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
I'm a bit surprised that so many people have a beef with things like Angie Dickinson, or the deliberately leisurely pace of the movie, or (yes) even the singing.
David Thomson said that Dickinson was never better used than she was here, and I have no reason to disagree (despite not being terribly familiar with her body of work, apart from taking long showers in Dressed to Kill and beating the crap out of Lee Marvin in Point Blank). She's like a breath of fresh air -- a perfect antidote to John Wayne's upright man-who's-good-enough, knows it all, and towers over the other players like a statue wearing lifts. Her dialogue is pretty sharp, and her delivery is sharper.
And the pacing? Well, I'll defer to Thomson again, who posed the question whether we'd succumb to boredom after even 14 hours living among these characters, sing-a-longs and all.
The bottom line is, I go to movies to have a good time, and I always have a good time watching Rio Bravo. It's well-made, well-acted and has confidence enough to take its sweet, charming time to present its players and tell their stories. I think Stumpy even has a winking line like, "Doggone it, how long can this go on?!" I'm certainly not watching the clock.
After watching a few John Wayne films, I'd say he's the over-rated part. He just plays the same role, regardless of what film he's in. Even his highly touted "The Searchers" seemed he never pushed himself out of his acting range.
As for the movie itself, I thought Dean Martin steals it. He goes from being a drunkard, to trying to stay sober, to going through the whole gamut of emotions. Then a piece of music reminds him how low he got in life.
It's not an action movie in the modern sense. It's a simple story with a lot of side bars to it. But the characters are interesting enough to keep the movie going.
Fistfull of Dollars it's not. But it's similar to Once Upon a Time in the West in terms of pacing. Both films are fantastic to me.
Alot of people claim John Wayne just plays the same role but I don't agree. Yellow Ribbon, The Searchers, Red River, Stagecoach, The Quiet Man, Reap The Wild Wind, True Grit,The Shootist.
He's not a character actor for sure but he sure as hell wasn't always the same.
The OP completely misses the point of the film. Its leisurely pace is one of the strong points of the movie. The characters all have a chance to shine and have the room to do it.
Based on your previous pretentious post, I'll presume its me. There's nothing wrong with being a John Wayne fan. The man was a very good actor, and was THE top box office draw for the vast majority of his career as an A-list actor, and he was a HUGE star.
He's STILL listed in the top 10 of the Harris poll 35 years AFTER his death. The only deceased actor to ever make the list, and he's normally in the top 5.
I'll also presume you're quite young, and as such, uneducated in the reality of film. Its no sin to be young, as you can't help when you're born, but its a sin to act so arrogantly about it.
As in most anything in life, you MUST consider the HISTORY of the subject you're dealing with, or you come off looking rather foolish.
As for myself, I've been a fan of FILMS for close to 50 years, and yes, quite a few of them (too many to mention, actually) made before 1960 hold up very well. Does this make me an expert? Of course not, but I make it a point to be as educated as I can possibly be on the subject, AND as with everything else I do, I try to keep an open mind, and not make idiotic statements like you seem to be partial to doing.
All you have to do is speak to anyone who KNOWS film, and they will tell you how modern filmmakers borrow frequently from older (usually MUCH older) films, and how THOSE films used ideas from even older films...
You really show your ignorance when you make statements such as "such and such doesn't hold up," because you're simply making the statement that you have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation, and you're trying desperately to be included in the conversation.
No one can really explain what they mean by "doesn't hold up" anyway, so...
You're not presenting yourself in the most favorable light.
You have to take Rio Bravo for what it is, its strictly a feel good shoot em up kind of Western meant to be fun, entertaining, and comical at times. Its not anything that is going to inspire much deep thought or be viewed as all that realistic.
I mean the characters treat the final shootout almost like its a game. That pretty much tells you everything.
It's a good western, but I don't think it ranks among John Wayne's best, nor does it rival High Noon for overall quality or entertainment value. I'd definitely say it has a greater reputation that it's due. It's only slightly better than The Sons of Katie Elder.