Worst western ever made


John Ford himself said he hated the movie and I can see why--Between Wiseman's non-stop diatribes and the filming of the absolute worst scenery in any western,I'm surprised that this pointless depressing film was even ever released--and I'm a big western fan

reply

Have not seen it yet....but like you say, have heard this movie is "not very good". But looking at the cast listing, I find this hard to believe. (not that I don't believe you....

Read My Lips!!!!

reply

I have always enjoyed this movie. Well shot, directed, a good ensemble casr, (audie Murphys best) a great storyline.

Don't understand the antagonizm

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney, than driving with Ted Kennedy





reply

Well done film.

reply

John HUSTON. (Not Ford.)

reply

I was forced to watching it in film school (mainly because my prof actually worked with Houston a few times when he was younger,) and although I don't think it's the "worst" western ever made, it isn't a very good one either.

I think the race topic was good to address, but it could have been a better movie.

Still, John HOUSTON gets a free pass since he directed so many other incredible films.

reply

I haven't seen enough westerns in order to state this one is the worst ever made. But if it's not the worst it's pretty close. Is the worst I've seen that's for sure.


They who believe that the money does everything, end by doing everything for money

reply

It's spelled Huston.

reply

If you're going to CAPITALIZE it, (and esteem him as much as you seem to), please get the spelling right: HUSTON.

If Huston said it, it's got to be not great; he made some great to very goods ones and some (fewer, to be sure) not so great ones.

reply

You are absolutely wrong IMO. This is one of the best westerns ever made. It isn't as good as LeMay's other western, The Searchers, but it is excellent nonetheless. Wiseman is standout. He is scary-crazy and steals every scene he is in. It definitely is Audie Murphy's best performance. How can you say it's depressing? I think the Durango scenery is beautiful. Nobody put in a bad performance. Even after they tortured Charlie to death (I've got the book too), you still feel sorry for Rachel's Kiowa brother. Even the guns are more period than you'd expect from this era of movie. It much resembles Flaming Star which came out the same year and dealt with the same topic, the same Indian tribe in the same area. Another underrated film. Just because John Ford made good movies doesn't mean he is good at recognizing the finished product.

There are no more friendly civilians, sir.

reply

I think it's one of the better westerns personally myself. The music always gets me, it's so haunting and expansive but at the same time light and merry. It's almost like Huston uses music where Ford uses scenery to show how big it is in the American west. I love The Searchers and consider it the best western ever made. If anything is odd about the film it's the casting. I never would have pegged Audrey Hepburn or Lillian Gish for a western but I think Gish's other eraness, that quality that older stars have that these newer ones will never have no matter how many boob jobs or face jobs or makeup men work on them. If you watch movies from the 30s and 40s and see how those women are shaped, their hair done, their makeup, their general facial structure and then you see a movie made now about the 30s and 40s and how they try to get modern women to look that way you'll see what I mean. Clothes literally shape the man and foundation garments a.k.a. bras versus corsets, girdles and garters versus panty hose, etc... really do make a difference. Gish looks like a woman from the 1800s because she was a woman from the 1800s. She was dressed as a child and young adult in that style of constrictive clothing. They didn't try to stick her in a bullet bra and poofy hair do. As hard as it was to probably do they make Audrey Hepburn actually look like she could be either a white or a Kiowa. I think she looks more convincing here than she does in My Fair Lady as Eliza Doolittle the street seller. She sounds more convincing as well.

reply

I've seen hundreds of westerns in my 74 years and this was definitely one of the best. Thanks for the two recent intelligent posts. I was beginning to despair of the knuckleheads who think they are perceptive critics. Audie's best role, best performance, bless him.

I miss Big Band music and talented singers. Leonard Cohen is my idol. Civility, harmony, unity!

reply

I suppose anyone who lists Leonard Cohen as their idol is bound to think The Unforgiven is one of the best westerns ever made....obviously no taste in music and no idea about what constitutes a decent film. Sorry Grumpy, but there you are. The Unforgiven 'stinks' which is a shame given the talent in it. Burt Lancaster and Audrey Hepburn 'ham' it up throughout the whole dire event and both seem awkward with some parts of the lousy script. Bickford is wasted, Lillian Gish isn't too bad and it's probably the most convincing part I've seen Audie Murphy play. Doug McClure's not bad either. Considering this 'turkey' was made years after Shane and at about the same time as Rio Bravo, it's hard to imagine how it got made without any of the atmosphere and adultness of those two excellent westerns 'rubbing off' on it. They set the standard for what came after them. Fortunately, just under a decade later, Sam Peckinpah and The Wild Bunch captured complete realism and set the bar even higher for the likes of Clint Eastwood to aspire to, and Burt Lancaster obviously tried (with a good deal of success) to redeem himself with brilliant roles in stuff like The Professionals, Ulzana's Raid and Lawman. All was not lost!

reply



I was suprised by how good the Unforgiven is considering its reputation. Sure there are some weaknessess here and there. But overall, the acting and the storyline is compelling. I agree with spndapny comments about Lillian Gish she definitely looks like a frontierswomen. Gish and other silent stars like Gloria Swanson have a look that seems to evoke a long lost time in history. Perfect casting with Audie Murphy shockingly good as younger brother Cash.

reply

The movie is just ok, but the music is HORRIBLE. I dont care if the score was recorded in Italy, it still sucks and drags the movie down with it.

reply

I've always liked this movie but I agree, the score is awful. I don't know where it belongs, but it dosen't belong in a western.

reply

You are nuts. The theme music is fabulous and was pop hit during 1960.

reply

The score belongs in a contemporary film. It is very distracting in this period piece.

By the way, Audie Murphy is LOUSY! He was never an actor! Why in heaven's name was this guy even in films? He was a war hero and that's wonderful, but putting him in films was a waste of time!

reply

Audie Murphy was the most decorated serviceman of World War II. (Don't know if he's the most decorated in US history.)

The papers (no TV, let alone internet in those days) lionized him, making him a huge popular hero.

Murphy was simply smart enough to capitalize on his fame (beginning with his own autobiography).

He wasn't a very good actor. But how many stars are? Very, very few.


"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world think he didn't exist."

reply

As an audiophile and a cinephile, I agree the soundtrack music is not the most perfect match for this movie. However, the music, in itself, alone, is terrific and the theme song was indeed a big hit back in 1960-61.

I don't know how you can state the music is awful in this movie. In fact, it is probably the best part of the movie. And it makes no difference where the music was recorded, America, Timbuktu, or Italy, (unless, of course, you are referring to that genius of the cinema soundtrack, Ennio Morricone). The theme song is not only a very beautiful piece of music, it is a strong and forceful composition which only adds to this cinematic presentation and mood of the movie. Where was it recorded? Since the score was composed and conducted by the Russian-born American, Dimitri Tiomkin, it's most likely the original soundtrack was recorded by the MGM studio orchestra in Hollywood. N'est pas?


"To live in the hearts of those we leave behind, we never die."

reply

This movie was pretty bad. Very embarassing considering the talent involved. The film score was just awful. But it wasn't the worst western ever made.

But if you want to see a really, really BAD western, check out Grayeagle (1977) with Alex Cord. I swear he doesn't move his lips the entire film. They couldn't get Natalie Wood so they hired her sister Lana, who can't act. And unlike The Unforgiven, the script to Grayeagle is really bad.

At least The Unforgiven had talented actors and a decent script. The acting is pretty good although I do think Audie Murphy chews a bit of the scenery. Albert Salmi is great as the boyfriend as is Doug McClure as the youngest brother. Despite the miscasting, Audrey Hepburn is surprisingly good, although I think the film would have done much better with Natalie Wood.

reply

I have to seriously disagree with your opinion here. First off, John Huston was the director of this film, not John Ford. Second, Huston claimed he hated the film not because of its quality, but because he felt that Hepburn making the film caused her to have a miscarriage. Lastly, if you seriously believe that this is the worst western you've ever seen, then this must be the only western you've ever seen. Pick up a Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Bob Steele, Roger Corman or any grade-C western and compare it to The Unforgiven. There is very few people who would claim this film lags behind its competition. Perhaps you might consider THINKING before making such a preposterous and ignorant post. Better luck next time!

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=16636585

reply

Not only is "The Searchers" the best western film ever made and my personal favorite, it is one of the top films ever made, of any type. That said, "Unforgiven" is a splendid film. I think it is important to understand that there is no one theme, background or ambience that alone defines the American West. Many different types of people from many different backgrounds lived in the West and their stories wove a rich and varied tapestry. Lillian Gish was superb as the Mother of the family whose secret had been uncovered. Burt Lancaster and Audie Murphy gave some of the best performances of their lives as the brothers, struggling with social mores and customs while loving their sister, who was, not, as they discovered, their own blood. Both movies, "The Searchers" and "Unforgiven" sustained dramatic lines to portray an ugly truth about life in the early American West--racism, a murderous thirst for land, struggles to survive that engendered something close to barbarity. And yet, in both films, human compassion shines through. Both films had splendid musical themes which perfectly conveyed the emotions that are too deep to be expressed in language.

reply

Yes, Huston hated (was really uncomfortable) with this film because of Audrey Hepburn's miscarriage.

This is a GREAT western. Another superior performance by Joseph Wiseman.

Short Cut, Draw Blood

reply

There are certainly better Westerns, but this is far from bad. The scenery is fine, the direction is solid and the performances range from adequate (Hepburn) to very strong (Lancaster and Murphy). What many people don't realize is that there is a happy medium between outstanding and terrible films. This falls somewhere in between, enjoyable and deserving of being watched, but not a shining example of perfection. Just enjoy it for what it is and shut up w/ this "worst Western ever" crock of *beep*



"What has two thumbs and hates Todd Packer? THIS guy!"
Jim Halpert

reply

I don't hate the film but I don't understand why they cast Audrey Hepburn as an indian when she wasn't Indian. I also hate the characters attitudes over the Indians, but there are people like that. For some reason I can't stand those scenes when Audrey Hepburn and Burt Lancaster gaze into each others eyes.

reply

*spoilers ahead*

What made this a bad movie was the treatment towards Native Americans. The movie showed the terrible attitude of whites towards the "demon injuns" but it did not attempt in any way to make you feel different. The movie wants you to be completely unsympathetic towards the native americans even though they constantly came in peace and only declared war when one of their own was killed in cold blood. Then at the end Rachel kills her true brother even when he was unarmed and just wanted to see his sister! WTF!?!


You know what would've made this movie great? If Joseph Wiseman's character was the true villain of the film. I had an idea to make the movie play out differently. Make Wiseman more of a threat, maybe give him a gang, and have him be the one who stirs up trouble between the family and the natives. Then after a bloody confrontation between the Zacharys and the indians they take on Wiseman and his bunch being that they influenced the natives to attack. It would've been great to see Ben Zachary slash Kelsey to death with his own saber, and it would make the native americans sympathetic characters.

I like to make up things of my own when I see a potentially great movie put to waste.

reply

" It would've been great to see Ben Zachary slash Kelsey to death with his own saber, and it would make the native americans sympathetic characters."

Agreed on the first point, but it would have been patronizing if the only way you can make them "sympathetic" is to show that they've been tricked by some white man.

At any rate I don't agree that the movie asks us to be "completely unsympathetic" towards the Native Americans. I would say more that it asks us to be functionally unsympathetic. It wants us to feel sort of sad about what happened to them, especially the brother, but ultimately we're supposed to be on the Zachary's side. It's supposed to be tragic I think, but instead it comes off as totally racist. It's pretty close to total racism, but not quite 100%.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

No, no, no. What made the movie good was the treatment of the Indians. This movie shows that racism is stupid and people are people no matter where they live. The point of the movie is that everybody is the same under the skin, and we should be able to do better than shooting down people who just want to regain a lost family member. Once again, the movie is not racist. The movie shows racism.

reply