YMS: The Pretentious Furfag Movie Critic

[rabidtictac]

The Searchers had me bored and the story was so obvious I knew what was going to happen as soon as they unfolded the premise.

That's not a fair criticism to a 60 years old movie.

It's boring as fuck though. It might have been one of the first, but the premise isn't even a good one. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly had a great premise. Three outlaws try to find a big pile of gold. Each knows a certain amount of information on its location and endeavors to learn the rest so they can kill the others. Or how about the premise of Unforgiven? Failed farmer takes a contract assassination so he can save his kids from starvation. Even high noon! Sheriff prepares to confront outlaw gang, as entire town turns its back on him.

The Searchers? Fucking injuns kidnapped some bitch, blah blah she got raped and became an injun herself, cries about her life being hard, blah blah. The cinematography is the main reason people like The Searchers.

[Guest]

I'd argue there were more excellent westerns made after 1960 than before. The only really good one that comes to mind from the old days is High Noon. Most westerns prior to spaghetti western's reinvention of the genre were stale, formulaic and dull. They had more in common with episodes of Bonanza than anything challenging. The reinvention of the western gave us The Wild Bunch, Unforgiven, 3:10 to Yuma, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, Fistfull of Dollars, Once Upon a Time in the West, Tombstone and even television shows like Justified. All of which have more going on than the John Wayne bullshit which came before.

[Cuckara]

The Searchers? Fucking injuns kidnapped some bitch, blah blah she got raped and became an injun herself, cries about her life being hard, blah blah. The cinematography is the main reason people like The Searchers.

Ethan, the character that John Wayne plays, is pretty fascinating and one of the main reasons the film is so popular/influential though. He's a cold, ferociously determined man who despises Indians to the point that he tries to murder his niece for accepting the Indian lifestyle that she was forced into. Even by post-1960 standards, Ethan is a very dark, morally ambiguous character. I mean, compare and contrast him to Eastwood's Man With No Name: Eastwood's character is a lawless drifter, but he never does anything as cold-blooded as attempting to kill a defenseless teenage girl. Ethan's psychotic attitude gives the film an edge that holds up pretty well. There's nothing wrong with disliking The Searchers, but there's more to its enduring popularity than simply its cinematography.

[Kugelfisch]

I mostly don't like the westerns where indians are the enemy because I don't find that time period as interesting as the later years of the wild west.

[Guest]

The Searchers? Fucking injuns kidnapped some bitch, blah blah she got raped and became an injun herself, cries about her life being hard, blah blah. The cinematography is the main reason people like The Searchers.

Ethan, the character that John Wayne plays, is pretty fascinating and one of the main reasons the film is so popular/influential though. He's a cold, ferociously determined man who despises Indians to the point that he tries to murder his niece for accepting the Indian lifestyle that she was forced into. Even by post-1960 standards, Ethan is a very dark, morally ambiguous character. I mean, compare and contrast him to Eastwood's Man With No Name: Eastwood's character is a lawless drifter, but he never does anything as cold-blooded as attempting to kill a defenseless teenage girl. Ethan's psychotic attitude gives the film an edge that holds up pretty well. There's nothing wrong with disliking The Searchers, but there's more to its enduring popularity than simply its cinematography.

Great post, but it's wasted on pleb eyes. If their main criticism is about a plot being unoriginal (as opposed to the actual themes, contents, characters) and then praise trite mediocrity like TGTBATU (ah yes people in search of riches, what a novel concept) any reasoning beyond a 6 year old's comprehension is above them.

[Guest]

I'd argue there were more excellent westerns made after 1960 than before. The only really good one that comes to mind from the old days is High Noon. Most westerns prior to spaghetti western's reinvention of the genre were stale, formulaic and dull. They had more in common with episodes of Bonanza than anything challenging. The reinvention of the western gave us The Wild Bunch, Unforgiven, 3:10 to Yuma, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, Fistfull of Dollars, Once Upon a Time in the West, Tombstone and even television shows like Justified. All of which have more going on than the John Wayne bullshit which came before.

None of those films that you listed are unique and original. Fistful is just a shit version of Yojimbo and how are any of the rest you listed unique? They're just variations of "guys shoot each other other women/material properties" or are just Ok Corral rip offs. Which isn't to say pre-1960s westerns are the epitome of originality either, they mostly have the same stories, as signified by the quote 'two westerns exist, before and after law'.
What makes "John Wayne Bullshit" far superior to any of the films you listed is that a lot of older westerns have actual depth and interesting philosophical themes on the nature of man, race, law and society. He can play a very tortured complex character like Ethan Edwards or Tom Dunson, who are as admirable as they are reprehensible. Actual characters far beyond what you see in those films you mentioned (who barely go above bang bang me shooty man).

Spaghetti Westerns are the most insipid genre to ever exist and deserve no praise. Their main praise comes from pussies who cry whenever the see an injun get killed. They're utterly soulless and shallow.

[Cuckara]

Coincidentally, dogfucker just watched the Dollars trilogy (lmao that it took a self-proclaimed film critic a decade to finally watch The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). His ratings:

A Fistful of Dollars - 7/10
For a Few Dollars More - 6/10
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - 8/10

[TheManWithNoPlan]

6/10?! Fucking retard

[Moe Bitches]

What was the closer ratings? 6 is pretty low.

[Cuckara]

YMS's rating scale is basically: 1-4 is varying degrees of bad, 5 is average, 6 is above-average (this is his most common rating. When he gives this rating to a widely beloved film, he'll usually acknowledge the film's strengths but will then nitpick the shit out of the "unrealistic" elements of it), 7 is good, 8-10 are varying degrees of greatness.

It's also worth mentioning that 6/10 is his go to rating for a classic film that doesn't appeal to him but he doesn't have the balls to outright shit on it. Some of his other 6/10s include:

Godzilla (1954)
Star Wars: A New Hope
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
John Carpenter's Halloween
Dario Argento's Suspiria (not a surprise that an uber autist like him can't get into Argento, a director who has never given a shit about logic)
David Cronenberg's The Fly (I can practically hear him droning on about how the fusion stuff is illogical)
Gremlins
Jackie Brown (which is pretty weird considering he has a throbbing boner for Tarantino)