Last movie watched...

[Jim_Campbell]

Oh, and if you don't think Prey is a western then you won't want me to add The Pale Blue Eye to the list either.

I'd be curious to hear what the folks here who are saying "it can't be western because it's just [insert other genre staple here] dressed up as a western" would define as the elements making something unquestionably a western.

(Not looking for an argument, just genuinely interested.)

EDIT TO ADD: I mean, do we discount High Plains Drifter or Pale Rider due to their, perhaps not explicit but certainly heavily implied, supernatural components?

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

It's a bit like saying  Alien or Event Horizon aren't really sci-fi, they're just horror movies with spaceships.

Or like saying H.P Lovecraft isn't really horror, it's just spooky racism.

[Funt Solo]

Some movie genres are settings, some are thematic: we can combine them. Recall that Shaun of the Dead birthed the rom-zom-com, which begat Warm Bodies. Alien is a sci-fi horror, whereas Aliens is one of the best (sci-fi) actioners of all time.

[Barrington Boots]

I think there's a difference between a Western and a film set in the old West, but it all depends how you define a Western and there's no set criteria. This is the sort of stuff you can debate endlessly: my Mum pretty much thinks anything is a Western if they're wearing cowboy hats and therefore the Dukes of Hazzard qualifies.

Having thought about it, I don't think there's a checklist of stuff that makes something unquestionably a Western, but I do think it needs to have a lot of elements and that they need to be to the fore of the film, not only in setting and structure but also in its mood and the 'soul' of the picture.

I don't think adding elements of another genre disqualifies a film from being a Western although if its not the defining feature of the film it could be questionable. In High Plains Drifter, although the ghost element is the main thrust of the plot, it's full of the tropes and elements we associate with Westerns - frontier setting, rugged characters, guns and horses and the like but also personal justice, lawlessness, individual isolation, retribution through violence - that saturate the film more so than the supernatural elements, so its a film about a ghost, but I'd argue its a Western foremost and not a ghost film foremost.

Interestingly having written that above list out they do also feature in Hateful Eight as well, but I don't think they're part of the soul of the picture. Quentin Tarantino is very good at putting genre elements and homages into his films but he's making something different, partly because he's working in a different cultural zeitgiest. In the same way, I'd say that Kill Bill is a revenge movie with a lot of martial arts in it, but not a Kung Fu movie in the same way that the Hong Kong films he's paying tribute to are, nor is it a Wuxia film. I thought HE was a whodunnit because the whodunnit elements seemed, to me, to be the overarching crux of the film (I've only seen it once though and happy to told otherwise!)

It's like film noir: there's a lot of films made influenced by that genre and containing elements of it, but it could be argued there's not really been any major film noir movies made since the 60s. It all really depends on how strictly you define the film genre in question though, like I say - there's no talking in definites here.

TLDR: it's subjective.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

I think there's a difference between a Western and a film set in the old West, but it all depends how you define a Western and there's no set criteria. This is the sort of stuff you can debate endlessly: my Mum pretty much thinks anything is a Western if they're wearing cowboy hats and therefore the Dukes of Hazzard qualifies.

Having thought about it, I don't think there's a checklist of stuff that makes something unquestionably a Western, but I do think it needs to have a lot of elements and that they need to be to the fore of the film, not only in setting and structure but also in its mood and the 'soul' of the picture.

I don't think adding elements of another genre disqualifies a film from being a Western although if its not the defining feature of the film it could be questionable. In High Plains Drifter, although the ghost element is the main thrust of the plot, it's full of the tropes and elements we associate with Westerns - frontier setting, rugged characters, guns and horses and the like but also personal justice, lawlessness, individual isolation, retribution through violence - that saturate the film more so than the supernatural elements, so its a film about a ghost, but I'd argue its a Western foremost and not a ghost film foremost.

Interestingly having written that above list out they do also feature in Hateful Eight as well, but I don't think they're part of the soul of the picture. Quentin Tarantino is very good at putting genre elements and homages into his films but he's making something different, partly because he's working in a different cultural zeitgiest. In the same way, I'd say that Kill Bill is a revenge movie with a lot of martial arts in it, but not a Kung Fu movie in the same way that the Hong Kong films he's paying tribute to are, nor is it a Wuxia film. I thought HE was a whodunnit because the whodunnit elements seemed, to me, to be the overarching crux of the film (I've only seen it once though and happy to told otherwise!)

It's like film noir: there's a lot of films made influenced by that genre and containing elements of it, but it could be argued there's not really been any major film noir movies made since the 60s. It all really depends on how strictly you define the film genre in question though, like I say - there's no talking in definites here.

TLDR: it's subjective.

If there's a gun-shot with a PSH-WHAMMM ricochet sound it's a western. Otherwise it's not.

[JohnW]

If there's a gun-shot with a PSH-WHAMMM ricochet sound it's a western. Otherwise it's not.

I would argue that the subgenre of PEE-YEOW sounds should not be excluded.
(See the earlier part of Corbucci's oeuvre.)

[GoGilesGo]

I think there's a difference between a Western and a film set in the old West

TLDR: it's subjective.

Oklahoma! is a musical, Stations West is a Film Noir, Jubal is a melodrama, The Professionals is a 'guys on a mission' adventure. All feature men wearing cowboy hats walking into bars through louvre doors but that is about the only connection.

Equally, I'm perfectly happy calling all of the above Westerns.

[Colin YNWA]

On a different topic I watched 'Ghostbusters - Afterlife' and sure its a film with problems. There are moments when it leaves you a little stunned with how the plot developments. Significent spooky events that would have real impact on characters and drive reaction are unplayed, well until those consequences are needed to drive the plot forward. Sure it leans way too much into the original films and these become some of the films weakest parts.

However its effortless charm, fantastic cast of characters and performance mean I was able to way those away and was simply able to enjoy a fantastic fun film.

Just really good fun.

[Colin YNWA]

This may well get me run out of town, but just re-watched the original Rollerball, a film I loved as a kid, and even in my 20s but... if I'm totally honest... doesn't really stand-up does it.

Its hamfisted with its themes and ideas. Its not meant to be subtle I accept that but its clumsy in its directness. Which curiously with a modern viewing made it seem almost pretentious. I don't think its was, I just think its not aged well.

Its worst crime however is the way the editing and direction makes the actual game, one which really shoud work, seem ponderous and lacking thrills. I really think that due to the passage of time. I remember it being none of that back in the day but things have moved on. Seen through the eyes of someone whose seen so much high octane modern wonders on screen since this meant a lot to me it just no longer holds up.

I'm still fond of it and did enjoy watching it, but for old times sake and affection rather than as a film in its own right.

Ending still packs some punch though!

[Funt Solo]

This may well get me run out of town, but just re-watched the original Rollerball, a film I loved as a kid, and even in my 20s but... if I'm totally honest... doesn't really stand-up does it.

It's always been problematic as a piece, and something of a narrow cult classic. On the one hand, the idea of the sport itself was compelling for youngster me - and action enough. I don't doubt it's aged badly in that regard and could do with being remade. (But, and this is key, not the way they remade it in 2002.)

Aside from that, Jimmy Caan's performance went up to eleventy-stupid on the mumble-ometer. Sure, he was dissatisfied with his corporate payoff (a supplied wife perhaps leaving him feeling emasculated) - and then finally broken when Goose Moonpie bought the farm - but some of those "Jonathan sad now" scenes seem interminable.

One ends up in a situation where you want a re-watch to just be the sporty bits, which rather suggests that the entire message part isn't doing its job well. (Like, in The Godfather, there's no scene anyone in their right mind would cut out. Well, maybe Sonny boffing Lucy Mancini at his sister's wedding - although it does foreshadow his hot-blooded, passion-before-logic nature.)

Having said all of that, there is something compelling about all the rich arseholes torching trees for shits and giggles.   

[Tjm86]

Sorry Colin but if you're getting run out of time I think you're going to have plenty of company.  It is actually quite week in too many places.  The sort of film you can quite cheerfully watch with your mind on other things.

There are plenty of nice ideas but I think the ultra-violence of the game is probably its main selling point.  Unfortunately it struggles to go too far with anything else.

have to agree with Funt though, the remake makes it look like a masterpiece.

[Funt Solo]

Here's a dream: George Miller's Rollerball with Tom Hardy.

---

The entire Houston vs. Tokyo match is terribly dated and relies heavily on ridiculous stereotypes. They're short, they wear eyeglasses, they "karate chop" opposing players.

It's difficult to feel too sorry for Moonpie, either - given what's gone before.

[pictsy]

I get as much out of Rollerball as I ever did.  That said, I've always seen it as a bit campy and janky from the get-go and that's what charmed me.

I couldn't get more than 15 minutes through the remake.

[Hawkmumbler]

The 2002 remake actually has an absolutely buck wild legal case tied to it thats way more entertaining that the film itself.

Just absolute cartoon shit.

[Colin YNWA]

The frankly bizarre Crazy Samurai: 400 vs 1 the title of which pretty much tells you all you need to know.

You get a framing sequence for about 5 - 10 minutes whict sets things up.

About 80 minutes of fight

An epilogue of about 5 minutes, which is a slightly different fight.

That's it. Literally.

The idea here was that middle 80 minutes is filmed in one shot and that makes it very impressive. The trouble is it makes it very boring, though curiously compelling. As the Musashi dispatches his 400 opponents the sword play stops being interesting pretty quickly as (apparently I looked this up while watching) TAK the actor playing our crazy samurai has to use simple technic to conserve energy for this cgi blood spilling marathon. As a viewer therefore it lacks some spectacule in the sword play and becomes an exercise in spotting the numerous floors in its execution. The different ways his victims stagger out of shot, or if they fail there have to be dragged, so they can return to be killed again in a bit. Guessing when any particular wave of attacks will end as suddenly bodies of the slain start to remain in shot. Admiring the 'end of level' boss fights for how they are set up as thrilling and then have to be quite quick and dull, again one assume to preserve TAK's energy.

There are tiny breaks in the fight as Musashi drinks from water flasks he's stashed around the limited setting of the fight, we start in a forest and then move to a largely abandoned village - well abandoned aside from one girl we meet half way through who seems to be collecting wood in all this quickly disappearing blood shed.

Christ anyway I can't believe I've found so much to say about this. I have never seen a film like it and frankly don't need to see one again. If anything I've said makes this sound interesting, it shouldn't yet I did watch it to the end (all be it looking things up about this) for some reason, so there is that I guess.

Its almost as much of an excerise in endurance to watch this as it must have been to film it!