Rating: 
Summary: Bogged down by manly talk.
Review: 'Unforgiven' is a good story which is bogged down by too much manly talk. Gene Hackman, of course, gives the best performance as a paranoid, dictatorial sheriff of the town of Old Whiskey. After kicking English Bob unconscious, Hackman is at his absolute scariest. But the scenes with Clint Eastwood are boorish and embarrasing. The worst is when Morgan Freeman asks Eastwood if he misses sex. It is supposed to be funny, but is unnecessary and bad. The film tries to make Eastwood, who was once an assasin, look like some born-again saint. Although it is plausable, I found it hard to believe because Eastwood was both the director and main actor.
The plot is about three assasins who are supposed to to kill one man. This man has slashed a woman's face, but wasn't punished for it. The film has some tense moments, espicially the final shootout between one man and an entire bar full of people (even though it was very unrealistic). 'Unforgiven' has a lot of talk about past shootouts and how once Eastwood was the best dualer of them all. Then there is more talk about some other shootouts. Some may find that interesting, but to me it was just boorish. See it for Hackman's performance though.
Rating: 
Summary: UNFORGIVEN
Review: Although I don't like cowboy movies but this movie seen nice to me. It had some nice parts, some bad part and many different Motions. If I rate this movie it would be an R because there are some scenes that kids can't watch. Like sex, valence, starvation and etc. There are some ladies in the town for sex and they get money for that. Western films have always featured gunplay between the good guys and bad guys, but traditionally, it was kind of a softened violence. You shoot somebody, he falls down cleanly. No pain, no blood, and no real responsibility or consequence placed anywhere. When maverick director (Sam Peckinpah) arrived on the scene, he gave the world a taste of a Western movie most weren't ready for one where bullets actually hurt and spilled blood, and one where the killer often had to watch his dying prey struggle for a last breath. He plays Will Munny, an aging farmer who looks and sounds nothing like the heartless gunslinger he's reputed to be. Throughout the films, we learn bits and pieces of the Munny legend, but have a hard time ascribing it to this careworn man who can barely ride a horse now. "I ain't like that anymore," he protests over and over again.
Directed by (Clint Eastwood). Eastwood puts in an excellent performance as the retired killer Muny, saved from his life of thievery and murder by his late wife. Now, he really trying to support his children with no income, he is tempted back to his killing ways by the detective offered by the women of a brothel, one of whom's number has been badly beaten and disfigured by a drunken ranch-hand.
The film follows Eastwood as he wrestles with his desire to honour his wife's memory and his need to feed his children by returning to the killer that, he fears, is his true nature. Meanwhile word of the bounty has spread and the events spiral out of control as the sheriff (Gene Hackman) deals with the guns for hire that ride into town.
While all the supporting cast are excellent Gene Hackman's Oscar winning performance even manages to eclipse Eastwoods as the brutal Sheriff. He beats one of the bounty hunters, English Bob (Richard Harris) almost to death and then explains to a journalist, in one of the film's stand out scenes, how men like he and Muny are so successful at killing. The mood moves from light banter to life threatening seriousness...and back again, with just one move of his head.
One of the greatest Westerns ever made? Certainly. Although the fact it's a western is really secondary. In truth it's a tale of the nature of evil and the nature of man.
Overall, though, this film is indeed worth of the accolades it received. One more I would like to offer, this is one of Clint Eastwood's finest performances ever. His acting is largely what makes Munny so real to us, and thereby makes the movie's message that much more powerful. But the entire cast is first rate, starting with Gene Hackman, who earned his second Academy Award for his work in this film. And, of course, the always excellent (Morgan Freeman) and Richard Harris, who has a couple of the movie's best scenes. As I mention before this movie was great mostly for adults. It had more valences, killing each other badly.
Rating:
Summary: Best Western....THE ONLY (Hall of Fame)
Review: Now I don't like western movies that much at all. But this is one of the best (of any kind) of movies I've EVER seen. It has some surprising plot and shows more of the dirtier side of the old west. Not just your average sheriff kills the evil bank robber in a shoot out/drawal. This is deffinitely a must OWN it is a "Hall of Famer" to me.
Rating: 
Summary: The old west - out of retirement
Review: Clint Eastwood is become a film legend through his work as tough cops and western heroes. With UNFORGIVEN he has given us his most cohesive look at the old west. This film has all the elements of the western film, but presents them in a different manner. Using mostly natural light, much of the film is dark offering a reality not seen in most westerns. Additionally, the use of gunplay is drained of all romanticism usually apparent in westerns. Eastwood's character William Munny is put back in a position he was as a younger man, echoing Eastwood's own film career.Clint does a good job of bringing Munny to life, a man who finds strength from the loss of his wife. He teams up with a ophthalmology challenged young whipper snapper played by Jaimz Woolvet. He also brings along his buddy Ned played by Morgan freeman. His character also extends the issue of the aging cowboy. Oscar winner Gene Hackman is great as no-holds-barred sheriff Little Bill. His characterization is one of great clarity. His scenes with the equally wonderful Richard Harris as a British assassin are a pleasure to watch. Still, the film is slow in pacing as it takes two hours for the characters arc to even become apparent, but is a great entry to the cowboy genre. This was an early DVD release. The video transfer is a bit weak apparent in the films darker scenes. The audio transfer is very good. This disc also carries both a widescreen and cropped full screen version. UNFORGIVEN was given 4 academy awards. BEST PICTURE, BEST DIRECTOR, BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR (Hackman) and BEST EDITING.
Rating:
Summary: All is grey
Review: There is no good and there is no bad in this movie. Compared to the great old westerns like Rio Bravo, this is completely different kind of a beast. There are no completely good characters and there are no completely bad characters in this film. Everything is grey. The movie is great ending to Eastwood's western roles. If I could ask one thing from mr Eastwood, that would be 'no more westerns, the Unforgiven was perfect'. I must say that this movie is not the best western - no - this is the best movie ever. When I first saw this movie this was the first role I saw Morgan Freeman at after 'Robin Hood', after many succesfull movies I still consider this his best performance. As with mr. Eastwood, the role comparable only with the one in 'In the Line of Fire'. Gene Hackman in the role of the sadistic sheriff Little Bill makes the best performance that he has made on his long and succesfull career. To today their performance seems to last, great work indeed. As well as Eastwoods directing, well, maybe it suffices to say that he won the best picture and best directing Academy Award for the picture. What is shame, is that the he didn't get recoqnition of the acting performance, which was, to my opinion, best there has been. In risking sounding chauvinistic, this is a man's movie. In saying of this I don't mean that a woman could not like this movie or even love it, I just feel that it appeals to men much more than women. There are no central roles for women in this movie. Though the women are in the midst of the actions of the movie, they are the driving force that make this movie to happen.
Rating: 
Summary: BORING
Review: I finally saw this highly touted film last night. Incredibly boring! Forget this and get High Plains Drifter. HPD has the same moral lesson as TU (Violent men may be temporarily needed to re-establish civilization when the cowardice of other men forfeited it), but it is a much more interesting and compelling film. BTW, why see Hackman's sherrif as corrupt. He is flawed to be sure, but his situation-specific violence has lead to establishment of a peaceful civilized community for women and families.
Rating:
Summary: Great even if you don't like westerns
Review: In a way this is the Western to end all Westerns. It doesn't pull any punches. It's dark and somber, there are very few gunfights and there is little of that catsup looking blood they used in the sixties ones. This is the anti-western. It makes you wonder why you liked these movies in the first place, these are dispicable people. That being said you still can't not admire Eastwood's charecter, as flawed as he is. The movie bookends itself flawlessly, making you wonder what the whole point of it all was in the first place.
Rating:
Summary: The Avatar of the tragic film, the Funeral of Westerns.
Review: Very much of what this movie has done for its director, its genre, and the world in general has already been said. I won't spend much time in rehash, except to say that it's easy to become cynical as to whether commercial entertainment is still capable of approaching, even getting within the same emotional nation of real human tragedy. Then you see a movie like this and realize that tragedy -- meaning the creation of a symbolic human story to provoke emotion -- can still be created after all. Simply the most deeply despairing and horrifically beautiful movie of the 1990's,at least that I've ever seen. Simultaneously it shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath with other westerns, with idealized plots and cornball heroism, and yet the power of this movie is magnified if you can compare it to archtypal westerns. I'm not here to rehash the plot or the acting, I assume you've seen it. I wanted to speak against people who see it as politically correct, as anti-violence as a trend, or as self-betraying by the climactic scene. It's sad to watch people fail to understand that Clint Eastwood isn't repudiating his previous message when he exterminates the sheriff and everyone around him in the closing minutes. The entirety of the movie is about Eastwood's brief vision of a world with some meaningful concept of human worth and spiritual value, represented by his wife, dead before the story begins. The high point of Eastwood's character is the first time we see him, and from there he slides into damnation. Damnation is reflected by the sqaulor, amorality, and arbitrary injustice of the world around him, up to and including his enitre bounty hunt.
Eastwood's struggle to hold on to a self-vision, a memory of redemption, goes for the first two hours. When he chugs down the bottle of whiskey as the sun sets and goes of to avenge Morgan Freeman in the following scenes, Eastwood is as dead --physically reborn, viscerally alive, but spiritually dead -- as his victims, and he knows it, and is beyond caring. A movie about the relentless and brutal truth of human nature, and the fraility of attempts to transcend it. A movie of failure disguised as power, which destroys all the genre exercises which came before. And if you couldn't tell, deeply moving for me personally.
Rating:
Summary: One of my top three favorite movies
Review: This movie could have the worst actors in history and it would still be a great movie. With Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, this is possibly one of the greatest films ever. This has to be the greatest western ever made, with the exception of maybe The Good the Bad and the Ugly, another Clint Eastwood marvel. I highly recomend Unforgiven to anyone, wether they like westers or not.
Rating: 
Summary: Great flick, lousy DVD
Review: This is probably my favourite movie in my collection, yet it is definitely the worst DVD. Why? Where do I start? Firstly, the box clearly states that there are theatrical trailers - where are they? There are numerous dark indoor scenes in the movie and there just isn't enough contrast to see the details, even if I turn the contrast all the way up (guess the details just aren't there on the DVD!). The brighter outdoor scenes look grainy. This DVD has absolutely no features worthy of mention. It's just a bunch of text that contains a short bios on each of the 4 leading men, a 1 page production note, 4 movie suggestions (with not even a teaser or DVD cover shot of any of them) and a list of awards that it won. It also has a pan-scan version on one side but honestly, who buys a DVD to watch in pan-scan??? No director's comments, outtakes, deleted scenes, documentary, photos, interviews, nuthin'. Surely, a film as significant as this deserves a better treatment. I am sure the quality of the original print is not like this so it must be the DVD transfer itself. Could it be due to the DVD's age and the transfer process wasn't as developed back then? Surely a re-release which amends these issues wouldn't hurt (on 2 discs and a nice leather case please). Just hope we don't have to wait for the 25th anniversary of the film to see this. ;) Like I said, best movie in my collection, worst DVD I ever bought, very disappointing. In short, if you love the flick, then you must buy it. If you are a feature freak and/or an audio/video phile, you must steer (pun intended) clear. Another thing worthy of mention which I don't see in many reviews is the theme music. The haunting music as the "intemperate disposition" text scrolls up the screen at the end is one of the highlights of the movie for me.
|
