Quote:
This is adaptation of the Charles Portis novel, not especially a remake of the original. All movies by the Coens (except one) are at least interesting and often very entertaining and funny. And what about John Wayne? Was he an actor or a ham? Always had the idea that he was a kind of sunday actor.

Quote:
The Duke's very size, width and height, delivery, and the fact that he played the same character in so many movies made it pretty hard for him to hide in any role.

One of the worst casting job in the history of film, was the Duke as Temujin, later Genghis Khan.

I think the executives are a blame for much of the stereotyping of actors. Especially if they have had a long run on a TV series. At least I have heard a number of actors complain about that.

Quote:
... in my view made the 70's the best decade for film making and left a lot of the first 60 years of film making pretty dated.

Quote:
Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
... in my view made the 70's the best decade for film making and left a lot of the first 60 years of film making pretty dated.

Most 70's films are pretty dated too, just like those of every other decade.

But I may be a little prejudiced; of the eight decades from 1931 to 2010 I have fewer films from the 70's than any other decade (22/1110).

---------------

Quote:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
John Wayne just sucked period.

You just can't have a conversation/discussion without threadcrapping, can you?

I disliked Wayne's politics (John Birch Society member) as much as anyone. But his acting skills were evident to anyone.

After years of film school, I realized that there are a broad spectrum of acting styles. There are character actors, whom audiences see not as the actor, but as the character only. There are stars, who act like themselves in every role they take. Some can move back and forth, some become so well known that their performances are tainted with their personas even when lost in a character. Some say their lines and hit their marks; some are always way over the top in a "make sure the second balcony sees your performance" sort of way.

Anyone who ever watched John Wayne in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" -- you know the scene (and if you do not, never, ever discuss Wayne's ability to act), early on in the movie, when Wayne's character, a far older than Wayne, officer is retiring from the cavalry, and in order to read an inscrption on the watch his troops are giving to him, he looks around to see if anyone is watching (everyone is) and he takes out of his tunic a tiny pair of spectacles, puts them on, and struggles to read the words. This is not Wayne: this is his character, totally believable, and as Oscar winning a performance as any actor has ever performed. To watch that, and his performances in dozens of other great films, and then to declare he sucks is trolling of the highest magnitude.

You seem to know nothing of film before the 1970s. Learn something, then your opinion might mean something beyond trolling incoherently. There was a century of filmmaking before the 1980s, not just a decade.

Why do I respond to you?

Quote:
Anyone who ever watched John Wayne in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" -- you know the scene (and if you do not, never, ever discuss Wayne's ability to act), early on in the movie, when Wayne's character, a far older than Wayne, officer is retiring from the cavalry, and in order to read an inscrption on the watch his troops are giving to him, he looks around to see if anyone is watching (everyone is) and he takes out of his tunic a tiny pair of spectacles, puts them on, and struggles to read the words. This is not Wayne: this is his character, totally believable, and as Oscar winning a performance as any actor has ever performed.