Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yeah I've watched the biggies from before then... True Grit, Rio Bravo, etc... Only one I ever liked at all was The Searchers. I don't know why but they always come across as cheesy to me. Maybe I need to give them another shot someday, who knows.

Worth pointing out I'm not a huge pre-60s cinema guy in general. I like WW2 and Cold War spy movies because they're super interesting, and some of the early or pre-code stuff is cool like the early Frankensteins, but overall I'm definitely a 60s and up guy. Even with my favorite genre, sci-fi, I barely own any from before 2001: A Space Odyssey, just because that 50s cheeseball sci-fi vibe is... oof.

How about Mitchum/noir stuff?

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

I'd go with the '60s. You've got the Macaronis, with the cream of the crop including A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West. Then there's films like The Magnificent Seven, How the West Was Won, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (probably my favorite American Western), The Wild Bunch... c'est magnifique.

100% agree!

[ThePreacher]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I'd go with the 60s as well. There are plenty of great westerns before that, but I'm not really into the simplistic "cowboys and indians" type of westerns that proliferated during the 30s-50s time period.



There are such things as context and perspective. Maybe you should learn them. There is a difference between malign racism and someone saying stupid ignorant shit, particularly if they are a product of their time. Go ahead and call someone out on the latter if the situation arises but referring to someone as a horrible human being on that basis when the individual in question was by all accounts very well liked by the people who knew him and worked with him (including many people with very liberal political beliefs) is ignorance in and of itself, on your part.

And FWIW, I lean to the left of the political spectrum myself lest you think I am some sort of right-wing American nut angrily defending one of my heroes.

And FWIW I’m a “right wing American nut” who believes in defending your right and everyone’s right to say ignorant stuff, while also calling out racism.

Anyway. Back on topic, this is the best Unforgiven has ever looked but I can’t sit through any more Eastwood - even if someone paid me.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Johnzilla2179

I mean, they ARE cheesy in their own way. Just like films from other eras have a certain amount of datedness that one has to deal with. For instance, though I like many films from the '80s, the ones that lean the hardest into the excesses of the era -- like Top Gun or The Breakfast Club, etc. -- I find almost unbearably hokey. Which is not to say they're bad films, they're just not really to my preference. The Golden Age of Hollywood style is just that: a style.

Absolutely agreed. I love some cheesy stuff, and would dent some stuff is cheesy because of my perspective that probably is cheesy. I guess that's what I was trying to say, that I have preferences for tone and style that a lot of pre-Eastwood westerns just don't mix with. We're all different.

Originally Posted by Johnzilla2179

Most classic westerns are reflective of a general positivity about America and the world that has since fallen by the wayside in the last few decades, for better or worse.

I like American exceptionalism, but only with a hint of bitter cynicism.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

The fact you are both giant lizards

Looks like two sentient having a chat.

But I'm a robot!

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

But I'm a robot!

Well...

[benedictopacifico]

I'd also go with the 60s as a whole, but the genre has some of his greatest movies like Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, High Noon, Shane, The Searchers, Rio Bravo, dating from before that decade.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by benedictopacifico

I'd also go with the 60s as a whole, but the genre has some of his greatest movies like Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, High Noon, Shane, The Searchers, Rio Bravo, dating from before that decade.

The Ox Bow Incident

[Markgway]

My problem with old westerns is the weak gunfights.

You get a 90 min story build up for a confrontation that's over in a single shot: a puff of smoke and some dude falling forward clutching his belly with less blood than a paper cut. I don't expect John Woo, but still...

[Alister_M]

Originally Posted by Markgway

My problem with old westerns is the weak gunfights.

You get a 90 min story build up for a confrontation that's over in a single shot: a puff of smoke and some dude falling forward clutching his belly with less blood than a paper cut. I don't expect John Woo, but still...

Surprise surprise, it was Leone who upped the ante there by ignoring Hollywood's golden rule of never showing the gun firing in the same frame as the person being shot.

[benedictopacifico]

Originally Posted by Alister_M

Surprise surprise, it was Leone who upped the ante there by ignoring Hollywood's golden rule of never showing the gun firing in the same frame as the person being shot.

I also have heard that it was Leone who first did that, but off the top of my head, that happens in Shane (more than 10 years earlier)

[Show spoiler]when Jack Palance guns down "Stonewall" Torry,

in a scene that is more raw and violent that anything in A Fistful of Dollars.

And I'm sure that there's got to be more examples.

[Johnzilla2179]

Originally Posted by Markgway

My problem with old westerns is the weak gunfights.

You get a 90 min story build up for a confrontation that's over in a single shot: a puff of smoke and some dude falling forward clutching his belly with less blood than a paper cut. I don't expect John Woo, but still...

That's really more of a "problem" with cinema as a whole at the time; famously, there were quite a few limitations to what was allowed onscreen. One can't really lay the sanitized violence (or sexual content) of the era solely at the feet of the western.

As far as "a 90 min story build up for a confrontation that's over in a single shot," I'm going to assume you're simply being hyperbolic, as that's factually and verifiably wrong.

Originally Posted by Alister_M

Surprise surprise, it was Leone who upped the ante there by ignoring Hollywood's golden rule of never showing the gun firing in the same frame as the person being shot.

Originally Posted by benedictopacifico

I also have heard that it was Leone who first did that, but off the top of my head, that happens in Shane (more than 10 years earlier)

[Show spoiler]when Jack Palance guns down "Stonewall" Torry,

in a scene that is more raw and violent that anything in A Fistful of Dollars.

And I'm sure that there's got to be more examples.

I think it might have been Sir Christopher Frayling who started the myth that Leone was first to show a shooter and victim in the same shot. He mentions something to this effect in the bonus features for one of the Dollars Trilogy films. Without even giving it much thought, The Searchers, Red River, Winchester '73, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and The Magnificent Seven all feature at least one scene in which the shooter and the person being shot are in the same frame. I was also going to mention Shane, but benedictopacifico beat me to it.

Sure, the violence was more graphic in some ways in Leone's films that what had come before, but the man was ultimately channeling his influences (which include many of the classic westerns mentioned in this thread as well as others) into his work. I love Sergio Leone and his films, but let's not give him TOO much credit, please. He didn't invent the genre and he was but one of a several who perfected it. His style just happens to be one that is more palatable to the "modern" viewer and also those that are not inclined to like westerns.

[Johnzilla2179]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Absolutely agreed. I love some cheesy stuff, and would dent some stuff is cheesy because of my perspective that probably is cheesy. I guess that's what I was trying to say, that I have preferences for tone and style that a lot of pre-Eastwood westerns just don't mix with. We're all different.



I like American exceptionalism, but only with a hint of bitter cynicism.

See, and I figured you for a Golden Age cinema buff given that you rock that picture of Cary Grant. But as you say, to each their own.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Johnzilla2179

That's really more of a "problem" with cinema as a whole at the time; famously, there were quite a few limitations to what was allowed onscreen. One can't really lay the sanitized violence (or sexual content) of the era solely at the feet of the western.

I guess I also feel the same about old gangster movies. I'm fine with them not being graphic - not everything needs to be a blood fest - but they feel sanitised which is harder for me to overlook. No matter the subject or tone, a film had to conform to a strict set of subjectively ethical (and religious) standards.

As far as "a 90 min story build up for a confrontation that's over in a single shot," I'm going to assume you're simply being hyperbolic, as that's factually and verifiably wrong.

Yeah, exaggeration to make a point.

[Early Memphis]

Wondering … I'm not 4K, and may never be due to certain limitations, but I always wanted the UHD for future-proofing and, especially, the remastered BD with the way improved sound. However, I kept waiting for the price to drop … but it never did and now it seems to be out of print. So, 2 questions for anyone with an opinion: 1) Minor Q: do you folks s'pose this'll be re-released soon (I can't imagine it staying out of print)? 2) The real Q: every time I start to pull the trigger I compare the BRDC caps of the old BD (which I own) and the new BD - and every single time I'm deterred by the fact that all of the caps of the original BD look sharper, noticeably sharper. It's only caps but I can't view the new flick in motion and I don't recall hearing anything about artificial sharpening being applied to the old BD … Anyone out there actually watch the 2 (non-4K) BDs have an opinion on this in motion? Unless BRDC has just started taking crappy caps, I can't figure the new BD would actually look softer and the review doesn't say that, which leaves me … wondering …

[Alister_M]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Wondering … I'm not 4K, and may never be due to certain limitations, but I always wanted the UHD for future-proofing and, especially, the remastered BD with the way improved sound. However, I kept waiting for the price to drop … but it never did and now it seems to be out of print. So, 2 questions for anyone with an opinion: 1) Minor Q: do you folks s'pose this'll be re-released soon (I can't imagine it staying out of print)? 2) The real Q: every time I start to pull the trigger I compare the BRDC caps of the old BD (which I own) and the new BD - and every single time I'm deterred by the fact that all of the caps of the original BD look sharper, noticeably sharper. It's only caps but I can't view the new flick in motion and I don't recall hearing anything about artificial sharpening being applied to the old BD … Anyone out there actually watch the 2 (non-4K) BDs have an opinion on this in motion? Unless BRDC has just started taking crappy caps, I can't figure the new BD would actually look softer and the review doesn't say that, which leaves me … wondering …

I have no idea what happened with the caps on the review of the newer edition, they're horrible. Capsaholic shows quite a refinement in detail and colors on the newer disc: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...101410&i=4&l=0

That said, the older one is brighter, and has probably had more grain management applied, so that tends to add an appearance of sharpness. The remastered one is a lot more filmic, which doesn't generally correspond with sharpness.

[JackDawson]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Wondering … I'm not 4K, and may never be due to certain limitations, but I always wanted the UHD for future-proofing and, especially, the remastered BD with the way improved sound. However, I kept waiting for the price to drop … but it never did and now it seems to be out of print. So, 2 questions for anyone with an opinion: 1) Minor Q: do you folks s'pose this'll be re-released soon (I can't imagine it staying out of print)? 2) The real Q: every time I start to pull the trigger I compare the BRDC caps of the old BD (which I own) and the new BD - and every single time I'm deterred by the fact that all of the caps of the original BD look sharper, noticeably sharper. It's only caps but I can't view the new flick in motion and I don't recall hearing anything about artificial sharpening being applied to the old BD … Anyone out there actually watch the 2 (non-4K) BDs have an opinion on this in motion? Unless BRDC has just started taking crappy caps, I can't figure the new BD would actually look softer and the review doesn't say that, which leaves me … wondering …

Out of print?

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Early Memphis

Wondering … I'm not 4K, and may never be due to certain limitations, but I always wanted the UHD for future-proofing and, especially, the remastered BD with the way improved sound. However, I kept waiting for the price to drop … but it never did and now it seems to be out of print. So, 2 questions for anyone with an opinion: 1) Minor Q: do you folks s'pose this'll be re-released soon (I can't imagine it staying out of print)? 2) The real Q: every time I start to pull the trigger I compare the BRDC caps of the old BD (which I own) and the new BD - and every single time I'm deterred by the fact that all of the caps of the original BD look sharper, noticeably sharper. It's only caps but I can't view the new flick in motion and I don't recall hearing anything about artificial sharpening being applied to the old BD … Anyone out there actually watch the 2 (non-4K) BDs have an opinion on this in motion? Unless BRDC has just started taking crappy caps, I can't figure the new BD would actually look softer and the review doesn't say that, which leaves me … wondering …

Not OOP:


https://www.amazon.com/Unforgiven-4K...s%2C220&sr=8-1

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Alister_M

Surprise surprise, it was Leone who upped the ante there by ignoring Hollywood's golden rule of never showing the gun firing in the same frame as the person being shot.

Not to mention Sam Peckinpah with The Wild Bunch.

[Alister_M]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Not to mention Sam Peckinpah with The Wild Bunch.

True, he also went a lot further with squibs and blood than anyone else at the time.