RSS

2. Unforgiven (1992)

17 Apr
unforgiven
Roger’s Original Rating :

Should be :

This is another review that Roger no longer posts. He does have his review posted (here) when he added it to his Great Movies series.
Roger had some problems with the story line and Gene Siskel actually gave it a thumbs down. Roger said “It’s story, however, does not build up much momentum or have a strong sweep that carries us from beginning to end. It’s a kind of meandering picture that creates a world a gives us sharply etched moments in it surrounded by a somewhat shapeless atmosphere. On the whole I did enjoy it, but I thought it had a few too many characters and it was less organized then it might have been.”
Roger later said in one his books that he may have been distracted by thoughts of his impending wedding when he first saw this movie.
Ten years later when he added it to list of great movies Roger says “This process takes place against a full sense of the town’s life. The screenwriter, David Webb Peoples, ignores the recent tradition in which the expensive star dominates every scene, and creates a rich gallery of supporting roles. Here his models are the Western masters like John Ford, who populated their movies with communities. Richard Harris plays English Bob, a famous gunfighter who now lives off his publicity and is followed everywhere by W. W. Beauchamp (Saul Rubinek), a writer for pulp Western magazines; after Munny is in a gun battle, Beauchamp scribbles furious notes, and wants to know, ‘who’d you kill first?'”
As you can see there are no longer a few too many characters, now there is a “rich gallery of supporting roles”.
One of the great Westerns of all time.


At the Movies Review

Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 17, 2009 in Roger Ebert's worst reviews

 

Tags:

One response to “2. Unforgiven (1992)

  1. Nathan Cone

    December 9, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    I love Roger’s writing. But speaking of Westerns, I’d love to read what he thinks about “Once Upon a Time in the West” now. He gave it 2 1/2 stars in 1969, but has since called it Leone’s “masterpiece,” if I’m not mistaken.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: