MovieChat Forums > High Noon (1952) Discussion > I hated this movie, for many reasons...

I hated this movie, for many reasons...

posted 15 years ago by tarena02
76 replies | jump to latest

Hate is a little strong, it had a great cast, strong performances, especially by Cooper. But the story is absurd. This man is supposed to be some kind of town hero, they give him a big sendoff after his wedding. Then they turn their back on him the very same day? Did he not know these people? Was he that clueless about them? Its just not realistic that a whole town would act that way. Its simply not human nature to do so, the film makers had it backwards.

As to the production itself, it was made on the cheap, and looks it. The gunfight at the end was terrible by western standards. And these outlaws come to town with a plan to kill the Marshall? Some plan, easily allowing one man to pick off each of them, one at a time.

And to the whole blacklisting thing, most of those blacklisted were at the least sympathetic to communism, a great threat at the time. The HUAC (House Committee on Un-American Activities) and Joe McCarthy? McCarthy had nothing to do with it, he was in the Senate. As to McCarthy's claims that there were communists in the state department? He was right. Look up the name Alger Hiss and the Venona cables, enough said.

[–] methriller 14 years ago

This movie sucks. Probably the worst western ever. Stupid story.

[–] deadbunny28 13 years ago

okay ill play...enlighten me on what is so stupid about it?...

[–] jelperman 14 years ago

You're confusing the fact that people are nice to the man on his wedding day with whether they'd risk taking a bullet for him. Throughout the movie it's made clear that Will Kane isn't the most popular guy in town and a number of the townsfolk actually preferred Frank Miller. Even Kane's "friends" and upstanding citizens have issues with the man. You'll notice what a jackass the preacher is: When Kane announces that a known killer is on his way and the sheriff needs help, the preacher whines that Kane married a Quaker in a civil ceremony and not in his church!

[–] baran_erik 9 years ago

The preacher said nothing about her being a Quaker. He did complain that Kane was not a regular and wasn't married in the church, but it was Kane, in explaining why he wasn't married in the church, that brought up that she was a Quaker.

And didn't ya wanna slap the smarmy hotel clerk silly?

[–] daimposter 13 years ago

"And to the whole blacklisting thing, most of those blacklisted were at the least sympathetic to communism, a great threat at the time. The HUAC (House Committee on Un-American Activities) and Joe McCarthy? McCarthy had nothing to do with it, he was in the Senate. As to McCarthy's claims that there were communists in the state department? He was right. Look up the name Alger Hiss and the Venona cables, enough said."

I can't believe there are still some people who believe the HUAC was right and that all or most who were blacklisted deserved it. Got watch Good night and good luck...it captures a real story about how McCarthy was an evil man bent on rooting out communist regardless of collateral damage.

People were black listed for the stupidest thing. The smallest most insignificant thing. Can you imagine if you 15 years earlier you had gone to one meeting and now they ask you to name names and to not do so will blacklist you but to do so will blacklist all those you name? Or can you imagine being blacklisted just for saying the communist witch hunt is wrong and a terrible crime against innocent people. Can you imagine if you have a friend or relative that one attended a communist gathering a decade ago and they want you to testify he did and if you don't you are blacklisted?

A big misconception people have is that all communist is the same. It's like saying all religion is the same or all christian sects are the same. The idea of communist, at least Marx's version, is a utopia. Of course when communism is actually used in real life, it leads to politicians corrupting the basics of Marx's vision. Communist USA is very different than Soviet Communist. But thats sort of besides the point. Many of these people attended gatherings or supported US communism before WW2 ---- before they saw the horrible things that imperfect people will do with all that power.

[–] Hoohawnaynay 13 years ago

It's kind of bizarre...the 50's were a beautiful decade, great cars, clothes, people had manners and were much nicer to strangers.

Yet on the other side they were pretty stupid and clueless. Bigoted, and this entire commie thing just proves how ignorant most were back then. Kind of ironic now people are generally more aware of differences in race etc but manners are gone people are indifferent to strangers, more rude and cars are ugly and people dress like ragamuffins. Funny how things change.

[–] lynnviv-1 13 years ago

Hoohawnaynay, yours is one of the weirdest posts i've ever seen.

Where does the "people were much nicer to strangers in the 50's" stuff come from, and the idea that people dressed better? I can only assume you're very young and get all your ideas of the 50s from movies.

[–] anghmho 13 years ago

The 50's was my decade; I was a teenager then. People DID, in fact, dress better (I grew up in a blue-collar town and there was a dress code in the public schools). And people WERE more polite and kinder to strangers. The movies only reflected what we were supposed to believe, So did the movies of the 40's. And the behavior of the public followed. Unfortunately, the movies of the 21st century have the same effect.

In the 50's, we took in people who needed a hand, which I don't see much of these days. My parents were children of the Depression, so it didn't seem strange to them to do so.

We also owned less, had fewer modern conveniences (we even had a stove-top toaster), and were able to afford family vacations on an average joe's paycheck, Not an easy thing to do these days.

So, movie-shmovie. Just place this movie in the cultural context and time in which it was made. It's a damned good film. And remember that it ain't a 2012 movie. Thank God; who knows how it would have turned out?

[–] Massolit 13 years ago

Your view of High Noon is completely "absurd" (not the story - as you said - for sure..). This film is one of the greatest westerns of all time. I think u don't know the word "metaphor" and u do not understand enough about cinema to even realise the "crime/injustice" u had "committed". Maybe read some books will help you but I doubt it. Your post is simply too bad for anyone who loves cinema not to reply.. (and about that communist part u refered to I prefer not even comment.. is completely ABSURD!!)

P.S. - Have a good life (if it is possible..)

[–] renofury 12 years ago

The marshall was just too prideful, him dieing would have been a better ending.

[–] Nobody-27 12 years ago

But the story is absurd. This man is supposed to be some kind of town hero, they give him a big sendoff after his wedding. Then they turn their back on him the very same day?

It is happening all the time everywhere, which is what makes this film and its story truly great. "Better you than me" attitude is going stronger by the day in schools, workplace, society and everywhere else. Every time someone innocent dies, most people think "Thank God it was not me or my family", but will do absolutely nothing to prevent it. They would rather side with evil then risk doing the right thing.

Did he not know these people? Was he that clueless about them?

Just try to find similar historical exmaples (one was even mentioned in the film) and you will see how an average person easily switches sides...

Its just not realistic that a whole town would act that way.

It's VERY realistic. Here is one example: did you know how many Nazi SS officers it took to hold a whole town of million people hostage (this was in Germany during WWII)? Eight. Just eight. One million vs. eight. And what did those one million do? Well, some of them would periodically "snitch" on their neighbors, with completely made-up information just to keep spotlight away from themselves and earn some browny points with authorities. Yes, people are perfectly capable of being like that.

Its simply not human nature to do so, the film makers had it backwards.

Depends on what you consider "human nature". Human nature has potential for all kinds of things, and while we could separate those into "lowly" or "animalistic", and "higher aspects of human nature", I think it is safe to say that most people are guided in life by their lower impulses, such as thoughtless survival instinct and selfishness.

As to the production itself, it was made on the cheap, and looks it.

I beg to differ. The picture quality is stunning (just watched it on bluray). The cinematography too. They went to great lengths to develop this look for the film which worked wonderfuly well. And the set was actual real town. I have not once noticed something that bothered me about the production itself.

The gunfight at the end was terrible by western standards.

What did you find so "terrible"? I think it was truly well done.

And these outlaws come to town with a plan to kill the Marshall? Some plan, easily allowing one man to pick off each of them, one at a time.

Are you blaming stupid outlaws for being stupid? One easily see that they were too sure of themselves; I mean, any one of them on their own could have potentially killed the marshall, so four of them together grew overconfident and that ended up costing them. Add to that the wild card that cost one guy his life, and it all makes perfect sense.

Great film all around. Possibly one of the greatest of all time, and I would dare place it above vastly overrated Citizen Kane.

And to the whole blacklisting thing, most of those blacklisted were at the least sympathetic to communism, a great threat at the time.

Most were not sympathetic to anything. Read up a little more from few different sources to understand what was really going on. It was a witchhunt to earn political points, nothing to do with improving the country or removing the "threat of communism".
Ford was sympathetic to Hitler, and TIME magazine ran a picture of Hitler on their cover page with title "great hope" (or something to that effect). That was a much bigger threat than communism in Hollywood, yet no one got persecuted for that. And in time, I am sure everyone realized their own mistakes. That is the greatness of this country - everyone is allowed to sympathize with anything, it is not illegal to think wrong.

What many seem to dislike about this film is that it seems to portray average american as selfish coward. But they don't realize that this is about ONE TOWN, and yes an average American WILL be confronted with similar situation more than once in his or her life. Even more importantly, those who dislike the film for that reason forget that the Marshall (Gary Cooper) is also American in the truest sense of the word. It was not cowards and criminals who made USofA great, but strong, brave individuals who were willing to stand for what was right no matter what.
THAT'S the true value of the film. Kids should be watching it in schools right after their history lesson about declaration of independence.

[–] tbonesays 12 years ago

Yes I think the story was created backwards.

They had an idea about a Sheriff who would be deserted by his community when he needed to him. That's the the premise of the movie; that no one would help him. After that the script just invents reasons for each person to side against Kane.

Now all of the reasons were plausible. We just don't know why the townsfolk accepted them so quickly, other than that it was for the plot.

[–] Nobody-27 12 years ago

It was painfully obvious that none wanted to risk their life to help the Marshall. How could you miss that?

Not to mention that if they all decided to help, there would no trouble at all as no criminal is crazy to go against the whole town. But people think of themselves first, and no one wanted to do the right thing - so they all just gave up their long-term safety for short term comfort.

[–] tbonesays 12 years ago

I got that as the primary motivation for the characters, that no one comes to the aid of the hero. But apparently in the back-story, the same people DID come to his aid. So what changed? and why was a paroled Frank Miller with 3 men suddenly an indomitable force?

[–] kbarada 12 years ago

Don't forget tbone, that there were some in the town that wanted a return to the wild and profitable days pre Will Kane.

[–] Nobody-27 12 years ago

Because earlier, those same criminals were terrorizing the whole town. When everyone's lives were in danger, they all helped; there was no other way out of the troubles anyway. Now that their lives are not in danger, they don't feel like risking anything, even if in the long term that meant that same old problems would develop. They would rather that someone else deals with them - after all, that's what the sheriff is for!

[–] paulfusari 12 years ago

Speaking of back-stories, what’s interesting to me about this film is all the other back stories that are only eluded to in maybe one sentence but all could have contributed to the characters actions in this movie. How did Kane clean up the town over the 5 years? What went on between Miller and Ramirez and Kane and Ramirez. Ramirez seems to have a level of respect for Kane – what was their story? How did Kane meet Amy? There are so many characters that are only briefly introduced. The countdown to high noon was a great sequence, seeing all the characters and the clock ticking and finally that train whistle blowing – and the look on Kane’s face.

[–] spookyrat1 12 years ago

Well I love this movie primarily because it is an incredibly suspensful, well constructed western with a great cast and a stark allegory of the climate of fear and suspicion prevailing during the McCarthy era.

I think it can be demonstrated that it was successful on both counts.

It won oscars and oscar nominations and is generally considered very unlucky to have missed out on best picture.

Sixty years later posters are still debating the philosophical merits of the film in its historical context.

Great art can do that for you.

"Don't shove me Harv. I'm tired of being shoved."

[–] Nobody-27 11 years ago

I could not agree more - great art really does that to you.

And then, you see some other oscar winners from 4-5-6 decades ago and go "My, my, what were they thinking..."

[–] davidwile 11 years ago

Hey folks,

Like most of you all, I loved the film back in 1952, and I still do. It was absolutely the best of Westerns at the time it was made, and it still holds its own today.

Do I think it is as good as Lonesome Dove or Open Range? No, I do not, but that is because those two great Westerns had 40 years to grow from the shoulders of High Noon.

I was fairly young when my dad and I went to see High Noon, and when I came out of the theater, it was one of those rare times that you know you just saw something really special.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile