Unforgiven or Tombstone?
Which Western movie is better?
shareTombstone all the way. It's a far more engaging film in terms of story, characters, plot, entertainment, performances, and Val Kilmer...amazing performance as Doc Holliday.
=======
Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton are the best sci-fi heroines.
Umm..
Far more engaging, and better performances?
Please...The two cannot even be compared, other then they are "westerns"
Don't get me wrong, Tombstone was a good movie, and yes Val done great job of Doc (although I thought personally that Dennis Quaids performance as doc in Wyatt Earp was more realistic)
Tombstone is a spaghetti western, and don't get me wrong it's an enjoyable action movie, but that's all it is, it's totally unrealistic, it's a stereo typical Hollywood western. Unforgiven is a realistic western, Eastwood, Freeman ,Harris and Hackman, I'm sorry but the performances in this movie outshine Tombstone and ide say I would be no where near alone in that opinion.
This movie is the second best revenge movie ever made, period! (Shawshank obviously being first)
Peace
Far more engaging, and better performances?
Please...The two cannot even be compared, other then they are "westerns"
Don't get me wrong, Tombstone was a good movie, and yes Val done great job of Doc (although I thought personally that Dennis Quaids performance as doc in Wyatt Earp was more realistic)
Yes, I said Tombstone is far more engaging, not just when it comes to performances. And why can't they be compared since they're in the same genre?
Tombstone is a spaghetti western, and don't get me wrong it's an enjoyable action movie, but that's all it is, it's totally unrealistic, it's a stereo typical Hollywood western. Unforgiven is a realistic western, Eastwood, Freeman ,Harris and Hackman, I'm sorry but the performances in this movie outshine Tombstone and ide say I would be no where near alone in that opinion.
This movie is the second best revenge movie ever made, period! (Shawshank obviously being first)
First of all, sorry but Tombstone is not a "spaghetti" Western at all, it's an American film. Perhaps you'd care to familiarize yourself with the proper meaning of the "spaghetti" term: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spaghetti_western.
Second, why is it unrealistic? There may be a handful of fictional elements implemented in this film, but certain events surrounding the history of Wyatt Earp are well-referenced, and Tombstone is actually quite realistic in its approach to depicting life in the West back then. It is in fact a very rarely stereotypical Western.
Third, Unforgiven was indeed realistic, I never really challenged that fact. But even with all the time the movie spends with the characters, I found myself hard pressed to care about what happened to any one of them. The film's moralizing is blatant and blunt ("Dear audience, killing is bad. Love, Unforgiven"), and the characterization dull. Even Schofield Kid's "twist" — he's never killed before despite his claims otherwise — is obvious long before the big reveal. Unforgiven has a touch of accuracy and realism, it's just not entertaining nor captivating. A lot of people tend to blindly state "but Eastwood's in it, he directed it" - so what? Does that automatically discard the fact that film is just plainly uninteresting? When making a film, depending on the genre, realism and (if need be) historical accuracy are important, but so are certain other elements, such as an engaging story, interesting characters, and the overall entertainment value of the film. Sadly, Unforgiven doesn't deliver on those.
For example, Eastwood's character "William Munny" is completely uninteresting. Some people would go on and say that he's manly, though I can't really see how that is true since he spends most of the film in a blanket, shivering.
Another complaint I have is with the assaulted prostitute. If there was ever a group of stereotypical representations of women, it would be the prostitutes. They were a mere plot device from where the film took off, to give a revenge plot. Now that would have been interesting had they actually wrote characters to care about but sadly they didn't. Now if you think about Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West, the prostitute (played by Claudia Cardinale), was key to the story, and written well, as a strong woman who still manages to break through the misery brought on to her by Morton, the railroad baron.
In many of Eastwood's films the women are there to either be violently assaulted, or raped, while serving as a discardable plot-device; once used, it's gone. Take High Plains Drifter for example, or The Outlaw Josey Wales, or In every which way but looser or Sudden Impact.
=======
Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton are the best sci-fi heroines.
"For example, Eastwood's character "William Munny" is completely uninteresting"
"They were a mere plot device from where the film took off, to give a revenge plot. Now that would have been interesting had they actually wrote characters to care about but sadly they didn't."
Wow, way to completely not get this film. The whole point is that he doesnt give a sh!t about the whores. When he walks out at the end and says 'you better not cut up or otherwise harm no whores' its blatantly an after thought. His main reason for going back into town was to avenge the killing of Ned. Not through any notion of western chivalry. The overall point is that his character hasnt changed, he's STILL a killer. He's a bad man. He aint no hero.
Listen, I love Tombstone, its a great movie with a great cast. But in the end its nothing more than an action movie. Just with a western setting and some outstanding performances.
Wow, way to completely not get this film. The whole point is that he doesnt give a sh!t about the whores.* When he walks out at the end and says 'you better not cut up or otherwise harm no whores' its blatantly an after thought. His main reason for going back into town was to avenge the killing of Ned. Not through any notion of western chivalry. The overall point is that his character hasnt changed, he's STILL a killer. He's a bad man. He aint no hero.**
* I wasn't questioning whether Munny cared about the prostitutes. Learn to read; the prostitutes were a discardable plot-device, i.e. written badly. That's what I was saying all along.
** And I never challenged that fact either. I said his character is uninteresting; it's not what he does, it's how he's written. Please, for the sake of a sound debate, learn how to READ.
=======
Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton are the best sci-fi heroines.
That's your second post in a row where you question someone's knowledge or ability to read just because they disagree with you. Not a very good way to defend a point.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
That's your second post in a row where you question someone's knowledge or ability to read just because they disagree with you. Not a very good way to defend a point.
I would defend a point, as long as it's one which I made and which they're addressing. They're discussing things that I never questioned, or challenged in the first place, so I end up wondering why they aren't addressing the points I raised. This is why I'm asking them to learn how to read.
Maybe you have a tough time understanding English. Just read the above slowly and let it sink in calmly.
=======
Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton are the best sci-fi heroines.
What's with the personal attack? You don't have confidence in your post without it? Silly!
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
What's with the personal attack?
And what personal attack is that? Which part of my post did you happen to deliberately interpret as an attack when no such intention was made?
You don't have confidence in your post without it? Silly!
I'm starting to see a pattern here. All users who have replied to me in this thread have ignored the points I made, and instead have gone on to address something completely different, or, as in this particular case, irrelevant.
Sonny, I have every ounce of confidence in my posts without feeling the need to attack users, something I never even intended on this thread/board. So my question is: why do you think I'm attacking you, when no part of my post was written in a malicious or in any way aggressive tone?
Or, do you have nothing really to say to me, and are just looking for weak attempts to discredit my post? Please refrain from such childish approaches.
=======
Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton are the best sci-fi heroines.
I find it interesting that you say your posts aren't written in an aggressive tone. Maybe you don't see the aggression inherent in condescension.
My question about your confidence was not meant as a slur, but as a serious question, since all of your replies in this thread have included such condescension; as such it was completely relevant, not to the movies under discussion, certainly, but directly as a response to what you said to me.
Look, I know nothing about you, apart from your screen name. I have no reason to try to "discredit" you or anything you say. You said yourself, "ALL users who have replied to me in this thread have ignored the points I made, and instead have gone on to address something completely different, or, as in this particular case, irrelevant." Perhaps, just perhaps you're simply not making your points clearly. Maybe that's all the pattern you discern is trying to tell you. I've been reading and writing, sometimes as a living, for over 60 years. If I misunderstood you, why not just say so? I've been reading and writing for sixty years, sometimes as a living; and I've learned a big part of communication is a willingness to be corrected.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
I find it interesting that you say your posts aren't written in an aggressive tone. Maybe you don't see the aggression inherent in condescension.
If there's such a thing as condescension in my previous post it's because I tire of people who do not read my post properly, and interpret them in their own incorrect way. Instead of trying to point out what minute condescension may exist in my posts, read them properly, and I won't call you a child who cannot read. It's that simple. Otherwise you're wasting my time.
Perhaps, just perhaps you're simply not making your points clearly. Maybe that's all the pattern you discern is trying to tell you.
I don't think so. I've never had anyone complain of my writing, grammar, or ability to handle complex language. This load of users on this thread are a first, and it's not because I don't write clearly; in fact my posts are worded correctly, and written as concisely as possible. I find it hilarious that instead of debating on the topic at hand, you choose to dismiss my entire posts as poorly written. I'm afraid the only fact you've proven up to this point is that you have nothing better to do. I convey all I need with my posts. Instead of debating without feeling the need to nitpick my post's (non-existent) poor form of writing, you choose to ignore all I say about this film and decide to undermine my posting style.
You're not doing yourself any favors. You're looking rather childish. Either we converse about this film, or not at all.
If I misunderstood you, why not just say so? I've been reading and writing for sixty years, sometimes as a living; and I've learned a big part of communication is a willingness to be corrected.
Except there's nothing to correct, is there? I have no grammar errors in my posts, my punctuation is as it should be, my posts are worded in sound order. I write exactly what I want to say. You haven't misunderstood anything. You're just straying off-topic, and I tire quickly of people who disrupt threads. My ignore list is where annoying people and trolls end up. Stay on topic, or be ignored.
=======
Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton are the best sci-fi heroines.
In fairness I was at fault. I used the response to state why I thought Unforgiven was such a good movie rather than address the actual point that had been made. In my defence I had just finished watching the movie and discussing the ending with my brother, so I would have written the same stuff no matter what post I was responding too.
"You're just straying off-topic, and I tire quickly of people who disrupt threads. My ignore list is where annoying people and trolls end up. Stay on topic, or be ignored."
I must admit I did laugh at this. You have been warned Spiritwarrior! Here was I thinking that IMDB was a place where people dispensed quickly forgotten opinions? To some, it would appear to be serious business..
Oh come. If you thought you were wasting your time you wouldn't have gone on. Your English isn't as perfect as you imagine. "This load...are a first." Your subject/verb-form agreement is off. Please don't imagine I really care what you may call me or why. I didn't say your undisguised disdain bothered me; I only pointed out that you don't seem to post without it. If I chose to "ignore all you say," this exchange would never have happened, now would it? And you still think I'm here to "undermine" your writing? Goodness, if I have the power to do that you really must lack the courage of your convictions.
But really, "stay on topic, or be ignored"? That's a pathetic jab. In fact, I'll save you the trouble and put you on my ignore list. No threat, just fact. Have a nice life.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
^ What part of "stay on topic, or be ignored" didn't he understand, one wonders? Oh well, at least he saved me the trouble of adding another sad-sack to my ignore list. Now he'll have other people to accuse of making imaginary-threats against him...
Good riddance.
=======
Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton are the best sci-fi heroines.
Tombstone is still inferior.
share[deleted]
Lol this post is as silly as it is irrelevant.
Unforgiven wins hand down. Why? Because its realistic, grittier, and more engrossing.
In Unforgiven you feel for the characters because they all have their goods and bads. In Tombstone the characters are 1 dimensional and static.
William Munny is a former ne'er do well who has cleaned up his life only to be dragged back into his former ways thanks to a tough s**t sheriff who gets his kicks by acquiring power and generating fear. Tombstone was a good film but just didn't have the same depth of Unforgiven.
Some things are just obvious. This post reminds me of two other films, The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford and The Long Riders. One (The Assassination)is a very serious film which tries and succeeds in drawing you in and allowing you to connect with its characters. The other (The Long Riders) just brings you along for the ride.
Unforgiven draws you in and allows you to feel the savage nature of a character who has been reformed, only to fall back due to his unfailing loyalty to a dear friend. Tombstone just sort of picks you up and drops you off as casually as a taxicab.
Plus, Unforgiven has Eastwood, Freeman and Hackman, the two best Western actors and Freeman who has created some of the most colorful characters ever (no pun intended). What does Tombstone have? Kilmer, Russel and Elliot? Three actors who are very talented but rarely show it. Which is sad because they could be great if only they knew how to choose proper movies.
Utulie'n aure! Aiya Eldalie ar Atanatari, utulie'n aure!
Unforgiven wins hand down.
That is a matter of opinion.
Why? Because its realistic, grittier, and more engrossing.
Hardly engrossing. It might as well have been a documentary.
In Unforgiven you feel for the characters because they all have their goods and bads.
The characters in actuality are completely uninteresting, and quite frankly with dull characterization. Not likable, and certainly not engaging in any way. Eastwood's character is poorly defined, and a complete wuss.
In Tombstone the characters are 1 dimensional and static.
False. The characters in Tombstone are not 1 dimensional at all, as they have distinct personalities that are written well for the audience to accept. How can they be static when they develop along the way, by starting at one place and ending up somewhere different? That's character development. Ever heard of it?
Unforgiven draws you in and allows you to feel the savage nature of a character who has been reformed, only to fall back due to his unfailing loyalty to a dear friend. Tombstone just sort of picks you up and drops you off as casually as a taxicab.
Unforgiven could also have been shortened to 40 minutes as it felt like 4 hours to me. Like I said before, as realistic and as gritty as a film is, there is still the need to have well written characters, an engaging plot, and an overall entertainment value. This film has none of that. It's an average revenge-story, with good cinematography but with virtually no substance behind it.
Tombstone, although not being an entirely accurate Wyatt Earp storyteller, is definitely more engaging in terms of story, characters, performances.
Now this is probably a personal thing: but I happen to really dislike films (be it westerns) in which its female characters are violently assaulted and then used as a discardable plot-device, as in Eastwood's High Plains Drifter / The Outlaw Josey Wales / Sudden Impact / Unforgiven. Compare that to how females are treated in Sergio Leone's classics of the 1960s. Just saying.
=======
Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton are the best sci-fi heroines.
Yeah, it's an opinion. But it's a GOOD opinion.
You must have ADD to not think Unforgiven is engrossing.
You lose all credibility when you call Eastwood's character a complete wuss. He would wipe the floor with you. A complete wuss does not gun down an entire room of lawman. He was in denial over what he really was. Every character in Unforgiven has their own morals and a different viewpoint on what's right and what's wrong. It's not a black and white story, like Tombstone. But I'm sure you're fine with that. You enjoy simplified stories.
The characters in Tombstone may have personality, but they're still flat characters. They don't do anything that surprises the audience. They don't have conflicting traits. They don't develop. If you want character development, try Unforgiven.
Unforgiven only feels long because you crave stupid action sequences. No substance? How stupid are you? Unforgiven is an exercise in substance over style. Tombstone is the opposite. I have no clue why so many people praise it. Everytime I try to watch it, it kills at least one of my brain cells.
Only one female character is violently assaulted in Unforgiven. And it's crucial to the plot. If you can't stand women being attacked, then just stop watching movies.
[deleted]
And most people would disagree completely with every one of your opinions.
shareI totally agree. I love Tombstone but I have seen it so many times and still can't distinguish certain characters from each other. They are very one dimensional. Unforgiven is so deep, you care about the characters and it makes the violence more compelling.
I don't understand how a previous poster could say William Munny was uninteresting. Both protagonists were similar: former killers and tough guys (though one a lawman and one an outlaw) quit the life, settle down, and are drawn back in. As much as I love Tombstone, I don't see how you can say Russell's Earp is more interesting than Eastwood's Munny. I love Kurt Russell but Munny was infinitely more complex. Don't even get me started on their wives: Munny's never appeared on screen and was a much better character then Earp's. I don't mean morally either, that Munny's wife was a deceased "angel" and Earp's a former call girl and drug addict. Earp's wife, even with her drug addict story line was throw-away and boring.
Rule #76: No excuses. Play like a champion.
Tombstone is good and I like it.
However The Unforgiven is on such another level.
Clint Eastwood just knows how to make a solid western.
In Tombstone there were several things that I thought could have been better. There's nothing I would change about the Unforgiven.
If the guys in Tombstone didn't all walk around in dusters it would add more credibility in my book.
You're not a writer Fink, you're a goddamn write off
every which way but looser
The word is spelled LOSER. It seems during the last ten years or so that you uneducated morons just pick your word spellings. 'looser' being the most used as I've seen.
**Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens!** Tombstone share
"Tombstone is a spaghetti western"
No, it's not. I'm fairly certain that you're unfamiliar with what that term actually means.
"Unforgiven is a realistic western"
Really? What's so realistic about a room full of armed men, all of which are incapable of hitting a target five feet away? But of course the "hero" is able to hit every target with a single shot a piece. Sounds like a cheesy action movie scene to me. What's so realistic about no one acknowledging the presence of a black man in their town, in a time that takes place shortly after a race war that tore the nation apart.
"it's totally unrealistic"
You do realize that Tombstone is based on actual events, right?
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
Surely a film that is based on real events and real people is more realistic than a film based purely on fiction. However, I do believe Unforgiven is Eastwoods best western.
shareIt's like comparing "Hamlet" with "Thor", or "Rambo II" with "Full Metal Jacket": I mean, Tombstone is an entertaining movie with some brilliant and engaging performances, but Unforgiven has much more essence and depth to it, it's way more "engaging" in a psycological point of view. I actually saw them back to back in a cable channel by chance(?) yesterday, so I got a fresh opinion when comparing them.
Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday is a somewhat inferior version to the "Captain Awesome" hero-type of character Leone and Eastwood himself created in "The Good, The Bad and Te Ugly": cold, brave, kick-ass, tough-as-nails, almost silent and extremely fast classic gunslinger myth of the Old West, which probably was somewhat influenced by the real Doc Holliday's well-known persona and the real Wyatt Earp's account on it.
This film does not try to be cool or make you feel good when watching it, while "Tombstone" clearly does: this film tries to explain the reasons of why the Old West was such a chaotic, lawless place as shown in EVERY OTHER WESTERN EVER MADE, it shows you that good guys can be bad (Little Bill meant to make Big Whiskey a peaceful town, even tho his methods could be seen as markedly inadequate, tho almost logical regarding the context) and bad guys can be good (William Munny was a proven sonnovabitsh sociopath, tho he found love and reformed into a decent farmer, father and husband), and that even innocent victims aren't that innocent, as shown by the hookers, the atackers and even the people at the bar, and that killing is not really cool, even for the famous gunslingers, and that nobody is perfect nor completely innocent, as shown by Little Bill and his "peaceful" town regarding Ned's murder or English Bob's assault.
Even the writer served a purpose: he showed you what kind of man he could be, and what his views of the wild west lifestyle was, this is especially important and often overlooked, since IT'S MAINLY DUE TO A WRITER'S HIGHLY SENSATIONAL AND FICTIONALIZED BIO THAT WYATT EARP'S AND DOC HOLLIDAY'S REPUTATION BECAME LEGENDARY AMONG CONTEMPORARY PEOPLE, AND WITHOUT IT "TOMBSTONE" WOULD HAVE NEVER COME TO BE.
The first time I saw it I expected it to be like the "Good, Bad, Ugly", since everyone said it was such a "western" masterpiece, I was kinda dissapointed to find out it was completely different, but still made an impact on me.
Now, many years later, it strikes me as a pivotal piece of work that serves to better understand what's behind any western ever made: the character's true motives and drive, their actual thoughts, etc. I recommend you watch "The Good, Te Bad and The Ugly", "Once Upon a Time in the West", and then "Unforgiven", it would definitely give you a wider scope to understand "Unforgiven"'s true purpose and unique role among westerns.
now this is acting: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2458172160/tt1528718
I agree. I think Kilmer should've been nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Doc Holliday. IMO he stole the show in Tombstone and one of Kilmer's best performances.
share[deleted]
tombstone has more wit.
"Hipness is not a state of mind, it's a fact of life!" - Cannonball Adderley