being. David Peoples's script executes this, in my opinion, incredibly. I don't think there has ever been a more eloquent, succinct, and profound line about murder in all of cinema history than this one: "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. You take away all he's got...and all he's ever gonna have." I mean, what more is there to say?

By the end of Unforgiven, Eastwood still isn't able to transcend the violence that leadens his conscience. He gives in and unleashes his fury once again. And one can't help but feel a glimmer of satisfaction watching the antagonists go down; the sadistic echoes of High Plains Drifter reverberate. But it isn't pretty. And it isn't easy. And it doesn't leave you feeling good about it.

In GT, Eastwood finally transcends this. He escapes through martyrdom. He is no longer exploring what killing means - he has finally reached a conclusion. One even more blunt, angry, and disillusioned than the aforementioned Peoples line: "You want know what it's like to kill a man? Well it's godd*mn awful!"

[Nothing371]

Thanks to the people that made thoughtful responses, I appreciate it.

Originally Posted by gwsat

The post quoted above is at least your sixth one in the past 24 yours in which you have bashed the film. First, your first post on the subject clearly expressed your dislike for [I]Unforgiven[/I,] so we get it. Second, when you find yourself in a hole it's a good idea to stop digging.

If that's what you got out of this then you really haven't been paying attention to the discussion at all.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

ok, pretend I said "boring", "lackluster", or "forgettable" instead. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words.

Oh, boy. We're not on a similar page here. I agree there's some obvious turns throughout the story and all, but I think it's a very entertaining movie.

[Charlie_C]

Has anyone else had an issue with this disc?

I started to watch it and just before you see Clint for the first time the audio cut out and the picture stuttered and juddered along. I stopped the disc and resumed and it happened again but this time it was about 30 seconds later. I took the disc out, resumed and again it played okay this time for a couple of minutes before the problem reoccured. So it's obviously not specific to a certain point on the disc but will just occur randomly at any given moment. 4k player firmware is up to date and it's the UK disc if that makes a difference.

I'll probably just have to take it back and swap for a new copy but it's pretty annoying.

[HeavyHitter]

No issues with my disc.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by Charlie_C

Has anyone else had an issue with this disc?

I started to watch it and just before you see Clint for the first time the audio cut out and the picture stuttered and juddered along. I stopped the disc and resumed and it happened again but this time it was about 30 seconds later. I took the disc out, resumed and again it played okay this time for a couple of minutes before the problem reoccured. So it's obviously not specific to a certain point on the disc but will just occur randomly at any given moment. 4k player firmware is up to date and it's the UK disc if that makes a difference.

I'll probably just have to take it back and swap for a new copy but it's pretty annoying.

This was reported before on here as well. Not sure if it was you or another member but this is getting concerning. I've only watched the blu ray and it worked just fine but hearing about this and similar issues with the Nolan 4K Batman films is making me rethink upgrading to UHD down the road.

[Nice Guy Eddie]

Originally Posted by cynatnite

Even at the end, Munny turns away from his son when he's asked if he brought home the money for killing a man.

Uhh...........what?

[cochon]

Originally Posted by Nice Guy Eddie

Uhh...........what?

x2

[cynatnite]

Originally Posted by Nice Guy Eddie

Uhh...........what?

Originally Posted by cochon

x2

Sorry, about that. There was a later scene in the production script and I even got that wrong.