Why didn't Wayne win an Oscar for this one?
585196
This is one of the best Westerns ever made.  John Wayne delivers his usual grand performance as Cole Thornton, a hired gun who carries a fearsome reputation.  Robert Mitchum almost upstages him as drunken Sheriff J.P. Harrah, Thornton's old friend.  These two exchange some of the greatest dialogue of all-time, and viewers can see that their relationship dates back a considerable amount of time.
James Caan is terrific as the kid who's a better shot with a knife than a sawed-off shotgun.  "I hit the sign, and the sign hit him" is one of the funnier parts in the movie and still makes me laugh.  Arthur Hunnicutt is the old geezer whose fiery spirit and witty comments provide a few laughs as well.
Ed Asner and Christopher George deliver believable performances as villians Bart Jason and Nelse MacLeod, respectively.  Great heroes, villains, sidekicks, dialogue, humor, and action make El Dorado a film worth seeing.  Besides, it's a John Wayne movie, how can you go wrong?
2976376
John Wayne.  Let's start with a bunch of stars based solely on that.  Another of his later Westerns, not a bad one in the bunch.  If you've never experienced "The Duke", it's not a bad place to start!
697089
The Pianist is a good film, but not great.  I don't understand why this was such a big winner at the Oscars!  (Even though Chicago took home double as many Awards, with 6)
First- I don't think Adrien Brody deserved the Best Actor Award.  Did anyone even see Nick Cage in Adaptation!?  He was so excellent.  The only reason why he didn't win was becasue that movie had an off-beat type of brilliance.
Second- Why in the world did Roman Polanski win?  In a way I am glad the Martian Scorsese didn't win because I believe he'll be back in the upcoming years with an even better film that will sweep the awards, including Best Director.  But, what about Rob Marshall?  Chicago would have been nothing without him!  Rob had the great idea for the musical numbers being metaphors and daydreams in Roxie's head.  Plus, Marshall choreographed all the numbers!  That is amazing dedication.  Plus the editing was smooth and well done.  I just didn't sense that Polanski had the same pashion.
Thirdly- Charlie Kauffman had the Oscar stolen from him for best screenplay: adapted material.  Every scene and line in Adaptation shines with creative characters and brilliant words.  Actually, the movie's main showcase is the writting, because it is SO GOOD!  I have NO idea why the pianist won, and if you see Adaptation, you'll be wondering too.
That being said, I thought that The Pianist was definetly one of the better films over the past year.  I think everybody knows that this is nowhere near Schindler's List.  But, then again, what film about this subject matter is?  Not a bad effort at all.  But, not worthy of all the praise.
4367577
McConaughey and Leto are UNBELIEVABLE. Each actor will win the Academy Award. The language is harsh if your of feint of heart regarding dialogue.
3065530
John Wayne gives one of his greatest performances in StageCoach, a Western made by the great American filmmaker John Ford. The movie is about traveling passengers on a stagecoach as it travels through dangerous Indian country. The movie's battle scene is well-made, it's very well-shot. John Wayne gives a great performance as an outlaw trying to avenge the deaths of his family, while falling for a beautiful woman on the stagecoach.

My problem with this movie is that the story has too many storylines. The most interesting of them all is the Wayne relationship with Dallas played by Claire Trevor, but there are other storylines in the movie that are difficult to understand. It's the one flaw in an otherwise spectacular spectacle of American filmmaking.
4664460
With the exception of Woody Harrelson getting nominated for Best Supporting Actor, THE MESSENGER has not been getting the attention that it deserves from the critics and awards.  This is the film that should've been nominated for Best Picture (Drama) by the Golden Globe Awards.  This is the film that should've been nominated for Best Picture by the Broadcast Film Critics Awards.  With the exception of the Independent Spirit Awards, THE MESSENGER is being grossly overlooked.  I think it may be because it is not released by a major distributor.  And it is overshadowed by THE HURT LOCKER.  To tell you the truth, I have seen both films, and I'll take THE MESSENGER over THE HURT LOCKER anyday.  THE HURT LOCKER was more suspenseful, but THE MESSENGER did a much better job examining the human condition from both the soldiers and the civilians' point of view.  In a way it reminded me of a contemporary version of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT because it depicted the horrors of the war, and the effects that it had on both the soldiers and their loved ones.  I highly recommend this film.  It is one of the best films of 2009.  One last thing--it is about time Woody Harrelson wins an Oscar for his performance as an actor.  He is incredible in this film.
2484491
Love John Wayne films.....Have never seen a bad one, and this was one of his best! We love it when he lets other people know the right way of doing things.
1856350
Going into this movie, I expected to love it. Rave reviews, Oscar nominations, an interesting topic - what could go wrong? Quite a bit, unfortunately. First though, the positives. I think why so many people loved this movie is due to a few very powerful scenes. The moments of grief when family members learn of their loved ones death is hard to watch - it's so real and well done. Since you cannot just watch a movie where that happens over and over again, you have to develop a story around that - and that's where the problems come in. Ben Foster plays a soldier who is recovering from massive combat injuries. He is given the "safe" job of accompanying a more experienced notification officer (Harrelson) as an apprentice of sorts.  Woody Harrelson and Ben Foster turn in two very touching performances in a movie that ultimately is not deserving of their talent.

Where the movie veers into "are you kidding me?!?!?!" territory is when the young soldier starts to develop a relationship with one of the women he notifies of the loss of her husband. I won't spoil anything, but if you think the movie is going to justify both of their actions, you may be let down. A lot of the film is just an uncomfortable mess. Maybe that's the message we're supposed to be getting - war is messy - but well, I get that, I didn't need a movie to come along and tell me. So while a few scenes are definitely extraordinary, this movie is bogged down by ludicrousness to the point that I cannot recommend it as a whole.
807629
If the Oscars were objective, Mel Gibson's performance would've garnered him his first Academy Award for best actor. As it happens, the Oscars are inherently political, and The Beaver was released amidst the tape-recording scandal. Because of this, the film was largely ignored, and Gibson wasn't even nominated by the Academy; truly sad, considering the fact that an artist's work should be appreciated for what it is.
4377518
Duel in the Sun was a "game changer" western in the 40's. David Selznick tried to outdo his "Gone With The Wind" and the narrow-minded critics had no clue just how revolutionary and classic his movie was.  As I watched it, I saw so many westerns that came in the 50's ( especially "Giant") and the 60's on up.  David Selznick envisioned the kinds of monumental westerns that would come in the future and had to battle the brain-dead simpletons who lacked his vision and maturity in breaking traditions which impoverished movies of this period!  To see Gregory Peck as a sexual predator and Jennifer Jones go from innocent Indian maiden to a young girl who becomes "hot to trot"  is a hoot!  For me, the music was the best thing about this movie! (It captured the emotions and monumentality of the movie perfectly.)  The color and the stark terrain of the movie were far ahead of its time and it should never have been criticized by anyone and yet it was!.  The finale of the movie is operatic but unforgettable: truly mythic!  This is absolutely one of my favorite movies and I am sorry that it received such invective and negativity from the shallow-minded critics of the time.
While I truly loved "The Best Years of Our Lives" and felt that Harold Russell truly deserved the two Oscars he won, I feel that David Selznick should have won an Academy Award for Best Movie and Jennifer Jones should have won an Academy Award for Best Actress.  David Selznick was truly a great director and I wish he had gotten the recognition he deserved.
1913098
A Serious Man (2009) is the third movie I've seen this year to have the word "Man" in the title proceeded by a descriptive "S" word. The other 2 films being A Single Man (2009) and Solitary Man (2010). Are the studios trying to make it hard for us to distinguish these movies from each other? Unfortunately, the quality of the movies has dropped each time for me. I absolutely loved A Single Man (4.5 stars), enjoyed Solitary Man (3.5 stars), but was bored with A Serious Man (2.5 stars). It's not that A Serious Man is a bad movie. It's the typical finely-written, finely-crafted, finely-acted, and finely-photographed film that we've all come to expect from Joel & Ethan Coen. But the story just didn't engage me emotionally or cinematically...it was too quirky and distant from my own life. But the movie did look good!

I think you either like the Coen Brothers' films or you don't. This one I didn't. I love Fargo (1996) and No Country For Old Men (2007). I haven't seen any of their other films yet. And we'll see what happens with True Grit (2010). I'm hopeful! I love Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon.
799745
I know people will discount this, but I've got to say it. I know Peter Jackson won awards for these movies. If you take a 5,000 carat almost flawless diamond, and cut it down to a 10 carat flawed diamond, it's still better than all the cruddy 1 carat badly cut diamonds out there and you'll get awards for it.

If you're unfamiliar with the books, this is a "good movie". Great cinematography, mostly good acting, a gripping story, the whole nine yards.

If you've read the books, this movie might be a gross disappointment. All the beauty of the dialogue and ideas created by a master storyteller was stripped out, to be replaced with idiotic fight scenes and 4th rate dialogue made up by some schlub with pizza and drool hanging from his beard.

I sat around and rewatched part 3 a few nights ago, and that's what prompted this review. In the books, there's a clear code of honor and truth and nobility among the "good guys", which provides a ready contrast with the evil of the bad guys: "I would not snare even an orc with a falsehood" says Faramir at one point, while subsequently refusing to use his position of power to seize the ring:

"We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt. "Not if I found it on the highway would I take it," I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them.

Contrast this to the movie. Frodo lies when asked about Gollum ("there was no other", as opposed to "a chance companion we met on the road, I am not answerable for him"), and Faramir binds him to take him back to Minas Tirith to seize the ring.

If you want entertainment, watch the movie. If you want entertainment and beauty and nobility and hope and fear and triumph, read the books. The worst part is that idiotic (IMO) dialogue and action scenes were substituted for some of the best storytelling ever written in the English language. I realize the books are long, and a truly faithful adaptation is impossible due to time constraints. That doesn't mean you pull out jewels to make room for garbage.

Hey you kids, get off my lawn!
808478
How my ratings work:
5 - I really liked/loved it
4 - I liked it
3 - Could've been better/worth a look
2 - Just didn't live up to the potential
1 - Simply awful

True this film has some (and others would say many) flaws in it, but just about every movie does. One of the biggest would be the whole drug dealer plot. So why do I give this movie 5 stars? For many reasons.

1) I enjoy the performances; DeNiro and Hoffman are superb in their roles and work well off each other. I even like the supporting roles, even if they are over the top at times.

2) I like the main story and theme; how two very different people can connect. Walter and Rusty share one thing in common, lonliness, a desire for companionship (in love and in friendship).

3) I think it's well made, production wise. The music works well and the look of the cinematography gives it a grimey yet hopeful feel. The sets and costumes are also good.

4) And the final reason for the rating is writer/director Joel Schumacher. After his disaster with the Batman films he did, and others people may have not liked, Schumacher has returned to basics with simpler projects. He's wokring his way back up in the film ladder; Phantom of the Opera was his return to the bigger budgeted films, and he did well with that.

This film is certainly not everyone's cup of tea, but people should give it a chance.
2344760
I was in Miami with my wife at the moment in which this movie premiered on theaters at the U.S.A.; and knowing that it has been directed by the talented Coen brothers, rushed to the cinema to see it at once, thinking that we were going to find something close to "FARGO" or "THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE".
Unluckely, 20 or 25 minutes after the beginning of the film, we found ourselves looking at each other, and thinking something like "When will the usually original and funny Coen movie's plot begin?". Well, It never did...
We waited for 10 or 15 fifteen minutes more, and as nothing interesting was yet happening on the big screen, took the decision of leaving the theater, and drove back to our hotel... Perhaps, we still had the chance to catch another movie -anyone would be better than this- on our room's pay per view TV.
By the way, anyone who intends to understand why the Coen brothers gained their fame of being part of today's great American filmakers (like Clint Eastwood, Martin Scosese, Francis Ford Coppola or Aaron Aranofsky), should see (i) the excellent "FARGO" (with Frances Mc Dormand and Willian H, Macy), (ii) the very good "THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE" (with Frances Mc Dormand, Billy Bob Thornton and James Gandolfini) and "BURN AFTER READING" (with Frances Mc Dormand, George Clooney, Brad Pitt and John Malkovich), or (iii) the good "NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN" (with Javier Bardem -winner of the best supporting actor's Oscar for this performance-, and Tommy Lee Jones), who won the 2007 best film Oscar, although it should have gone, instead, to Paul Thomas Anderson's much better "THERE WILL BE BLOOD"; absolutely avoiding "BARTON FINK" or this one ("O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?").
2300365
I really like this film, it has a great cast, fun story, good acting, great scenery
and lots of action.  I think that this film and Rio Bravo are probably Wayne's best offerings from his later years.  I really didn't like the Rooster Cogburn efforts.  These are much better.
The Duke is Big Jake who has been wandering the country while his estranged wife and kids take care of the big ranch, his wife once again portrayed perfectly by the beautiful Maureen Ohara.  The ranch is raided and Big Jake's grandson (who he has never seen) is kidnapped.  Big Jake is summoned by the wife to handle things in his usual competent and ruthless manner.  It all plays out the way you would expect of a John Wayne western and it is truly enjoyable to watch.
John's son Michael plays his oldest son in the movie and they have some great moments together.  There is also the contrast of old and new since this is set after the turn of the century so there is some conflicts between the characters, cars vs horses and so on.
4840066
This movie to me is to be the most underrated movie of all times, but alas it didn't get the right propagenda and publicity. To me this movie is at the same level with the other Disney classics like: snow white and the seven dwarfs, Cinderella, sleeping beauty, the little mermaid...etc.
426926
Being a hard-core John Wayne fan, it is difficult for me to be too critical of any of his films.  Parents should be wary of the strong violence that is portrayed in this otherwise very enjoyable Wayne vehicle.  The violent death of Wayne's Native American freind and his dog were hard  for me to watch as a 14 year old kid in 1971.  I can imagine how hard this  would be on much younger viewers.  The opening sequence involving the  kidnappers' attack on the ranch is also quite violent for a Wayne film.  The film, if released today, would probably get a PG13 rating.  The acting  abilities of Wayne's son Patrick, as well as Chirstopher Mitchum, leave  much to be desired. Otherwise, this is a very enjoyable, action-packed John  Wayne western. Richard Boones is great!!