Better Movie?

[NoPeak]

I chose one and coworker chose the other. Was forced to conduct a poll.


Discuss!

[Justin A]

Wow, there's actually people out there who like The Unforgiven better? Tombstone and it's not close.

[lucas9000]

unforgiven and it's not close (i mean that seriously). i know i'm in the minority on this, but i thought tombstone was a steaming pile of crap. unforgiven, however, is amazing. so good on so many levels. i can't believe anyone would choose tombstone over unforgiven.

[ThaSaltCracka]

IIRC, Unforgiven won an Oscar, Tombstone did not. I haven't seen Unforgiven so I voted for Tombstone, but basically Tombstone is a guys (cult) film.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
unforgiven and it's not close (i mean that seriously). i know i'm in the minority on this, but i thought tombstone was a steaming pile of crap. unforgiven, however, is amazing. so good on so many levels. i can't believe anyone would choose tombstone over unforgiven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many levels indeed. They are two very different movies, and comparing them is like comparing Caddyshack and The Godfather.

Unforgiven is moving, artsy, and all that. As was stated, it won an Oscar. However, should a western really be Oscar-worthy?

Tombstone is one of the best "you f'ed with me, now I'm really gonna f' with you" movie with great action sequences and "hey that's a pretty cool line" acting, coupled with the novelty of being based (VERY loosely) on a true story.

The question depends on the friend. Personally, I usually would prefer to watch Tombstone, but that's only because thinking is for suckers.

[pshreck]

Holy crap people, how does Tombstone have that many votes. Unforgiven is an incredible movie... it did win Oscar for um, best picture. Tombstone is good, but seriously, it's not in the same league as Unforgiven.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Unforgiven won an Oscar, Tombstone did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the camp that says Unforgiven won the oscar because of Clint Eastwood as sort of an award for his lifetime acheivements. Not to mention 1992 wasn't a very strong year. A Few Good Men should have won.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unforgiven won an Oscar, Tombstone did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the camp that says Unforgiven won the oscar because of Clint Eastwood as sort of an award for his lifetime acheivements. Not to mention 1992 wasn't a very strong year. A Few Good Men should have won.

[/ QUOTE ]
That must be a lonely camp. Whats it like talking to yourself hour after hour?

[lucas9000]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unforgiven won an Oscar, Tombstone did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the camp that says Unforgiven won the oscar because of Clint Eastwood as sort of an award for his lifetime acheivements. Not to mention 1992 wasn't a very strong year. A Few Good Men should have won.

[/ QUOTE ]

is that some kind of sick joke?

[Wes ManTooth]

Val Kilmer was excellent in Tombstone, he carried the film. Tombstone was a good movie(the love story in it was lame)... Unforgiven was brilliant.

[CCass]

I rest my case.

[Justin A]

Bump because I'm pretty sure the first 36 votes are a statistical anomaly.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
Bump because I'm pretty sure the first 36 votes are a statistical anomaly.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to see who thinks what is better on a large-scale basis, just look at the imdb ratings.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in the camp that says Unforgiven won the oscar because of Clint Eastwood as sort of an award for his lifetime acheivements.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to beat this into the ground, but it actually won because the Academy didn't want Clint to kill them, and kill their family and all their friends and burn their house down.

I picked Unforgiven, easy call.

NT

[hoyaboy1]

Tombstone is great cheap entertainment. Unforgiven is a great movie.

[tdarko]

first of all 1992 wasnt that bad--scent of a woman is one of my favorite movies ever and howard's end was well done (if you like that sort of thing).
my vote goes to unforgiven even though there are some memorable lines in tombstone, clint eastwood is a [censored] serious talent and he really sealed the deal with million dollar baby!

[Daliman]

Kilmer was great in the role, getting away with some of the most egregious overacting ever.

[MicroBob]

this is a ridiculous poll and the line about comparing Godfather to Caddyshack applies here....or even comparing Rounders to Tilt.

Unforgiven and it's not even close.


I'm not a big fan of some best-pic's though so I'm reluctant to trot out that fact like so many others have.

There have been quite a few best-pic's that have really annoyed me for how not-very-good they were.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm not a big fan of some best-pic's though so I'm reluctant to trot out that fact like so many others have.

There have been quite a few best-pic's that have really annoyed me for how not-very-good they were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Citing a film's Oscar victory for Best Picture as evidence that it's any good is absurd. That would imply Chicago and Driving Miss Daisy are superior to Goodfellas, A Clockwork Orange, and Pulp Fiction.

[The Dude]

I'm definately with Tombstone on this one.

[tdarko]

nobody is saying that just because a movie won an oscar that it is better than one that didnt, just saying that the credentials are there so obviously it is not a steaming pile of [censored] like some might think.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody is saying that just because a movie won an oscar that it is better than one that didnt, just saying that the credentials are there so obviously it is not a steaming pile of [censored] like some might think.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad assumption. Give me an hour and I could probably name you 20 steaming piles of [censored] that won Oscars.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I went with Unforgiven and it's not even close. But Tombstone has so many cool lines.

"I'm your Huckleberry"
"I have two guns; one for each of you"
"Why Ike, whatever do you mean? Maybe poker's just not your game. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!"

etc.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
However, should a western really be Oscar-worthy?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's just dumb. Why shouldn't it be --- especially one as well done as Unforgiven.

[swede123]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in the camp that says Unforgiven won the oscar because of Clint Eastwood as sort of an award for his lifetime acheivements. Not to mention 1992 wasn't a very strong year. A Few Good Men should have won.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that strange to hear this from Justin. Many of the things which made A Few Good Men so popular (great all-star cast, memorable lines, interesting but not greatly involved story line, almost-over-the-top-acting by a great actor) were also part of the recipe for success for Tombstone. I bet Justin is also a big fan of Armageddon.

Please, don't take this as a knock. I think Tombstone and A Few Good Men were both very entertaining, and I own both. However, I voted Unforgiven because on so many levels it is simply a much better movie.

Unforgiven blows Tombstone out of the water in just about every dimension of movie making you can imagine: storyline, writing, acting, cinematography, lighting, sound, score, etc. etc. etc.

Cheers,

Swede

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
A Few Good Men should have won.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a piece of crap that was. Ridiculous plot. Poorly researched. Utter shite.

[ToneLoc]

Simple indeed:

Tombstone is the only western that made me fall asleep. No interest whatsoever, just a rather empty modern western...

Unforgiven: deep and complex, great movie, massive acting.

It is not close, indeed... NOt really in the same category at all...

[jakethebake]

My biggest problem with Tombstone was that everyone in it dressed like they just came from Sheplers. It could have been made without Jason Priestley too. Other than that it was a great movie.

[Bubbagump]

Kilmer made that movie. Without him, it's a mediocre effort at best. Unforgiven is a solid film.

My .02

Bubba

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Kilmer made that movie. Without him, it's a mediocre effort at best. Unforgiven is a solid film.

My .02

Bubba

[/ QUOTE ]
Kilmer did make that movie, and I don't even like him. But w/o that final bar shootout scene all Unforgiven is is a "solid" film, nothing more.

[tdarko]

so you are one of those i only have open-minded opinions about movies that appeal to me huh? there are plenty of movies that have won dozens of awards that i didnt like (english patient, driving miss daisy, amadeus) but i appreciate the talent behind it, i [censored] think celine dion's music sucks but i recognize she can [censored] sing.
learn to appreciate things on more than one level and maybe you wont be the "bitter guy" on these posts.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
so you are one of those i only have open-minded opinions about movies that appeal to me huh? there are plenty of movies that have won dozens of awards that i didnt like (english patient, driving miss daisy, amadeus) but i appreciate the talent behind it, i [censored] think celine dion's music sucks but i recognize she can [censored] sing.
learn to appreciate things on more than one level and maybe you wont be the "bitter guy" on these posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nopthing to do with bitterness. I'm not sure where that came from. I'm just pointing out that an award doesn't necessarily mean it's good. A lot of movies win awards, not because they're good, but because "the Academy" and other organizations are made up of a bunch of people with agendas. This is a fact, not an opinion. Ask any of the people involved in this stuff. It's roughly the equivalent of a high school election. It's a popularity contest and, in many cases, has little to do with which movies deserve anm award.

[tdarko]

i think you are in the minority on this one...read the posts and you will see that unforgiven just maybe WAS a good movie.
and dont give me all that "it was more of a lifetime achievement award" nonsense, steven spielberg was nominated plenty of times before schindler's list won and are you gonna tell me that the movie won because it was essentially a "lifetime achievement award?"

[swede123]

I agree with you to a point, there are definitely agendas etc. at work in the Academy. But I do think you are taking it too far by saying the awards has little to do with which movie is more deserving.

True, sometimes an Oscar will be awarded based on past work, but even though there is another nomminee that perhaps was more deserving it's not like the ultimate winner was a bad performance. So I think it's pretty safe to say that every movie who wins an award is good.

It may not be my type of movie, and I'll be the first to admit that many award winning movies over the years just don't appeal to me personally. Nonetheless, it is a well done movie, or a well acted role, or a well written screen play, and for that it deserves some credit.

Cheers,

Swede

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
i think you are in the minority on this one...read the posts and you will see that unforgiven just maybe WAS a good movie.
and dont give me all that "it was more of a lifetime achievement award" nonsense, steven spielberg was nominated plenty of times before schindler's list won and are you gonna tell me that the movie won because it was essentially a "lifetime achievement award?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not really sure what you're getting at or why you're even arguing this. I liked Unforgiven. It was a good movie. Since you brought it up, I'd say it probably was a "lifetime achievement award" but that doesn't really have anything at all to do with Spielberg. I have no idea why you mention him at all. /images/graemlins/confused.gif And it was up against weak competition that year. But I wasn't arguing that Unforgiven sucked. I was just stating that in general "credentials" don't mean a movie is good.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you to a point, there are definitely agendas etc. at work in the Academy. But I do think you are taking it too far by saying the awards has little to do with which movie is more deserving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread my post. I said in many cases. Not all cases, or even most cases. And I wasn't referring to any particular movie.

Also as an aside, an award isn't even njecessarily supposed to mean something is a good movie. They give out so many awards now for such obscure things. Just an example. An award for some specific special effect in a single scene doesn't even imply the movie was good.

[tdarko]

i mentioned spielberg cause schindler's list could have been under the lifetime achievement nod but in fact the movie was deserving like i thought unforgiven was.
anyway take care and gl at the tables

[tdarko]

i think "Best Picture" implies the movie was good. listen to swede he understands.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
i think "Best Picture" implies the movie was good. listen to swede he understands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, in this case, I wasn't referring to "Best Picture". i was referring to the "dozens of awards" you mentioned.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
i mentioned spielberg cause schindler's list could have been under the lifetime achievement nod but in fact the movie was deserving like i thought unforgiven was.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that one movie wasn't a lifetime achievement award doesn't have anything at all to do with whether the other was or not.