MovieChat Forums > Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1967) Discussion > It was ok, but not great

It was ok, but not great

posted 11 years ago by bruhathkayo
17 replies | jump to latest

I'm not a huge fan of westerns, but I did enjoy Unforgiven a lot, and if you count Dances with Wolves a western (I don't, but if you do) then I thought that was awesome as well.

This one however is a bit too boring for me. It wasn't terrible, but it was way too long. I think maybe I saw an extended cut? I really don't know, but I do know there were several scenes that could have been cut out.

Kinda jarring to see Clint Eastwood so young here, but he does his job well. He always is a good actor, so no complaints with him. The dubbing is fairly horrible with everyone else though, I understand that a lot of the dialogue is in Italian if I'm not mistaken. Well the English dubs suck, and don't match up at all. But then again, dubbing over someone's lips saying something completely different is damn near impossible anyway.

All that aside, not completely horrible, but not my cup of tea either.

[–] colhiffus 10 years ago

I the original poster wasn't disrespectful at all. He just said he didn't care for it and why. I 100 % disagree but it's not like he said the movie sucked and people who liked it are stupid.

[–] jgroub 10 years ago

Don't listen to these guys. I agree with you - no way it's terrible, not like some other Western I could mention <cough - Fistful of Dollars - cough>, but it wasn't "great" either. There's no question it's a good movie. At three hours, it was definitely an hour too long. The pacing was off. But I enjoyed it, for sure.

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

[–] Ultimate_Bad-Ass 9 years ago

Your opinion, not ours.

[–] residentevil6901 8 years ago

How you think this was too long and boring I think it was epic instead. It sure seemed how boring life probably was in the old west. I think this is one of the best movies of all time. Maybe chick flicks are more your cup of tea? Lol

[–] andersb-36022 8 years ago

If you enjoyed Unforgiven more than this movie then you got problems.

[–] hifijohn 8 years ago

I agree good but not great, its a western and americans by default love any type of western.as far as the dubs go, these movies were made for an international audience. all the scenes were shot without any sound then they dubbed in the dialogue for what ever country the movie was going to.and yes 3 hours is far toooo long, 1 1/2hr , 2hrs tops.

[–] residentevil6901 8 years ago

There are a lot of great, average and terrible Westerns and this is definitely one of the great ones. I've seen some real stinkers in my time but this one is so classic you can't get any better. The going after the gold plot is fun, as a kid this movie kept my attention simply that I wanted to see if they got the gold or not. I grew up extremely hyper and had ADD so sitting though a movie this long was usually hard for me. Not with this one though.

[–] yatzo376 8 years ago

Maybe it's because of your age?

I know my 17 year old son wouldn't last 30 minutes, but children of the 60s and 70s worship this amazing film , including me.

"You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine"

[–] VidaBoheme 8 years ago

Honestly, I think you're right - it does seem to be a generational thing. Attentions spans aren't what they used to be. But the 60s were a different time. Movies were made to be epic, and long because people didn't have anything else to do. OK - they did, but they certainly didn't have the distractions like they do today. Going to the movies was an event, and not a throwaway thing to do on a Sunday afternoon.

Because of that, I think some of the older epics do tend to ramble on, drag, and seem bloated in areas. It's an iconic film, that could have used an editor here and there. Maybe it was great in its time, but is it accessible to modern audiences? I'm not sure.