Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[Kingchin]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

I mean, I don't really agree with that. I think the last four winners: Moonlight, Spotlight, Birdman, and 12 Years a Slave were all top notch films deserving of a Best Picture award.

On the other hand, I was incredibly disappointed when I saw Unforgiven for the first time. It was good, ya. Not great. and I understand that our opinions of movies are entirely subjective. But from a critical standpoint I thought Unforgiven was incredibly lacking, especially considering the amazing Best Picture winners that surround it. Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs, Schindler's List, Braveheart, etc are all incredible films. Unforgiven just...wasn't that good from a film-making standpoint. Nor was the storytelling.

Unforgiven is one of the best westerns of all time. Ask anyone to name a western and chances are they will say either Unforgiven or The Searchers. Your in the minority of people who think Unforgiven was lacking, it's most people's favourite Western.

[brainofj72]

Personally, I think Unforgiven is far superior to all the other films referenced in that post. It’s an incredibly complex and profound work of filmmaking, but it is subtle about it. The depth is understated (as is the way with Clint).

[MassiveMovieBuff]

I'm in the group that didn't care of Unforgiven at all when I first saw it. It took me 4 viewings to finally appreciate it. One of my main issues with it was that it put me to sleep every time I tried to watch it. I felt the pacing just slogs. I still do to a degree but not like I used to. While I think it's a really good film now, I don't think it's great necessarily and frankly still feel it's somewhat overrated and far from the greatest western ever made. There's plenty of Westerns I would say are better than Unforgiven but that's just my opinion.

[gwsat]

Originally Posted by Kingchin

Atmos? Unforgiven 4k blu ray only had DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1, no Dolby Atmos, I've got the 4k blu ray. Agree with you about it being a great western film, definitely in the top five westerns of all time, probably my second favourite western after The Searchers.

My bad. After I read your post I checked my copy of the film. You are correct that the UHD HDR version of Unforgiven has a DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack, not TrueHD Atmos. Sorry for the confusion.

[dommie]

Unforgiven is an interesting film for me. When I first saw it, during the initial release, I thought it was a good film but it didn't knock me out. I thought it was a little slow as westerns go and that was, at that time, a negative for me. It was also released in late summer of 1992 which is not known as a time to release stronger films during the year and when it won the Oscar, my first reaction was that it won because it was a weak year for films; that in any other year, it probably would not have been picked. Over the years, I have come to appreciate Unforgiven a lot more than I did at first. It's leisurely pacing and subtle nuances about violence and how a person's past deeds can continue to haunt their life, which are not normal elements when you consider most of the great western films that have been made, actually work to the film's advantage. The script is actually quite strong and there are some really great iconic lines in that film. Is it the greatest western ever made? I am not sure I would say that. However, when discussing the greatest westerns ever made, Unforgiven should certainly be a part of the conversation.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by dommie

It's leisurely pacing and subtle nuances about violence, which are not normal elements for a great western, actually work to the film's advantage. The script is actually quite strong and there are some iconic lines in that film.

I'm glad you pointed this out. This was one of the things that really stood out for me on my viewing where I gained my appreciation for the film. That it's different than most westerns and that's how I went into my 4th viewing where I ended up enjoying it more as well.

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by Scholer

I guess what you didn't like was actually Clint Eastwood's directorial style, known for leanness and a tendency to lack a sense of pace, which is not to say that he makes slow films (rather the contrary) but that they feel slow to people used to films with narrative momentum. Also another thing that Unforgiven didn't have is a set on stone 'plot', as the film doesn't focus on a key story, rather on the characters, setting and mood. This again is not a bad thing as most of the greatest films lack a plot in the traditional sense as well, think Taxi Driver or Moonlight or No Country for Old Men.

nah, it's not about pacing or anything like that. I love a good western too. Unforgiven just seems sophomoric to me. It was very paint by numbers, played it safe, and was not that interesting to me. Although I haven't seen either movie in a long time, Tombstone seems like a better movie by comparison. I absolutely loved No Country for Old Men, Moonlight, and other similarly "directionless" movies to which you are referring.

Notice that I say "to me". I make a point to never say say that a discussion-worthy film "is bad". Something isn't bad just because you don't like it. It's just that I was shocked when I watched Unforgiven with another friend and both of us came out of it wholly unimpressed. I was certain that I was going to like the movie, yet it was a disappointment.

I'll have to give it a re-watch again soon.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Lol paint by numbers. Only on the internet...

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by Nothing371

nah, it's not about pacing or anything like that. I love a good western too. Unforgiven just seems sophomoric to me. It was very paint by numbers, played it safe, and was not that interesting to me. Although I haven't seen either movie in a long time, Tombstone seems like a better movie by comparison. I absolutely loved No Country for Old Men, Moonlight, and other similarly "directionless" movies to which you are referring.

Notice that I say "to me". I make a point to never say say that a discussion-worthy film "is bad". Something isn't bad just because you don't like it. It's just that I was shocked when I watched Unforgiven with another friend and both of us came out of it wholly unimpressed. I was certain that I was going to like the movie, yet it was a disappointment.

I'll have to give it a re-watch again soon.

I understand how one may be unimpressed by Unforgiven, but have no clue how anyone could call it paint by numbers or 'safe'. It is probably the most subversive Western ever made, with maybe The Searchers coming close. The script was revisionist in every way. The archetypical villain was fleshed out a lot more than usual, the women had depth, the gunfights were unspectacular and gritty. The ending was sheer genius in that it ended like a typical western in a gun fight, but it still felt far removed from a typical western. Even playing out key events off camera, like Ned's death, was completely unusual. Characters like the writer and the Duke were pretty unusual in a western as well. One can not like the film, but still appreciate how it made a western out of elements totally absent or avoided in most westerns.

And I also wouldn't consider either Moonlight or No Country for Old Men as 'directionless', quite the contrary in fact. But one other facet that I can note is that No Country for Old Men was actually a slow film, taking it's time to establish both it's structure and it's drama, but it nevertheless had a relentless sense of pace. This is the anti-thesis of what Unforgiven did, which established both the drama and it's structure at the very onset, but in terms of pacing the film was completely relaxed. And I believe both approaches work to the benefit of both films in entirely different ways.

Regardless, I believe you and your friend may have missed the very point of Unforgiven as you categorized it as safe. I would recommend giving it another try, especially on the new remastered blu-ray or UHD as the transfer is breathtakingly good.

And if your into such things, the French UHD comes in a stunning digipack and a thick book, it's the edition I have and it's on sale now for half of what I paid for it, a real steal!

https://www.amazon.fr/Unforgiven-4K-...A1X6FK5RDHNB96

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

I'm glad you pointed this out. This was one of the things that really stood out for me on my viewing where I gained my appreciation for the film. That it's different than most westerns and that's how I went into my 4th viewing where I ended up enjoying it more as well.

I also took I guess my 3rd viewing to comprehend why the film felt so great. The first time I was impressed, but couldn't pinpoint why, the 2nd time was more of the same. But on subsequent viewings the nuances became evident.

[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.

[LoSouL]

Drink and wickedness.

[gwsat]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

Drink and wickedness.

Oh but Bill Munny says, "I ain't like that no more." If there has ever been a greater exposition about the dangers of unintended consequences than Unforgiven, I don't know what it could be.

[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.

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Lol paint by numbers. Only on the internet...

piss off. What a pointless comment.

Originally Posted by Scholer

And I also wouldn't consider either Moonlight or No Country for Old Men as 'directionless', quite the contrary in fact. But one other facet that I can note is that No Country for Old Men was actually a slow film, taking it's time to establish both it's structure and it's drama, but it nevertheless had a relentless sense of pace. This is the anti-thesis of what Unforgiven did, which established both the drama and it's structure at the very onset, but in terms of pacing the film was completely relaxed. And I believe both approaches work to the benefit of both films in entirely different ways.

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".

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Lol paint by numbers. Only on the internet...

And what's wrong with that? Paint by number, cookie-cutter... any such term applies.

Either way, love the film.

[Cremildo]

How is Unforgiven "paint-by-numbers" if it's the revisionist, myth-deconstructing western par excellence?

Some opinions just don't make any sense.

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

How is Unforgiven "paint-by-numbers" if it's the revisionist, myth-deconstructing western par excellence?

Some opinions just don't make any sense.

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

[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.

[imsounoriginal]

Give these a read: https://deepfocusreview.com/definitives/unforgiven/ and http://www.celluloidcinema.com/post/unforgiven

[ROSS.T.G.]

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".

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