Board 8 > Board 8 Ranks: Westerns! The Official Results Topic

(+) Yeah! (+)

Are Karo and I the only ones who've participated in every list we've done? Because I should point out that I'm not someone who participated in this list because I love Westerns or anything like that. I do these lists because I like being part of the group, and it broadens my horizons by forcing me to watch movies I otherwise would've ignored. So yeah, I'm not going into this as a fan of westerns who automatically loves the classics.

---

I was talking more generally, not just relating to this particular list.

---

Inviso posted...

Are Karo and I the only ones who've participated in every list we've done?

Yes, we're the only ones left now

I had seen exactly three non-animated westerns full through prior to this list (Django Unchained, True Grit 2010, Cowboys vs Aliens) and I can't really say I was looking forward to this project due to a healthy dislike of the romanticism of the old west.

Though it was not as bad as I feared it would be, I can't really say I enjoyed a large majority of the films on this list and even fewer I would ever want to watch again

---

A lot of really interesting conversation going on here, and I do plan to weigh in more thoroughly later today. This just happens to be the single busiest week of the last 2 years of my life, and I'm working around a tech week schedule for a show that opens tomorrow.

I will say this much right away, though: I have a long-standing distaste for John Ford movies, and that does not only extend to his Westerns. (Though even I'll admit The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is pretty good, but alas, that one is being saved for the next list.) There are many of his contemporaries (Huston, Wilder, and Wyler come to mind) whom I greatly prefer. I can only speak for myself, but I definitely have a healthy respect and love of many classics from the '30s-'50s that is not generally shared by my fellow longtime Gauntleteers... and that's okay! Part of the beauty of these projects is the diversity of opinion, and if I've also sometimes found myself frustrated by some (though obviously not all) of the super low-ranking results for certain older movies, it's ultimately fine because not every classic ages well, and not every movie is for everyone. Not everybody is able or willing to place a film in the context of its time while watching it, either, and that has to be fine, too.

Anyway, I've got to get going to rehearsal, but I just felt compelled to say that much. Like I said, I'll weigh in on some more specific subjects of conversation later, but I do think there's some gatekeeping and smugness going on in the peanut gallery that's uncalled-for (even if I do personally think that Shane placement is brutal and largely undeserved).

At least the best Ford movie is still around

then again Im a sucker for Jimmy Stewart

btw I saw a few of these, just terrible at time management but the next project Im 100% gonna make a list for.

---

Inviso posted...

Are Karo and I the only ones who've participated in every list we've done? Because I should point out that I'm not someone who participated in this list because I love Westerns or anything like that. I do these lists because I like being part of the group, and it broadens my horizons by forcing me to watch movies I otherwise would've ignored. So yeah, I'm not going into this as a fan of westerns who automatically loves the classics.

Have the other lists and rankings been saved anywhere?

---

These are the ones on the wiki. For the rest I think they are on log fqs.

https://board8.fandom.com/wiki/Gauntlet_Crew_Ranks_90s_Horror_Movies
https://board8.fandom.com/wiki/Gauntlet_Crew's_DreamWorks_Canon_Writeups
https://board8.fandom.com/wiki/Gauntlet_Crew_Ranks_Science_Fiction_Films_I
https://board8.fandom.com/wiki/Gauntlet_Crew_Ranks_the_2000s_in_Horror_Films
https://board8.fandom.com/wiki/The_Gauntlet_Crew_Ranks_the_DC_Animated_Films

---

Another double swinging tonight?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q0XzLMSjbNk/sddefault.jpg

---

VengefulKaelee posted...

Part of the beauty of these projects is the diversity of opinion, and if I've also sometimes found myself frustrated by some (though obviously not all) of the super low-ranking results for certain older movies, it's ultimately fine because not every classic ages well, and not every movie is for everyone. Not everybody is able or willing to place a film in the context of its time while watching it, either, and that has to be fine, too.

if you aren't willing to meet the films halfway i don't really see the point in watching them. it isn't productive for you or anyone who reads your reviews... or looks at your power points....

I'm not going into this as a fan of westerns who automatically loves the classics.

does anyone do this? i had never seen a western until i had seen the good the bad and the ugly but i loved it on first watch, and the same goes for various other "classics." i wasn't heading into them thinking "HELL YEAH WOO A WESTERN/MUSICAL/NOIR/MELODRAMA... AND THIS ONE'S A CLASSIC SO IT MUST BE GOOD."

also the amount of times 'trope' has been used in this topic is disturbing and shows a general lack of interest in form and large concern with plot, which, lol.

---

2001 ranked 27th in the scifi list lol

---

Zithers posted...

also the amount of times 'trope' has been used in this topic is disturbing and shows a general lack of interest in form and large concern with plot, which, lol.

Style over substance is a major reason why people are slowly losing interest in the Oscars, and the Academy's snobbish pushing of arthouse choices, as opposed to anything with mainstream appeal. Plot is clearly important to enjoying any form of media, otherwise you're just watching something to show off how cultured you are.

---

The Science Fiction link cuts off halfway. Is there a second part?

---

Mega Mana posted...

The Science Fiction link cuts off halfway. Is there a second part?

https://tinyurl.com/scifilmspt2

---

I went ahead and got the other links too

LGBT
https://tinyurl.com/lgbtrankings

Anime II
https://tinyurl.com/animeII

Musicals II
https://tinyurl.com/musicalspt2

Cowboy Bebop
https://tinyurl.com/cowbebop

Rom-Coms
https://tinyurl.com/romcomsranking

Planet of the Apes
https://tinyurl.com/planteoftheapes

Animated TV Show Movies
https://tinyurl.com/animatedtvshowmovies

More Animated Films Pt. 1
https://tinyurl.com/moreanimation1

More Animated Films Pt. 2
https://tinyurl.com/moreanimation2

Bourne
https://tinyurl.com/bournerankings

Martial Arts
https://tinyurl.com/martialartsranking

Sports
https://tinyurl.com/sportsmoviesranking

---

Inviso posted...

Style over substance is a major reason why people are slowly losing interest in the Oscars, and the Academy's snobbish pushing of arthouse choices, as opposed to anything with mainstream appeal. Plot is clearly important to enjoying any form of media, otherwise you're just watching something to show off how cultured you are.

circling back to this.

first, the oscars are driven primarily by which movies distributors are pushing to be oscar nominees. each studio has their own horses (ie neon with parasite, disney with nomadland, warner bros with judas and the black messiah, etc) that they campaign to win. oscar voters are working filmmakers and probably don't even watch that many current movies and rely on screening invitations with q&a's with cast/crew to see what is "the best" of the year and vote accordingly. this is how people are able to accurately predict three billboards or trial of chicago 7 will be nominated before anyone even sees it. acting like the academy has some sort of agenda of pushing certain movies is... stupid...

secondly, oscar movies aren't even pretentious or arthousey. do you think green book is pretentious? parasite? shape of water? how are these pretentious? one of them is about a lady who fucks a fish monster. are joker and ford v ferrari movies that make you look cultured if you like them? lmao.

finally, caring only about substance, you might as well watch a play or read a book if you aren't going to care about how cinematography, production design, costumes, blocking, music, and editing coalesce given that movies are first and foremost a visual medium.

btw can someone fix the romcoms link i wanna look at it and get upset.

---

btw i used to organize something similar to this idea - the retro awards where a group of us would get together and watch a shitload of movies (not all necessarily the same ones but i think we all watched 50+ movies) from a specific year. then we'd give out awards. 1955, 1960, 1984, and 1997 were done.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/1283-quality-cinema-club?search=retro%20awards

also our quality cinema warrior awards for current years on the theater board dates back to 2015 where we'd just vote on the movies we saw that year

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/227-movies-at-the-theater?search=annual%20quality%20cinema

also this one for 2014 we went back and did on the home media board

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/228-movies-home-media/73754150

---

And you can go to an art gallery if you want to look at art without any need for a coherent narrative. Cinema is a storytelling medium, and as such, plot is paramount. Cinematography, music, and all of the production end of filmmaking should be frosting on top of an already well-baked cake, not just a can of frosting to eat independent of anything else.

---

no, i was right before. cinema is definitely first and foremost a visual medium. also a painting or sculpture isnt the same thing as moving images. weird comparison to make.

---

Zithers posted...

no, i was right before. cinema is definitely first and foremost a visual medium. also a painting or sculpture isnt the same thing as moving images. weird comparison to make.

Television is a visual medium too. The theatre is a visual medium. What makes film so special that it's exempt from needing to tell a coherent narrative in the way those other two are not?

---

"if you give zack snyder, woody allen, alfred hitchcock, james cameron, and wes anderson the same screenplay, the movie they all make out of it is the same, because substance/plot/tropes are what matter. caring about style is for pretentious people." - inviso, probably.

as far as tv goes, i love twin peaks but if you held a gun to my head demanding the finer plot details i'd be a dead man. i also generally dislike tv because it is largely a writer's medium where they primarily have a drab house style. twin peaks of course bucks this trend by having david lynch directing most/all of the episodes depending on the season. louie and the knick are also great shows for this reason.

no opinion on theater as i have never once set foot in one but i imagine they care deeply about making the sets look nice... ?

---

I wonder how Zithers feels about 12 Angry Men

"lol only has one set and it looks boring! 0/10!"

---

Wrong. That's not at all what I said. If you give five directors the same script, then THAT is where style choices come into play, because they are meant to enhance a film, not serve as the sole reason a film can be enjoyed. There are multiple films on this list that are quality films first, and then the sound, the music, the cinematography, and the editing elevate them to legendary status. The write-up for my second-favorite movie on this list largely talks about how good the editing is, because it's a positive ON TOP of a killer story.

Also, funny Karo brings up 12 Angry Men, because the 1951 version of that is my favorite film of all time.

---

12 angry men is good. actually one of the very first movies i ever DVR'd off turner classic movies way back when.

however if you're a stickler about needing a realistic and tight plot, having been a juror, it is a very obvious mistrial... thankfully i am not one of these people! :)

---

Oh I guess rom-coms wasn't saved properly unfortunately.

---

It is personally my opinion that a truly excellent film combines all elements of the production and that plot isn't truly anymore important that cinematography, aesthetic, performance, etc. There's a film I love called WNUF Halloween Special which advertises itself as a lost 1987 Halloween TV broadcast, and this stylistic choice with realistic period-specific effects and even commercials interjected in creates this wonderful atmosphere for the film which elevates an otherwise generic found-footage plot.

This applies to all mediums for me. Even artworks or sculptures are perfectly capable of telling cohesive stories and can even be adept at using the very canvas the work is on to enhance it. Banksy is probably the most famous example of this, such as when he shredded his sold artwork to give it a transformed meaning.

To me no medium should be confined to any one thing first or foremost; I don't think a film needs a strong plot to be great just in the same I don't think a game needs strong gameplay to be fun. A creator should be free to use a medium how they choose to see fit, and I think it's okay to criticize that if you want to, but I don't think it should be that any one factor should be looked at less than others.

---

Inviso posted...

Television is a visual medium too. The theatre is a visual medium. What makes film so special that it's exempt from needing to tell a coherent narrative in the way those other two are not?

Television is actually largely a dialogue driven medium. Or at least it was in its inception, while film was born as a visual medium. TV has started to become a little more complex with the emergence of prestige TV, especially from networks like HBO, but its beginnings are closer linked to radio dramas and old 3 camera TV scripts were closer in format to that of radio teleplays than feature film scripts.

Theater is not a visual medium. Theater is 100 percent a dialogue driven medium where playwrights don't even need to bother all that much with scene descriptions outside of things that would affect stage blocking. The difference between theater and a film is quite obvious. Shot composition, selection, and editing. A play can certainly do some interesting things to get around changing locations and even time periods but they're weak cheats at best compared to the cut that film has at its disposal. And of course shot angles and compositions. Even a rudimentary understanding of film form would tell you that the angle, size, depth of a shot matters and its how films convey information, ideas, and story visually and why its considered a visual medium. This is something completely absent from theater, which is not a visual medium, besides the necessity of like watching a play, but their very nature is not concerned with visual expression and visual storytelling.

But if you don't understand why film is considered a visual medium and how cinematography isn't just an extra part of how films tell stories I don't know how you can even have a real discussion on the matter because I don't think you even really know much about what you're talking about. Even a film like 12 Angry Men a pretty small scale film that takes place almost entirely in a single room seems very much like a play (because surprise, it's based on one) but the film does things that a play can't with the way it's shot. Even in a single room with a small cast, it uses (dolly) push-ins, close-ups, Dutch angles, that dramatic insert shot of the knife. All things that a play can't do and all of which carry story or character importance to them. Come on now.

TV is closer and has especially gotten better in the last 20 years or so but even TV has largely been more about dialogue and the way their scripts were written for the longest time would often reflect that. Especially 3 camera shows where it primarily took place in one or a few locations, so they could reuse the same sets for the duration of the show's run.

Also, plot isn't the only part of storytelling anyway. Plot is just a vehicle of a story to express an idea or theme. If a film can do that in an abstract way, which it's capable to do visually, then it's very much a great film. And a film, or any work of fiction, could have a plot that functions but if it doesn't have any real purpose to it then is it really any good?

---

Inviso posted...

Wrong. That's not at all what I said. If you give five directors the same script, then THAT is where style choices come into play, because they are meant to enhance a film, not serve as the sole reason a film can be enjoyed. There are multiple films on this list that are quality films first, and then the sound, the music, the cinematography, and the editing elevate them to legendary status. The write-up for my second-favorite movie on this list largely talks about how good the editing is, because it's a positive ON TOP of a killer story.

Also, funny Karo brings up 12 Angry Men, because the 1951 version of that is my favorite film of all time.

The directing and cinematography in a film is not just style. They're essential in expressing the story and ideas. A film's cinematography tells the film's story, it doesn't just enhance it. Not to say that writing isn't important in a film but to think that cinematography, editing, directing don't mean anything other than glossy accessories to a film is absurd.

It's also absurd to think that the Oscars are pushing true arthouse films. They're not nominating Pedro Costa here (though they should).

---

Lack of sleep finally caught up to me and I passed out pretty early last night. Ill try to do at least two at some point today/tonight.
---

Zithers posted...

2001 ranked 27th in the scifi list lol

Youre right. It shouldve been ranked in last place.
---

I literally caught the movie on TV and watched the whole thing on a complete whim.

---

Clearly the only thing wrong with 2001 is it being old. Everything else is so universally lovable the idea that it would be divisive is just insane

---

there is nothing wrong with 2001 tbh, definitely in contention for greatest movie ever made

caught a 70mm print of it as my first movie back in the theaters, pretty transporting

major reference point when it comes to determining if someone is worth respecting or condescending to when discussing cinema

---

Zithers posted...

major reference point when it comes to determining if someone is worth respecting or condescending to when discussing cinema

holy shit

---

#26. My Darling Clementine 152 points

CoolCly 5
Poke 22
Inviso 23
KBM - 25
Stifled 25
Johnbobb 26
Karo 26

Very poor plot synopsis:
A band of brothers in the non-military sense perform a non-hostile takeover of a town because they couldnt get a good shave. They meet a doctor, a small orange, and a bunch of D list criminals. They settle their differences in a corral that was rated not great, but just OK.

Why it was included:
The story of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, the town of Tombstone, and the gunfight at the OK Corral have been beaten like all the dead horses in True Grit. If youre not interested in watching all of them, the trick is to track down the best of the bunch. For the purposes of this list, I opted to choose an older one and a newer one. The newer one, of course, is 1993s Tombstone. Choosing the older was a tad harder, but My Darling Clementine stood out to me for two specific reasons. Firstly, I recognized the title in relation to the song. As a kid, Id see Huckleberry Hound cartoons where he would sing that song. For a blue cartoon dog to pick that song of all songs to sing, it seemed to me the movie must be important. It was also referenced in a favorite movie of mine, Snow Day. The guy on the snow plot named his plow after the movie. If a random Nickelodeon movie appreciates this film, then so do I. Secondly, in the movie Its a Wonderful Life, Mr. Potter can be seen watching My Darling Clementine in his office. And dammit, if its good enough for a nasty real estate and business mogul, its good enough for me.

What Stifled thinks:
I have very mixed feelings about this one. On one hand, I loved the relationship between Wyatt and Doc. Their introduction scene in the casino was a meeting of badasses who gained mutual respect for each other. Their friendship created an interesting dynamic of the lawman and the man of vice working together for the good off the town. The town itself feels appropriately lively as well. I was impressed because a lot of these towns in westerns are a bunch of big empty space, but not so with this version of Tombstone. Everything was going so well, but then the titular Clementine rolls into town and shit starts getting dull. This movie didnt need a romance subplot. The bromance was more than enough for me. But instead we get off track and have a lot of downtime, stupid dance scenes, and unnecessary drama between Wyatt and Doc. The villains were pretty lame too, if Im being honest. They were hardly ever around until the battle at the end. And I have beef with that battle too! I know its the wild fucking west and all, but good lord was there too much dust and smoke. I could barely keep track of the action. When your whole entire film is leading up to this legendary moment in time, the least you could do is make it visible! For me, this went from a potential top ten movie to a bottom ten movie in what could best be described as a tale of two halves.
---

CoolCly: So this is the legendary Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday of Tombstone? Ive heard of these guys so much but never really knew why they were so famous. They seem like a common historical

Wyatt and Docs early scenes of meeting each other are very interesting Doc almost seems villainous, but Wyatt chooses to befriend him instead of antagonizing him (too much). Both Clementine and Chihuahua have somewhat limited roles in the movie, but I think they are both pretty well done, especially compared to most women westerns. Clementines role is somewhat minor considering the movie and the memorable melody are named for her.
I love how Doc is constantly trying to antagonize and provoke Wyatt but it never works until he leaves town (for his own reasons relating to Clementine and angry at Wyatt), and Wyatt pursues thinking Doc had something to do with the murder of his brother, and finally draws on him and wins handily. Yet, the very next scene Doc is 100% on Wyatts side to help him figure out whats going on with his brother, his own petty feuds forgotten. Despite his faults, thats who Doc Holiday chooses to be. I like it a lot.
The emergency surgery for Chihuahua had a good amount of tension, and I like how Doc didnt give up on her and fought for her just as strongly, even though she cheated on him. The movie is set up to treat her as the throwaway cheating villain, with Clementine being Docs true love. Especially with how Wyatt treats her like garbage the whole movie. But Doc doesnt change how he views her and tries his hardest to save her. Hes DOCTOR John Holiday.

The theatre scene is an interesting way to endear both of them. I liked the actors role very well.
The shootout at the OK Corral is very limited by the film making at the time but I liked the attempt at creating a mazelike environment where characters were turned around. Doc went down a bit too easy for my liking, but overall, Id call that whole set piece a success.

I genuinely loved this movie, and Im very grateful that, along with Stagecoach, this movie set the tone for me on how great westerns, even incredibly aged westerns, can be.

9/10

Poke: The OK Corral cast mixed with some romances and the film is quite good with some solid performances.

Inviso: This wasnt especially enjoyable. The ending was fine, as is expected from the story of Wyatt Earp and the shootout at the O.K. Corral, but everything leading up to it was just so meandering and dull. The relationship melodrama of Doc, Wyatt, Clementine and Chihuahua just did nothing to intrigue me and make me want to keep watching the movie. Basically, the plot sets up a crime early in the movie, with that as the inciting incident that drives Wyatt Earp to take on the marshal position in the first place. But theres so much filler between the crime and the eventual resolution of the crime, with so much blandness devoted to the growing relationship between Doc and Wyatt (which ends with Doc unceremoniously gunned down during the shootout). This just didnt do anything for me.

KBM: Largely forgettable, and overshadowed by other, better retellings of the same story. You also get really, really tired of hearing that goddamn song over and over again. The acting is largely pretty good, though, and it at least features some beautiful cinematography. I just have never jibed with the pacing and overall tone of John Ford's movies, though, and this one, though not as offensive as some, is still no exception.

Johnbobb: This has to be one of the most overhyped films I've seen. The one thing I'll admit about this is that it is incredibly well-shot. Cinematography and use of shadows are pretty top-notch, especially for a film from the 40s. Other than that... average acting at best (with Linda Darnell as fuckin Chihuahua was pretty awful, despite also being the only character with half a personality). Bland storytelling and bland music choices. I just really can't wrap my head around why this is praised beyond the cinematography

Karo: A movie about Wyatt Earp and his famous shootout at a certain rather mediocre corral featuring a lot of, uh.. alternative facts.
For all of being such famous lawmen of the old west, here the Earp brothers are incredibly stupid and naive. They leave only one person guarding their valuable cattle while they head off aimlessly into an unknown and dubiously-named town to get shaves and seem genuinely shocked that the wild west is, well, wild.
Anyway, after the murder of his most useless brother at the hands of cattle rustlers, Wyatt takes the job as marshal of the town in order to hunt the killers down. He then promptly does nothing for days except play poker and lean back lackadaisically in his chair on the porch. Mind you, it is fucking obvious who the killers are but Wyatt just pisses around until his dead brother's necklace randomly turns up because lol.
This fossil of a film is a lengthy and boring endeavor that is repeatedly sidetracked from its main plot by singing 'Mexican' girls and random bouts of Shakespeare, and is probably better used as a sleeping pill instead of entertainment.
---

OUTLIER

Poke 57
CoolCly 47
Inviso 29
Johnbobb 22
KBM 21
Karo 11
Stifled 7

Poke and Cly attempt a wild west bromance way ahead of the pack while the rest of us drop everything and do some line dancing.
---

glad to see everyone shit on another obvious masterpiece

---

Zithers posted...

there is nothing wrong with 2001 tbh, definitely in contention for greatest movie ever made

caught a 70mm print of it as my first movie back in the theaters, pretty transporting

major reference point when it comes to determining if someone is worth respecting or condescending to when discussing cinema

Now here's a caricature of a film snob if I've ever seen one.

If your major reference point is a director jerking himself off for two hours with bright seizure colors, National Geographic homages, obnoxious beeping, dumb spooky music, multiple plays of the Blue Danube, slow moving EVERYTHING, and total nonsense that only the most up-their-own-ass types think evokes a deep, thoughtful message, then I will happily accept any and all condescension you have to offer.
---

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q0XzLMSjbNk/sddefault.jpg

This is actually a good reaction shot as well for anything above you. I endorse its meme potential.


---

I'm going to do another one shortly. Here's a hint!

We're going to take a break from murdering things in the 40s, 50s, and 60s for this entry.
---

Notice how he didn't say anything about the 70s!

RIP Two Mules.

---

I mean we know all the cool westerns are just lame Kurosawa knockoffs

---

So two donkeys, a nun, and the man who actually has a name this time walk into a bar...

---

I meeeeean it could've been the 90s!

#25. Two Mules for Sister Sara 147 points

Poke 5
Karo 18
CoolCly 20
Stifled 22
Inviso 26
KBM 27
Johnbobb 29

Very poor plot description:
A man driven by his wallet and his dick fights in a war to help a total NILF.

Why it was included:
Shirley MacLaine got top billing over Clint Eastwood. That makes her a legitimate female lead in a western. Do you know how rare that is? Such a unicorn belongs on this list. Additionally, just a fun fact here, but this is an infamous movie in my family. Whenever we sit down to watch it, at least one person always falls asleep. Its like a curse or something. Once, EVERYONE fell asleep. It certainly isnt a boring movie or anything either! I have no idea whats going on. But I managed to break the curse by watching it by myself and I stayed awake the whole time! Although admittedly I felt really tired that day. Coincidence?

What Stifled thinks:
Going into this, I thought for sure Id love it. A foul mouthed, booze chugging nun is guaranteed to get a chuckle or greater from me. So a whole entire movie with Clint Eastwood fighting the good fight for nun boners should be a laugh riot right? Wellno. Partly, yes. But mostly, no. Admittedly, I was a little put off at first with the obvious similarities between Clints Hogan character and The Man with No Name character. As the movie progressed, these similarities became less and less bothersome, but at first it was jarring. Even the wardrobe was kinda similar! Not to mention the entire war subplot felt ripped right out of that one section of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Lets put that aside though, shall we? Because the chemistry between MacLaine and Eastwood is excellent. Their relationship is what makes the movie entertaining. Hogan is basically an anime perv trying to get in her pants and she uses the Lord to cock block him. The moments we see Sara break character and reveal she isnt as pure as she puts on are great and provide the feeling that a big surprise is coming. And it isbut its not what you think. See, I was hoping she was actually a nun, but just a vulgar nun. Like maybe she was a criminal-turned-nun or something. But it ends up being the opposite and she is just pretending to be a nun. And thats fine and all, butnot what I wanted. Oh and dont even get me started how the movie became One Donkey for Sister Sara partway through! Maybe Im being picky, but whatever. The war scene was pretty cool except the damn bugle. Very, very violent in spots. Im always surprised what PG ratings got away with back then. Luckily I was skeptical and didnt watch it with my kids. So did I enjoy the movie? Technically, yes. And I think if I watch it again without any expectations, I think Ill enjoy it a lot more. But for this viewing, Im gonna call it average.
---

Poke: Clint gets to be more expressive in this film, which greatly boosts it as a result. I love his chemistry with Shirley MacLaine and its just a really fun, engaging film. And towards the end.what a tweest! That was enjoyable.

Karo: A nun being raped in the desert is saved by a cowboy who is not the Man With No Name, but is clearly changed just enough to avoid a lawsuit from Sergio Leone.
This hero spends all of his time thinking about fucking her and bemoaning what a waste it is for her to be a nun and asking her intrusive questions about why doesn't she become a 'real woman' and make some babies.
Sara then follows the man around for various increasingly arbitrary reasons, and he lets her do this for even MORE arbitrary reasons.
I feel there was some potential for this scenario but nothing really works as well at it ought to largely due to an obsession with the mexican freedom fighter plot line that gives us nothing other then the world's stupidest fort siege where the plan is nonsensical, the execution mindless, and everyone chucks around lit dynamite like looney tunes characters.
So yeah, the french are defeated, the nun is really a prostitute, and the hero tries to fuck her in the bathtub while still wearing all his clothes because he apparently never learned how sex works.
Just take a hard pass on this unoriginal and unmemorable donkey show.

CoolCly: This was alright. The partnership of the dollar store version of the Man with No Name and the fake nun was decent. It definitely feels like a knockoff version of the Dollars movies with Clint Eastwood playing the same character yet again. Did he do this in all Westerns? I'm not so sure I love John Wayne's performances, but I definitely felt like he was a different person in every movie in the list he was in.

In general it feels like the film making is of a higher quality than a lot of the earlier movies in the list, but below the other movies released at the same time like the Dollars movies and True Grit. So overall, this was an average movie at best. It has less interesting concepts than a lot of movies Ive ranked below it, but it was at least more fun to watch. I dont know if Id recommend it, but its close.

5/10

Inviso: On the one hand, the concept of a badass gunslinger traveling around with a cool nun is inherently funny and warrants attention. But on the other hand, this movie manages to take that concept and make it as bland and generic as possible. I get that Sister Sara is meant to be the lead, since shes top billed and all, but the setting turns Clint Eastwood into the de facto lead. And unlike other films hes been in on this list, playing second fiddle to Sara drains him of his inherent swagger and charisma. Theres still amusement to be found, namely in having Saras mask slip and reveal that shes not averse to the rowdy ways of a cowboy lifestyle. But overall, the film just kinda drags along for a while, and the ending feels like it wraps up a generic western story, while Sara (again, supposedly the lead) has her ending tacked on rather haphazardly.

KBM: This movie could have been so much more interesting, if only the eponymous Sister Sara had actually turned out to be a nun. It was obvious early on that she wasn't, between the way she talked, the way she acted, and the way people reacted to her but to just spend the entire movie waiting for the inevitable reveal, while Clint Eastwood awkwardly hits on her and doesn't cotton on that she's not who she says she is until they literally walk into the whorehouse... it's just exhausting, and not nearly as fun as I think the movie was intended to be. If Sister Sara had actually been a nun, there there would have been some actual tension in the movie before the third act. I do have to admit that there is some good material in the third act the cinematography and music as the Juaristas walk up the stairs to the roof of the building adjacent to the garrison make for a memorable scene, and the big battle at the end caught me off-guard with how relentless and violent it was kind of a tonal shift, yes, but a shift into a tone I thought the entire movie could have benefited from. It just feels like the only person involved in this production who really gave it her all was Shirley MacLaine, and her performance just isn't quite enough to save this subpar outing.

Johnbobb: god I don't caaaaaaare. Hogan and Sara both suck, but especially Hogan like gtfo with that "hey that time you were about to be raped was so hot I wanna fuck you" shit, like who do you think you are. But plot twist she's a prostitute dressed like a nun and not actually a nun so it's actually fine, and crazy too because after the nun blew up a train conductor I was totally convinced she was legit. Looking up the movie a lot of critics compared it to The African Queen which is good because that movie sucked too; movies about two famous people being either boring or awful in a dangerous setting and falling in love just BECAUSE doesn't make for a good movie, even if you set it in the desert.
---

OUTLIER

Poke 77
CoolCly 52
Inviso 30
Johnbobb 26
KBM 23
Karo 18
Stifled 10

Is Poke really a nun? Is Cly really the Man with No Name? Are Inviso and Johnbobb the two mules? Are KBM, Karo, and Stifled a bunch of revolutionaries? Nah.
---

Wow I was semi-kidding, but at this rate, not surprised.

Saaaaad!

---

StifledSilence posted...

Are Inviso and Johnbobb the two mules?

yes

---

WWW aside, we've largely eliminated the older-school stuff, and to be fair, aside from one outlier, my bottom tier were films from 1970 or earlier. I'm not ashamed to admit that. It's not that older films are inherently bad--half my top ten are "old school". But they're definitely catering to a different audience. Many of the older films feel like they're coasting on the audience of the day wanting westerns without necessarily needing complex or interesting plots to sell them.

---

Yeah this was a badly forgettable western after the Dollars trilogy.

---