There is such a prejudice against old films in here. I mean, you see all of the Lord of the Rings films in the top 10? Give me a break! Way too many teenie boppers in here voting, most of which have not seen a movie made after 1995. This film is a masterpiece and I bet if more people that were younger, saw it, it would be in that top 10. Of course, that is just my opinion.
Salvation is free
I know why you mean...but I am almost sure that if this film had been seen around the world as much as Titanic was seen, it will definetly be at the top 10...this western is great(and I don't even like westerns!)...so the problem is that the film doesn't have as many votes as to be ranking higher! :(
Q sabian Lenin y Lincoln de amor?Q saben Fidel y Clinton del amor?!
no kidding! They should require that you at least watch a dozen movies from each decade from the 1930's till now before you can be a IMDB member! Of course you can't prove it. But it would least allow us to have a realistic TOP 250 instead of the CGI dominated LOTR crap! I mean, are those movies really better than Some Like it Hot or It's A Wonderful life??? I mean, do they even have a redeeming moral value???
shareI suppose I can't prove it either, but I've seen at least 20 films from each decade... and yes, that includes the 1930's.
I love John Wayne films, but to call the Lord of the Rings films "crap" is really going to far.
If you are trying to sound intelligent, you have failed, and you just don't get points for insulting competent filmaking!
In reply to your "moral value" quip...
I beleive that the LOTR films do have redeeming moral value, and I really hope that you can understand it.
Have you seen all three films? If you have you would understand the point and purpose of these films, and why it is such a great display of good vs. evil.
God help me if "Some Like it Hot" has redeeming moral value!
It's a great film, but I wouldn't even say this is one of the top 5 Westerns of all time, let alone one of the top 100 films of all time. But of course I disagree with half the entries in the IMDB top 200.
sharehey im 17 and after seeing Once Upon a Time In the West when i was 14 i got hooked on westerns. I saw this film on amc a while back and it was immediatly one of my favorite films behind OUATITW, the good the bad and the ugly, pulp fiction and rio bravo. I dont think most people my age would really like it....ive shown a few people and they think its boring and pointless, and above all, most kids my age think westerns suck....i dont kno how they got that idea, they are amazing....but anyhow most of my friends want to see something like Scary Movie or Mr. Deeds....god i REALLY hate those movies....
shareYes, you have unusual (if commendable) tastes for your age. I would highly recommend you check out www.listology.com - the community there is really into classic movies, and several of us are teenagers (including myself). You can also, of course, find TONS of lists like 'best movies of the 50s' or '1936: Movies Sorted by Tier' or 'best revisionist westerns' or even 'movie character I would marry in a heartbeat.'
Check it out and you'll discover thousands of films you'll probably enjoy (with your tastes), but never knew existed.
Yeah I'm a teenager who loves westerns and it is so hard for me to find anyone my age who has the same taste in movies as me.
That's why I love this site because I can discuss movies with people who have the same interests. It's almost impossible to find them elsewhere. I completely agree this should be in at least the top 25. But I was a little disappointed with the ending.
I'm 17, and I have the same problem too...
I can't stand the people that refuse to watch films becuase they're old, or B/W, or some equally stupid reason.
I'm a big fan of the old style of film making, and it just seems that no one can understand it anymore.
I'm also a big fan of the cheesy cliffhanger serials of the 1930's like "Flash Gordan" or "Buck Rogers".
Which is one reason I like the Star Wars and Indiana Jones films.
The new Star Wars films especially, because they have that great feeling of the 30's serial.
You see, chances are there's always going to be at least a few out there like that 17 year old kid that will take the time and effort to sit down and really try to watch an old western like RED RIVER and come away appreciating something that's good and entertaining no matter what year it was made or whether it's in color or not. As long as there's young people like that those older, great shows will live on.
share[deleted]
this film is good
but it doesnt deserve to be in the top 10
---------------------------
"Isn't it wonderful? I'm going to jail"
One must wonder where the prejudice really lies. I'm considerably older than 17, by some multiple. I don't like modern science fiction, ridiculous old westerns, or ridiculous crime movies. The truly unfortunate thing about most movies is they are made for one purpose only -- to make money. Lots of money. That's sad. True art is rare, because it can't make money. So we end up with Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings. Most great movies are those which accurately deal with history or social commentaries. Woody Allen is a genious. But that's just my opinion. The opinion of a 17 year old is just as valid as an 80 year old.
That's my social commentary. I feel better.
Red River doesn't deserve to be in the top 1,000.
[deleted]
but it is highly regarded still, lefty -- so get over it.
"Take 'em to Missouri"
[deleted]
it's awful? ok, your opinion. Noted, so move on. Oh, and that opinion is hardly a shared one.
"Take 'em to Missouri"
Someone said Lord of the the rings (which I havent seen but despise the very idea of) shouldnt be in because it has no redeeming moral value. But I for on would much rather see triumph of the will up there than the mawkish sentimentality of the shawshank redemption, though I know which is the more moral film.
shareHow the OP asks?
I'll tell you how and why they're right.
Because it isn't on of the top 10 even in the western genre, nor the top 100 movies of all-time. Why do I say that? Because the ending is a complete load of crap that (along with most scenes of Tess) really does harm to what was potentially an amazing movie. Ebert's 'Great Movies' review of it on his site lists its shortcomings correctly, yet he still lists it in that category. Personally, I call it an 'Almost Great Movie'. Howard Hawks once said a good movie has '3 good scenes, no bad scenes', by that reasoning alone I say that the film fails its director's own test.
Of course I also think the unlikely actions of the young soldier on the demolition mission at the end of 'River Kwai' is a bunch of ridiculous melodramatic fake suspense BS that hurts what was until that point a truly great film. That's another flawed film with 'River' in its title. Shane had an annoying kid and an unlikely parental stupidity marring its ending for another manufactured melodrama scene. All 3 films fail the 'would things really transpire this way' question regarding their endings, Shane being the most forgivable example (though the annoying kid still harms that potentially great film).
P.S. Lord of the Rings is a very well-made film series. If you really want to complain about overrated CG-infested modern films, try the Pirates of the Carribean sequels or the wooden Star Wars prequels.
----------
If you're watching 'Fullscreen' DVDs, you aren't getting the whole picture.