I think this has to be without a doubt John Wayne's best movie. Rio Bravo really seemed to have the charm possessed in most John Wayne movies, the action was good, and there was even some comic relief. If you think The Searchers was a good movie - I would agree whole heartedly. I did not consider it a real "John Wayne" however, because he did not seem to play the same character role.
share[deleted]
I have three favorite Wayne films...
(in no particular order)
1) Stagecoach
2) Rio Bravo
3) The Searchers
Stagecoach and Rio Bravo were Wayne at his best as the icon most people know him as. The Searchers was excellent because it showed Wayne as a great actor.
In my humble opinion John wayne's best movies are in this order.
1. The Searchers
2. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
3. Stagecoach
4. The Quiet Man
5. Rio Bravo
I think that the Shootist was also a great John Wayne movie.
"True Grit" was his Oscar Winner,....and I often wonder what it would have been like had Elvis played Glen Campbell's role as intentionally planned?
I'm sure "E" was a better Actor than GC. Rio Bravo was the very 1st movie EVER
and at the age of 5 was overwhelming so it was hard to choose any better after, but "The Horse Soldier's" also holds a special place, as well as El Dorado, Sands of Iwo Jima & The Searcher's & Stagecoach.
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get!
Rio Bravo
True Grit
Stagecoach
(Donavan's Reef I really enjoy too)
I would like to have seen Elvis in LeBouef's role. It would have been interesting. As a big John Wayne fan, I have often wondered about the casting of pop singers in the Duke's films. Dean Martin, Ricky Nelson, Fabian, Bobby Vinton, Glenn Campbell, Frankie Avalon... Although Dean was as much an actor as a singer and was up to the task of working alongside the Duke, the rest were streching their limits acting with the him. (This being said I really like Ricky Nelson in Rio Bravo.) Was this just a means to appeal to the teenage demographic?
"Is this moron number one? Put moron number two on the phone."
[deleted]
[deleted]
This movie is a good, clean and fun western. The only thing I can't get past is Duke using his rifle as a pointer. Tom Selleck would be great for a reprisal of this role.
shareI am a very big fan of John Wayne's movies. Here are my Top Five Favorite Movies.
1. Big Jake
2. Rio Bravo
3. The Quiet Man
4. The Hellfighters
5. El Dorado
Though there is not many that I dislike.
I think it would be sacrilege to remake this movie, especially since El Dorado with John Wayne was a remake of Rio Bravo. BUT, in my opinion Sam Elliot would be better in the Duke's role.
John T.
The US always does the right thing -- after all other alternatives have been exhausted.
Nobody has mentioned one of my favorite John Wayne films of all time, "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon". This has got to be one of John Wayne's best performances.
shareI dont know if it's Wayne's best but Rio Bravo is unrivaled in my book as far as westerns go.
shareNoone's mentioned the amazing 'Rio Grande'
shareIn my opinion the best use of the "Wayne Persona" was John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. One of the film's strongest elements is its use of typecasting its characters. Jimmy Stewart: Law Abiding, moral center John Wayne: The all around bad ass cowboy Lee Marvin: The snake like criminal Andy Devine: te bumbling sheriff. Because of these types Ford is immediatley able to establish the themes of the story and able to reverse a cliche by making Wayne a tragic figure.
All of the film mentioned are Western classics, with some being classics of cinema in general.
But, I've never thought of True Grit as the typical Wayne persona. To me the Wayne persona as that of the straight man.
But I'm disapointed that no one has mentioned one of Wayne's later film, 'The Cowboys'. But now I feel like I'm starting to ramble so...
Top 5 "Wayne Persona" Films
1. Liberty Valance
2. Rio Bravo
3. El Dorado
4. The Shootist
5. The Cowboys
Top 5 Wayne Films
1. The Searchers
2. Liberty Valance
3. Red River
4. Rio Bravo
5. El Dorado
Last Film Seen: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull {****/****}
You were the first to mention The Cowboys, my own favorite. I'm surprised and a bit disappointed it's this far down the thread.
My favorite, too.
Worst one? Try Brannigan.
Wayne was such a great film star. it's a difficult one but I'm gonna go for:
1) The Quiet Man. My mother was Irish. Wayne and O'Hara gave wonderful performances.
2) Red River. Duke at his best playing a ruthless trail boss but given stiff competition in acting by Montgomery Clift.
3) The Shootist. Pleased he went out with an excellent film ironically playing a gunslinger dying of cancer. Marvellous support from Lauren Bacall.
4) She Wore A Yellow Ribbon. He plays a man a lot older than he actually was. A great performance from Wayne playing a cavalry man due for retirement. His mate Ben Johnson has one of his first film roles as Sgt Tyree.
5) Wake Of The Red Witch. I've always liked this old movie. Wayne is great playing the ruthless sea dog Captain Rolls..Luther Adler is also great as the dodgy ship owner and Gail Russell is just lovely to look at. I believe it was one of Dukes favourite films.
I think Rio Bravo is a great film. It is far better than the garbage Hollywood puts out these days.
shareIt's my personal favorite John Wayne movie, although The Searchers may be the greater film. And The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is worthy of mention in this grouping. And Red River and Stagecoach. Better stop now while I'm ahead...
shareThis is the most entertaining movie that Wayne ever did IMHO. In terms of 'best', I'd go with THE SEARCHERS.
shareIt's hard for me to understand how anyone could rank this perfectly average movie at the top of Wayne's catalog. I'm not a particularly big fan of Wayne -- I find his reactionary politics quite off-putting -- but he did make some really good movies. The Quiet Man, Red River, Stagecoach, The Searchers, all of the "cavalry trilogy" movies, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and The Shootist are all far superior to Rio Bravo. It's even possible to argue that the remake of this one, El Dorado, is actually a better movie, if only because you have Robert Mitchum and James Caan instead of a couple of singers trying to act. By the way, saying that you don't consider a movie where Wayne doesn't play the character that John Ford created for him in Stagecoach as a "Wayne movie" is saying you won't consider any of the movies where he actually acted, instead of just walking through his part, as he does in Rio Bravo.
share[deleted]
Rio Bravo is fantastic. I would say Dean Martin's Best Movie. John Wayne's best Movie is probably Red River. Also Walter Brennan is so funny in that. The beginning and most of the scenes with these two fellows aren't medicore. And not to forget the Beauty of the West: Angie Dickenson. John Wayne is just John Wayne and the same goes to Rick Nelson.
"Well, nobody's perfect."
You tipped your hand with your second sentence. It's a small mind that can't separate an actor's politics from his or her acting. I'm probably as "reactionary" as Wayne was, particularly since the last election, but I can enjoy Jane Fonda,and Alec Baldwin as actors. Tommy Lee Jones is in the top five of my favorite actors. He roomed with Al Gore at Harvard, and continues to support Gore, which I obviously abhor, but Texas Ranger Capt. Woodrow McCall ranks among the pantheon of great Western characters. Most actors aren't geniuses or political theoriticians, they are ACTORS, people who get a camera on them from time to time and spout the party line for someone else in whom they have an interest. Alec Baldwin has espoused considerably more "radical" ideas in the last 10 years, than Wayne espoused "reactionary" ideas in his whole career.
I've never seen a John Wayne film I didn't like. I think that an argument can be made that Rio Bravo is Wayne's best movie. Initially, you have to focus on the entire film, not just his performance. The best "actors" in this movie were Dean Martin and Rick Nelson, not really actors at all. In fact, the protagonist in this film was Dean Martin. The story was not so much about the action concerning the man being held in jail, and his brother trying to get him out. The real storyline of the film is about the redemption of an alcoholic deputy, his fall from grace and return to the bottle, followed by his struggle to maintain himself as a decent human being and deputy. Rick Nelson played Colorado exactly as it should have been played. He was able to act like the fastest young gun around, a bit obnoxious, but a man who came through when it counted. He had to walk a fine line in that role.
Finally, the music cannot be ignored in this movie. The song sung by Dean Martin and Rick Nelson was a good one for a Western, but the real musical character in the movie was the almost continual playing of the Deguello by a single trumpet in the background. I don't know where you are from, but the Deguello sends chills up and down a true Texan's spine.
Please understand that, while I may have seemed to direct some of my comments to you personally, they were not meant to be taken in that spirit. I was commenting about your posting, not about you. It would bode well for us all if we could come closer together in this country politically, because the real enemy of our country at this time generally comes from outside the country.The Republic is in serious trouble.
Kindest personal regards,
John T.
The US always does the right thing -- after all other alternatives have been exhausted.
I don't think you can really accuse me of being unable to separate an actor's politics from his acting, when I follow up my comments on Wayne's politics with the statement that he made many good movies, and then proceed to list some of them. Obviously, I am capable of appreciating and enjoying his work; if nothing else, I have to appreciate that his repeated line in The Searchers, "That'll be the day," inspired the song that made Buddy Holly a star! (Yes, I'm a huge fan of that Texas musician/singer/songwriter.) Like you, I try to avoid letting any distaste I might feel for an actor's politics or personality stop me from enjoying his or her work.
I will take exception to a couple of your comments. Regardless of any ideas he may have espoused, Alec Baldwin has never tried to prevent those whose politics he disagrees with from earning a living in the entertainment business, as Wayne so enthusiastically did during the dark days of the fifties. I will also continue to assert that Wayne made many pictures which, taken as a whole, were far superior to Rio Bravo. (So did Howard Hawks, for that matter.) He also made some films which were far worse, so I'm afraid I cannot echo your statement that you've never seen a Wayne film you didn't like; I have. lol I'm also going to disagree with your assessment of Ricky Nelson's acting. I enjoy him as an unlikely but talented rockabilly singer, but never bought him for an instant as a dangerous gunfighter. I thought James Caan did much better with his very similar role in the remake, El Dorado.
I certainly did not take any of your comments as a personal affront. If we can't each express our opinions openly and honestly, what's the point of even visiting a message board such as this one? As far as politics are concerned, I think it would behoove all of us to remember that we have a government that was designed to run on compromise, and when anyone insists on having everything his own way, refusing to consider the other side's opinions, and attempt to meet in the middle, we are sure to go astray, and make ourselves more vulnerable to those who hate us.
It is patently unfair to ask me to respond to something I wrote 30 days ago, particularly new New Year's Eve, but I do have a couple comments.
With regard to which of John Waynes' movies is best is like asking me to pick which of the two scrambled eggs this morning was the best. I still contend that Rick Nelson was the better portral of a gunfighter. How man gunfighters have you known? I have know several. The slick "kiddish" one is much more effective than a bantam rooter like Caan. And I like Caan in small doses. He was great in "The Gambler" (I think that was its name.) Except for the Texas A&M poster in one scene.
Actually, if anyone is interested, John Wayne's movies that I really enjoyed were "The Cowboys" (particularly when Roscoe Lee Brown offered his "final" prayer), "Rooster Cogburn" (with help from Katherine Hepburn) "The Fighting SeaBees", "In Harm's Way",
With regard to John Wayne keeping people out of jobs, I would have to see more info on that. I do know that he played an investigator with the House Unamerican Activities Committee, headed by Martin Dies, a friend of the family and whose grandson I went to law school with. The former was and the latter is nearly functionally illiterate.
If Wayne did have any influence on people getting jobs, it was because he could. You surely can't equate the HUAC times of the '50s with actors 40 or 50 years later. I feel certain that Baldwin et al would do the same thing if we had a HUAC and blacklist on conservatives today. I fear that they would not only be deprived of jobs, but probably be in dungeons. Alec Baldwin is a maniac when seen being himself. At least most liberal actors are judicious in there criticisms, and don't let it drive their personal acts.
Actually, I would bet that you and I could find some neutral ground in this discussion, if not left to the written word herein.
I don't fault anyone for their honestly held convictions. With regard to all the liberal celebreties, I chose Alec Baldwin because he is so disagreeable when not acting. He seems to go overboard to be noticed, making one think he is posturing for public office.
Sincere best wishes,
John T. Russell
The US always does the right thing -- after all other alternatives have been exhausted.
"It is patently unfair to ask me to respond to something I wrote 30 days ago, particularly new New Year's Eve, but I do have a couple comments."
Hey, you asked me to respond to a reply to something I wrote over a year ago! lol Sauce, goose, gander, buddy! lol
It is a shame that so few people today are able to appreciate irony. When you are unable to discuss the subject of the movie, respond somewhat acerbically to the first line of a message.
I would like to call your attention to the last paragraph in my original posting, and the last sentiments conveyed in my last posting.
Additionally, I didn't ask you to respond, you chose to do so, as I did.
I don't know where you are writing from or your sex, but in Texas when someone calls another person "buddy", it is often the prologue to a physical fight e.g., "Quit leaning on the pool table buddy." I have a name, and unlike you, I am not ashamed to use mine. You could have called me John, Mr. Russell, jtrussell, Dr. Russell, Judge Russell, Doc or any number of other things but "buddy" is a poor choice.
But I am always glad to meet another goose hunter. I am not really familiar with "lol" sauce, but it must be good because you use it twice. I generally cooke the ones I kill with sliced apples and bacon inside to remove the sometimes gamey taste.
You must be terribly busy to fail to note my efforts at not making any of this personal (again I commend to your reading the last paragraph of my first post). I try not to personalize any comments herein and simply discuss the subject matter, unless goaded into extracurricular comments.
Wait, someone just told me that lol is some sort of internet shorthand for people who are opposed to or unable to actually spell out words. This information has certainly saved me time in looking for a recipe for lol sauce.
John T. Russell
The US always does the right thing -- after all other alternatives have been exhausted.
Hmmm -- that irony thing. I was just trying to make a joke; I guess you weren't in a humorous mood when you read it. I used the word "buddy" to imply that I thought we were having a friendly exchange of ideas, and were getting along well, even though we might have differing political orientations. Obviously, I misjudged your attitude. I'm sorry the word "buddy" is so offensive to you; Texas is not the whole world, and everywhere I've lived it's just a way to convey friendliness. I guess I also assumed that someone as literate as yourself would be familiar enough with the old saying, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," to recognize a joking take on it. Also, just about everyone I've communicated with on line is familiar enough with the acronym "lol" (for laughing out loud) to understand that it's used to aver a lack of seriousness in a comment, as well as appreciation of another's joke. I do think there is a difference between utilizing commonly understood acronyms and failing to spell out simple words such as you, for, and any, a habit which you will notice I do not have.
As far as personal comments are concerned, I certainly didn't think that a joking take on an old cliche, comparing the lapse of time between our respective posts, was personally offensive. I'm sorry you took it that way, and since you are such a sensitive soul, I'll do my best to restrain my sense of humor when communicating with you in the future.
I always wondered about "lol". I thought it meant lots of luck. Laughing at the ignorant is really not nice. I thought we were supposed to talk about movies.
John T. Russell
The US always does the right thing -- after all other alternatives have been exhausted.
"Except for the Texas A&M poster in one scene."
Whoa, you seem too conservative to be a t-sipper fan!
Nothing bothers some people...not even flying saucers
Thanks for your reply. I'm not conservative, liberal or anywhere in between the two. I've got too many problems of my own to have all the nation's problems solved like most of the people who send me email.
The comment about the Texas A&M poster was, I guess, meant to be provacative. I dislike, and am generally amused, by fanatics in the truest sense, whether they wear burnt orange or maroon. I've got family that are alumni of both schools, and if they are 40 years old and still wearing their "senior boots", or incessantly wear burnt orange sport coats or pants, they need to get over being in college and take a giant leap into the real world.
The Texas A&M versus University of Texas at Austin football game every year is one in which I wish both sides could lose.
The US always does the right thing -- after all other alternatives have been exhausted.
"The Texas A&M versus University of Texas at Austin football game every year is one in which I wish both sides could lose."
Ha, that's funny.
In a few days, I'll be out of my senior boots.
Nothing bothers some people...not even flying saucers
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
The US always does the right thing -- after all other alternatives have been exhausted.
John Wayne > Harrison Ford
shareSorry to butt in, but your comment --
"...I think it would behoove all of us to remember that we have a government that was designed to run on compromise, and when anyone insists on having everything his own way .... and make ourselves more vulnerable to those who hate us."
I don't think our government was "designed to run on compromise." It was designed to run on principles (they're found in the Declaration and the Constitution). "Compromise" is a necessary evil to be used under certain circumstances involving "degrees of agreement" and within the sphere of principles the government was "designed" to preserve "without" compromise.
Our government was created with three separate branches, and the legislative branch was created with two houses, so that larger and smaller states would each have a strong hand in determining laws, and neither could run roughshod over the other. The principles which inspired and informed the Declaration and the Constitution were those developed by such enlightenment philosophers as Locke, Rousseau, and Condorcet, and were concerned with the primacy of liberty, and the abolishment of tyranny. Those who reject the opinions of others, who insist that everything must be their way, are obviously trying to establish a tyranny of their ideology. Our government was designed to prevent this, to keep an open and free "marketplace of ideas." Only those who place their own ideology, or political party, above the welfare of the nation as a whole, can fail to understand this.
shareA thoughtful response. However, we're at cross-purposes re our perceptions of principle and compromise. And, I think, under it all we're in essential agreement.
"The principles .... were concerned with the primacy of liberty, and the abolishment of tyranny."
Quite right. No argument there. But . . .
"Those who reject the opinions of others ..."
Well, the founders "rejected" the opinions of those who were in favor of "tyranny" (rule by a king). And I'm not insisting that "everything" must be "my" way. I don't think I said, or implied, that.
"... to keep an open and free 'marketplace of ideas'."
Of course. But to "reject" an idea is not the same as prohibiting that idea from being advocated. This process goes on every day in government -- and outside government, doesn't it? A good thing. So, "those who reject the opinions of others" aren't necessarily "trying to establish a tyranny of their own ideology". They may, on the contrary, be rejecting ideas which they believe will lead to the re-establishment of a tyranny. Ie., not compromising the principles of the founders.
"Only those who place their ideology or political party above the welfare of the nation as a whole, can fail to understand this."
But what is best for "the welfare of the nation"? That's usually the point at issue in politics, isn't it? Most people consider their "ideology" or "political party" as "representing" what they consider to be in the best interests of the nation (though admittedly not always). In any case, rejecting the opinions of those who fundamentally disagree provides the dynamics of public discourse. Silencing them, or trying to, halts it (why we have the 1st Amendment). Defending those principles as outlined by us both, suggests that, sometimes, compromise isn't the right course. (Eg., compromising with George III to allow him to rule 25% of the population of the envisaged U.S.A. would not have been an acceptable compromise. To do so would have violated a principle. However, permitting him, say, a year or so to prepare for his abdication here might have been a reasonable compromise not in violation of a principle.)