MovieChat Forums > Rio Bravo (1959) Discussion > Extremely overrated

Extremely overrated

posted 14 years ago by lepermessiahtr
48 replies | jump to latest

what's wrong with this movie you ask?

biggest problem: PACE

this flick is so tedious! nothing happens, everything is predictable, the romance subplot is like a cancer sucking out what mild entertainment could have been in this movie if it wasn't so slow and generic

NO surprises whatsoever, after 15 minutes you can predict every last thing that will happen in this movie (not that there actually IS happening a lot)

chance, the main character, is an unlikeable bastard - yet he never gets his comeuppance - failing to make the audience care about your main character at all is usually the death of your movie

and of course there's the SONGS, I mean WTF?! is this supposed to be a serious film or an Elvis fun western; not to mention the music in this hack piece is generic and bland as hell

final verdict: avoid it like the fvcking plague, rather watch any movie Sergio Leone has ever made, Rio Grande fails so bad compared to good westerns it's not funny

one of these "you have to be American to like this" movies, next to unwatchable

[–] cwente2 14 years ago

Hmmm . . . may we safely say, then, that "Rio Bravo" ain't your cup of tea?

an American

[–] TemporaryAgent 14 years ago

Rio Grande fails so bad compared to good westerns it's not funny

Way to get the title of the movie wrong, idiot.

[–] vestdennis 13 years ago

Rio Bravo is not meant to be a typical Western. Which is what Hawks didn't want. It's an enjoyable, easy-going light-hearted (at times) Cowboy movie. Hawks wasn't trying to make "Schindler's List"...accept it for what is is. It happens to be one of the best Westerns of all time...

[–] porfle 14 years ago

one of these "you have to be American to like this" movies

So, did this start out as a troll post or did it just kind of evolve into one?

hkfilmnews.blogspot.com
porfle.blogspot.com
andersonvision.com

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 14 years ago

one of these "you have to be American to like this" movies, next to unwatchable

Speak for yourself.

[–] maneyp 13 years ago

It's not a bad movie but Angie Dickinson just about ruins it for me with her
mewling and insipid performance. Every time she says "John T." I absolutely cringe. Even the way she carries herself is false! How did she become anyone's "sex symbol" anyway?

[–] sandancer 12 years ago

I must admit that I find it difficult to understand why some people spend so much time and energy to write messages the length of a small novel just to air their grievances over a film. I have seen hundreds of films that I disliked and accepted that they were not to my taste, yet I can’t be bothered to let the world know about it. Actually, I wasn't that keen on “Rio Bravo” when I first saw it years ago, the same goes with “Shane” believe it, or not. As time went by and I got a little older and more laid back about life, I started to watch these films (and others) just for the entertainment value of them. Guess what? I enjoyed them a lot more. I am a big John Wayne fan, but Walter Brennan stole that movie for me. I’m going to stop now, because I feel as if I’m starting to write a small novel here.

[–] jgroub 9 years ago

I'll try to explain why some people - like myself - "spend so much time and energy to write messages the length of a small novel just to air their grievances over a film." It is because this film has such a high rating - 8.1 is very high on IMDb. So, some people see that rating and say, "Wow! This must be a great film! A true classic!" And then they watch it and it blows.

For example, I recently watched A Fistful of Dollars for the first time. It's also rated 8.1. I've heard of it for years (contrary to Rio Bravo, which I had never heard of before), as I've heard that AFfOD was part of the greatest western "trilogy" ever made.

The concept behind the movie is brilliant. A gunslinger has two warring factions tear each other apart while he gets as much money as he can from them. It's an awesome concept. The execution? Not so much, as I laid out in my post here, entitled "How stupid was this movie? Let me count the ways.":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058461/board/nest/241139625

In that thread, I wrote a small novel as to why I thought the movie sucked, sucked, SUUUUUUCCCCCKED. And I wrote it precisely because as I was watching this supposedly great, classic movie, all I could think of was how incredibly awful it was, and why, oh why! wasn't everyone else in the world seeing the movie the way I was seeing it?

Trust me, when I watch Vampire Hookers from Hell, I don't write a novel about why I think it's so bad.

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

[–] sandancer 9 years ago

Here we go again jgroub. I tried my best to read your epic of a moan about a film - I managed two paragraphs and came to same conclusion that you didn't like the film, as I would have if I read the whole bloody novel. As for your last little request, post your address and I'll send you an xray.

[–] USS_Ranger_Vet 9 years ago

Angie came across as terribly overacting. She already had a number of credits before Rio Bravo, so this is strange. But, maybe she thought she needed to because she was playing opposite John Wayne. Let's face it, the Duke's first starring role was before she was born. He was possibly the biggest Hollywood name at the time and she was just 26 years old.

Personally, I think Charlene Holt, who basically reprised the role in El Dorado, was far better. But, even she overacted some. Also, she was a lot more attractive. :-)

[–] nimstic 9 years ago

Probably because Feathers was such a demeaning role for her. She had to practically strip herself down in front of the Duke to get him to say he likes her, making her look like a complete accessory in this epic film. Angie was gorgeous, but she didn't seem comfortable playing Feathers. I felt the same about Grace Kelly in High Noon - both wonderful and beautiful ladies but in testosterone-loaded westerns their roles are often not significant.

[–] eeleyebrown 13 years ago

I just saw it for the first time today. I enjoyed it very much. It was a bit long-winded but I enjoyed the character interaction, especially Martin and Brennan. I admit it wasn't that unpredictable being the last of the great all-american westerns before the 60s came along but I still found it very entertaining.

I thought the finale was a bit weak because I was expecting a bigger showdown between the main hero and villain. Ricky Nelson was very light-weight and Angie Dickinson was so-so. I thought Estelita Rodriguez as Consuela was much more lovely but then again she didn't get half-naked so I can live with Angie.

It's not really fair to judge this movie against Leone's because he would never have been able to create his amazing and contrasting, anti-hero spaghetti westerns without precedent-setting movies like Rio Bravo.

I didn't mind the music. Deguello was beautiful and the ballad by Martin and Nelson was quite common in those days when singers were cast in movies.

[–] Mashui 13 years ago

Yeah it's a bit slow but come on dude get a bigger attention span, i've loved since i was 7. Also i wouldn't be complaining about predictability in your cookie cutter herded troll post.

Oh, and the music was western era like the Mexican music playing down in the saloon, or are you talking about Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson's singing? Of course they had to sing in the movie they were both big time musicians.

Like previously pointed out you didn't even get the name of the movie right, quit being a nationalist pig and go watch some children's movies so your you'll be able to understand it.

Remember ignorance speaks loud.

[–] comanche50 13 years ago

I'M NOT AMERICAN, I'M BRITISH AND I THINK ITS ONE OF JOHN WAYNE'S BEST FILMS.

[–] narnia4 13 years ago

Kind of a trollish post, but this is a very "different" movie in a lot of ways, not really your typical western even though it has a lot of elements in it that have come to define "a western". One thing that some people love about it and that others don't is that its a very laidback movie. That's right that they sit around shooting the breeze, doing other things and there really isn't even that much focus on the villains. The primary antagonist only appears in a handful of scenes, its more about the heroes just waiting it out. The pacing is exactly what its supposed to be.

But if you don't like it, your loss. I could nitpick your post (like why does EVERY movie need surprises, and you could seriously predict everything? doubt it), but no movie is for everyone.

[–] ebright99 13 years ago

NO surprises whatsoever, after 15 minutes you can predict every last thing that will happen in this movie (not that there actually IS happening a lot)

One thing the OP couldn't predict about the film was the very pace that it unfolded at, so I guess it wasn't that predictable. It's change of pace is what's unique about it.

As far as being an American to enjoy this film; it was the French who really championed the late work of Hawks as being art and more than just paycheck jobs by an over the hill director. Godard loved Rio Bravo and Hatari.

Leone would probably put this on the short list of greatest westerns ever made. He asked Moriconi to make the music for Dollars sound just like the El Deguello.

[–] pullgees 13 years ago

I didn't like it either. I saw it back in 1959, I didn't like then and still don't. Reasons are it is just plain dull, no excitement, no suspense, no feeling of danger and no surprises. The only thing that was impressive was the camera work.
A Sunday afternoon snooze movie; you slip away you come back and know that it doesn't matter that you drifted off because you can fill in the gaps and then drift off again.

[–] polytourist97 13 years ago

Yeah, I didn't care much for it either. I mean, it's great for the fact that it is such a prototypical "hollywood"-type feelgood western, and that made it sort of fun. But really, I can't imagine why this is rated so highly. Nostalgia perhaps?

When (spoiler alert?) Stumpy shows up in the final confrontation, and Dude exclaims "it's STUMPY!" followed by Wayne saying "the man I left ba-hind" I couldn't stop laughing for like, 5 minutes. Laughing AT the movie that is. A lot of aspects were cringe-worthy, like Angie Dickinson and Wayne's bickering at times, Dude Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson crooning to each other, the completely banal and truthfully somewhat absurd plot, etc.

Sure, it's fun, but that's all I really got from it.