You can really tell the difference between a good director... and a great director.
Compare "High Noon" to "Rio Bravo"... Fred Zinnemann was an exceptional filmmaker while Howard Hawks was just average... for the times.
There are much better John Wayne films... "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", "The Cowboys", "True Grit", "The Shootist"... maybe 1 or 2 others but most John Wayne films are overrated.
The direction... and acting performances made all the difference...
LOL... you don't think a group of killers could throw a whole town into fear??... read some history books
And aside from the true life stories of the 'old west'... what you describe is basically the premise of 25% of American western films... what do you have to say about "High Plains Drifter"??... is that a bad film too??
You know what bud... don't answer that... anyone who spends a lot of time on the message boards for "Batman v Superman" doesn't deserve my attention... lol
I have. Plenty of examples of townsfolk just getting hold of guns and standing up to a gang of three or four. Often the gang would turn themselves over to the sheriff to avoid the wrath of the town. Not as educated as you like to think. But then anybody like you who likes to pretend they're well educated in movies is usually a twat.
what you describe is basically the premise of 25% American westerns
High Noon has more problems than just it's plot though. That annoying song always playing and the laughable acting. Terrible movie.
what do you have to say about "Highplains Drifter"??
Pretty bad. Eastwood's directing is as bland as ever, and the town sets look cheap. No one decides to just shoot this one guy in the back from the distance or up on a balcony? Laughable.
anyone who spends a lot of time on the message boards for "Batman vs Superman" doesn't deserve my attention... lol
That movie's so bad I like talking about how crap it is. And "lol"? How old are you??? That's lame.
reply share
All petty egotisms aside... I find the small sample size of your tastes in "Westerns" quite odd... you like "Rio Bravo" but dislike "High Noon" and "High Plains Drifter"...
I'm interested to hear your "Top 10" American western films... that is to say, westerns made in America... so discounting "spaghetti westerns" and all other "western" films made outside of America, what are your "Top 10 westerns"?
If you can't even list what your favourite westerns are... how am I supposed to think anything other than that you are a 'troll' prowling around the message boards looking for people to irritate??
Next you'll tell me that "The Wild Bunch" is an awful film as well.
The funny thing is that among most filmmakers and contemporary critics, Rio Bravo is considered the superior film to High Noon.
I like both movies, but I like Rio Bravo better because the direction is better and because of the wonderful interaction between all of the different characters.
I haven't looked at the numbers. If you are saying that "High Noon" scores less than "Rio Bravo" on IMdB and should be rated higher, then I agree. But, people like what they like and much of their score is based on the entertainment value.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
My point was that Howard Hawks was an 'overrated' filmmaker... a few of his early films in the 1930's and 40's were good (ie) "Scarface", "Only Angels Have Wings", "His Girl Friday")... but his last good film was prior to 1950.
the only good film Howard Hawks and John Wayne made together was "Red River".
John Wayne has only been in 9 or 10 good films... most of his films are incredibly overrated.
It goes back to what you call a good film and a great film. I don't think a film needs to be great to qualify as good. I certainly agree that "Red River" is the best film he did with John Wayne and that John Wayne was only in several films that compete among the "greats."
I rate as "good" movies that I watch and don't begrudge the time I spent having watched them. If I wished that I had spent the time doing something more useful, the movie wasn't good. I rate very few movies as "great." If I want to watch it over and over again without tiring of it, I rate it as great.
Since John Wayne continues to hold the record for being among the Top 10 box office earners in more years than any other star, I will let that speak for itself.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
They're both good movies. I'm partial to Rio Bravo over High Noon. I don't have the problems with a High Noon that a John Wayne did, although I understand what he was trying to get at. I think the honor in Rio Bravo helps carry it, as well as the way all the tiny plot elements tie together.
That said, I think Ricky Nelson was a bit miscast, but I understand how important his casting was to the bottom line. Wayne, Martin and Brennan were all excellent, though. Flowers was a bit superfluous to the plot (although I understand why they wanted a girl in the story), and the final showdown was a tad anticlimactic. But overall I love this film.
You said: "I think Ricky Nelson was a bit miscast"
I think he expressed the cool confidence of the character. I think he was an inexperienced actor with three pros. He could have been better, but I would not say miscast.
If anything I think Rio Bravo is underrated by the average filmgoer. High Noon is an 'important' film, with a 'message', its 'greatness' is obvious to anyone who watches it, it wears it on its sleeve, so to speak. It is also deeply conventional, heavy-handed and dated. Rio Bravo, on the other hand, is a film with no obvious intent, other than to be damned entertaining and that makes people sitting down to watch a 'classic' wonder what all the fuss is about. But this is a film which rewards close and repeat viewing. It is, quite simply, beautifully made - the photography, the editing and mise-en-scene are exemplary. Despite the laconic pace it is very tightly constructed. The characters and their interactions are funny and touching and beneath the smoothly entertaining exterior this is a film with a lot to say about the nature of bravery, loyalty and friendship. I find this film pure pleasure to watch but for anyone questioning its brilliance I'd direct them to Robin Wood's books and essays which put it far more eloquently than I ever could.
Rio Bravo "is a film with no obvious intent, other than to be damned entertaining." You got that right, carl_thirdparty! The older I get, and the more experienced I become as a movie watcher, the more I appreciate that intent. I resent being imposed upon for two hours by some film maker who is trying to indoctrinate me ideologically.
LOL! There's always one of these idiotic posts on every classic film. I'm beginning to think there's a cult out there of people who write this crap because they think aliens will take them to heaven or something...
Rio Bravo is a movie one feels compelled to come back to again and again and again.
Yeah, I noticed that. I wasn't very impressed by it the first time I viewed it, or even the second time, but the third time I 'got' it. It's a treasure and very unique.
reply share
"High Noon" is overrated. "Rio Bravo" is a far better movie. It is also better than the other John Wayne films the original poster listed. Hawks was a great director, Zinnemann was okay.
Since their premises are similar, I have long debated with myself about these two movies. While High Noon is crafted in a superior and more distinct style, Rio Bravo is clearly made by pros because the whole thing flows so easily from one scene to the next. Sure, you can chalk that up to different directing styles, and maybe that's all there is to it. I don't know.
i've just watched it and i'm quite underwhelmed. except for the last 15 minutes it looked like a cheap made for tv production - mostly boring interior shots. is 'high noon' better in this respect?