Saturday, 16 April 2011


Cover of "Unforgiven [Blu-ray]"I can't forgive these stupid reviews...Cover of Unforgiven [Blu-ray]

Holding a 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and nominates as the 4th best Western of all time by the American Film institute, Unforgiven is a good film. Obviously. Of course, as usual, we’ve got some charming chappies who disagree with the high esteem this Clint Eastwood-starring masterpiece is held, and who do so in a most foolish manner. As usual, contains SPOILERS

Oh dear (Hello). Not a sniff of plausibility at any stage (Really? At NO stage? You didn’t find the idea of these characters breathing at all plausible?). How can dangerous driving be exciting when it is so predictable (I don’t know. Frankly, I don’t understand the question. Perhaps you could be less stupid?)? Good guy always survives (Well, I assume you mean East Clintwood. Good guy seems an overstatement...). What about those sides of beef(Erm. Yes, what about them?)? I thought theyhad a weaving shed(Ok. Are you mad, sir?). Where were the police(I’d point out the law was present in the film, as the antagonists in fact, but I think we’ve moved beyond reason and logic)? Grievous bodily harm was rampant (Well, yea), and driving without due care and attention was the default scenario(Did you splice two films together to make an evil film-baby?).Who cared who killed who? What a waste of Morgan Freeman (What a waste of precious words. Seriously, what was that about? You sound like one of those e-mails designed to avoid spam filters by quoting Harry Potter at random)

Lovefilm (Under the title I cannot forgive):
This was probably one of the strangest Clint Eastwood films I have seen (Really? How was it strange? Were there Llama people?), the repetitive narrative was quite annoying (I didn’t find the story repetitive. But you disagree. I’m right though). David Webb Peoples - the scriptwriter - must have been on something and I will not forgive him for what he has done, he must bring me 4 ponies (Ah, a reference to the film. Which you hated so much, apparently. Seriously, this is a review. You have to explain why the film created such bile within you. Because all you said was one lie. Liar!). Thankyou

I expected great things - having loved Clint in all the Spaghetti Westerns (All of them? Even the films he wasn’t in? Wow, you’re a big fan then), but was disappointed (Aww, baby got a boo boo). The film moves along at a very slow pace, with him as an aged reformed gunslinger slowly being drawn back into his bad old ways by a masterful Gene Hackman (Yea, well done, that’s what it does). Should be good, but it isn't (Except, it is.).
For what seems like hours we watch Clint unable to get on his horse properly (that lasted about 30 seconds, I think. And then another 10 seconds later), unable to shoot a gun straight(another 30 seconds, a minute for the whole scene perhaps), unable to hold his own in a punch-up etc (Lets say 3 minutes for that. So doing the maths, what you describe as “hours” was about 5 minutes of the film). It's only in the last 15 minutes (Or 10,000 years, who knows? I don’t trust your maths any more) that he finally becomes able to kick ass again, although how he is suddenly able to shoot five men before they can get him when he couldn't hit a barn door the day before is never explained (He was drinking again. It was symbolic of him abandoning the redemption he’d found with his wife. ). Watch 'The Good the Bad and the Ugly' again if you want a decent Western. (Yea, good advice. You could watch Unforgiven as well. Jackass)

Even though this movie won lots of awards, I think it is Clint Eastwoods worst. I threw it away after just watching one third of it (Really? You literally threw it away? Into a bin, or a trash-chute or something? You didn’t just stop watching it and sell it or something? You actually threw it away? As if it was an expensive, badly made frisby? And then, having not watched most of the film, you think you can write about it? You should be thrown away). It is rude, crude and nasty. (Rude? You found it rude? It isn’t a frat boy documentary. What does rude mean? As for the other points, well, you can’t really pontificate on them, because you didn’t watch the film, did you? So the necessity of the these factors in the tale of morality, redemption and sin is kinda lost on you. Because you DIDN’T WATCH THE FUCKING FILM. I’ve warned you people about this...) Don't waste your money and your time. (I will if I want to)
UNFORGIVEN portrays a hopeless, depressing, existential world, where man is at the mercy of hostile forces which force him to commit heinous crimes to survive (Kinda. Yes). Though this portrait of the Old West demeans (demean: to reduce somebody to a much lower status in a humiliating way. Now, as a history student, I’ve got to remind everyone that history is horrible. The history of the old west is particularly so, dominated as it was by pointless, brutal violence, lawlessness and prejudice. So tell me, please, how Unforgiven demeans this particular area of history?) history, it does capture the despair of those modern humanists who are truly without hope (Yea, why not?). Ultimately, UNFORGIVEN fails as entertainment for want of a satisfying climax (I was pretty satisfied, had to put on clean pants and everything. That was crude... So, explain – how was the climax unsatisfying? Except you don’t, you just state. And I don’t trust you enough to simply take your word on every given thing). Eastwood fans who are expecting a cathartic (You think people expected the film to speed up defication? What do you look for in your movies, you sick fucks?) experience will only find despair. (Ahh! Despair! Run!)
Lastly, a man who epitomises one of those great clichés – the American who is so patriotic about his history that everyone hates him and his stupid fucking Amazon reviews.
This is nothing but another Western (Well, in a purely technical sense, yes. It is another western. It isn’t anything else, like a science-fiction film or a lawnmower). Anyone expecting some brilliance or originality to be in sync with its Oscar win as Best Picture of 1992 will be sorely disappointed (I wasn’t). Starts out with a gratuitously violent slashing of a prostitute and goes downhill in unpleasantness from there (It wasn’t gratuitous violence. You didn’t see it too much, and it served a purpose in the film). I think I can guess why the Hollywood left-libs loved this enough to make it best pic (Because it was good? Nah, too simple. It’s a CONSPIRACY!): it portrays the West (read "America") as unheroic and simply violent and evil (You know, it just portrayed the West as those things. Which it was. You made it into a metaphor that hurts you like a stab in the guts. Which might not be a bad thing). That's the sort of garbage that the creeps in Hollywood lap up like cats to a saucer of milk (Are you a lunatic?). Hey, celebrities!! If America sucks, kindly return all of that money you get from us for working a few weeks a year, will ya (You know you’re not obliged to actually give celebrities money, don’t you? It isn’t a tax)? My feelings won't be hurt. (They seem really hurt though. You’ve written an angry Amazon review about an imagined slight on your personal view of everything. You’re probably crying about it now)
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts with Thumbnails