MovieChat Forums > The Searchers (1956) Discussion > Wow, this was pretty bad for such a high...

Wow, this was pretty bad for such a high-rated movie


Look, it wasn't despicable or anything, but an 8.0? WTF are people smoking? Because I want some.

Let me start out with the good:

1. The cinematography was outstanding. The director of photography should be commended.

2. The scenery as astounding. Monument Valley? Are you kiddng me? Wow. Just awesome.

3. The plot. Great story. I couldn't believe John Wayne was going to shoot her. That's pretty rough.

And that's it. And that's not enough. Not for an 8.0.

The bad was just plain awful.

A. I've never considered him to be much of an actor, but I've never seen John Wayne be more John Wayne than he was here. In other movies, it is toned down to some degree or other, but here his John Wayne-ness was on full display. Ugh.

B. The other acting was hammy and over-the-top. There was absolutely no nuance. This movie could have been pulled off by 4th graders in a school play and it wouldn't have appeared to be anything different.

C. The incidental music was anything but incidental. It was in your face, too sugary, too much.

D. When is John Wayne going to stop saying "Commansh" already? God, that was annoying. Say it with me: "Coh-man-chee."


This is supposed to be one of the greatest Westerns of all time. And I like a good Western. This was not one of them. If I had just gone in with, this is a decent Western, I might have liked it. But I went in with very high hopes, and came out not liking this movie.




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

Too bad you don't think so, most people consider it a very good movie and one of John Waynes best, including his acting. Me included.

reply

You are objectively correct but you should not watch this with modern eyes.
For its time 1956. the acting, editing and directing was on par.
And of course many are scoring with nostalgically.

reply

I hear ya, but the problem with what you're saying is that even if you were 6 years old when you saw it in 1956, you'd be 65 today. This movie has 60,000 votes; they can't all be from senior citizens.

Even if you saw it as a kid on TV in the 60s, or whenever it was first on TV, that would still put you in an older age group. I would guess - total guess - that IMDb users skew towards their 30s and 40s. I'm in that group, and I never, ever saw this movie until I came across it on TV just recently. Who are all these 60,000 people who have given votes that average out to an 8.0? That's stupendously high for IMDb!




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

Who are all these 60,000 people who have given votes that average out to an 8.0? That's stupendously high for IMDb!

Oh the score. LOL
People are herding animals.
Once something is labeled a "Classic" everyone just follows and agrees.

reply

Why do you assume everyone would think like you?

It's time for a backlash against digital photography, motion pictures, music, sfx

reply

Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, George Lucas, Jean-Luc Godard, John Milius and Paul Schrader regard this as one of the films that have most influenced them and have all paid some form of homage to it in their work.


What we got here is... failure to communicate!


reply

I think this movie is overrated because its compared to Westerns in general, which are usually lacking complex characters and motivation. So any motivations shown make it "deep".

I think a vastly superior western made 10 years later is "Hombre". No comparison in the acting, and omg, some of the best dialogue ever.

reply

I agree, I love hombre, such a dark, complex and moving western. A great movie. The searchers is like a highschool production in contrast.

reply