 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still don't get your unusual sensitivity jazz. Am I right to think that you claim to see and hear 'stuff' that the rest of us don't? Sounds like the plot to a certain Bruce Willis flick.
Edit: my apologies for the tardy reply. Freakishly busy these days.
No worries. I make no such claims. My point was simply that we have different reactions. I am not trying to invalidate reactions that differ from mine, and I would request the same in return.
Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 10, 2017 - 1:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
jackfu
(Member)
|
If you were “coming of age” along the time this was made, it really was not that different from others of the genre as far as the “isms” that have been noted here and would have been tolerated as others were. Certainly some folks found it objectionable then, just as they did Shaft and other films with supermacho heroes. Were the Bond films, Blaxsploitation films, etc., any less ism-ified than The Eiger Sanction? Not rationalizing, just saying it was typical of its time.
Who knows, perhaps Clint Eastwood was parodying the action films of the day.
As I said earlier in this thread, it’s a good film, especially for an early directorial effort, with an ending that is disappointing and with plot holes galore, but it is watchable even with today’s sensitivities.
Of course, the main reason I watch it when it’s on is John Williams’ score.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just re-watched THE EIGER SANCTION for the first time in, oh, I don't know, 30 years or so. Well, it sure isn't a good movie. The characters are completely uninvolving, and the plot is nonsensical, bordering on the absurd. But John Williams score is excellent of course, and the mountain climbing sequences were spectacular for its day. Movie buffs may find this an interesting relic of its time, but by and large the movie is a pretty vapid affair. Great cast though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 20, 2023 - 7:31 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
I just re-watched THE EIGER SANCTION for the first time in, oh, I don't know, 30 years or so. Well, it sure isn't a good movie. The characters are completely uninvolving, and the plot is nonsensical, bordering on the absurd. But John Williams score is excellent of course, and the mountain climbing sequences were spectacular for its day. Movie buffs may find this an interesting relic of its time, but by and large the movie is a pretty vapid affair. Great cast though.
I watched it a couple of years ago after a long break, and there are still some really excellent parts to it, and some less good parts. However, the less good parts were so cringey that they started to outweigh the really good bits. I put that down to life experience, and some blunting of the exuberance of youth.
All that apart, I’m very happy to say, following my comment of January 2016 that I’d buy another iteration of the score, that I did. And it retains its huge appeal where some of the bravado and corny lines that I enjoyed once upon a time have palled a little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just re-watched THE EIGER SANCTION for the first time in, oh, I don't know, 30 years or so. Well, it sure isn't a good movie. The characters are completely uninvolving, and the plot is nonsensical, bordering on the absurd. But John Williams score is excellent of course, and the mountain climbing sequences were spectacular for its day. Movie buffs may find this an interesting relic of its time, but by and large the movie is a pretty vapid affair. Great cast though.
I watched it a couple of years ago after a long break, and there are still some really excellent parts to it, and some less good parts. However, the less good parts were so cringey that they started to outweigh the really good bits. I put that down to life experience, and some blunting of the exuberance of youth.
There are some parts that just make not sense, and other parts that are indeed cringeworthy. Apart from the fact that the main character seemed implausible. Who was John Hemlock supposed to be? An art professor who moonlights as a special-unit assassin? Seems unlikely. Or a special unit assassin who moonlights as an art professor? Also seems equally unlikely. Seriously, Indiana Jones was more believable. And his motivation for killing people and accepting various assignments is... just money? And not even a lot at that, like $10,000.- seems to be the standard rate here. That's pocket change for James Bond. But he had super-expensive artwork in his... cottage?
As far as I remember, even Eastwood back then did not think his character had a lot of motivation to do the things the script told him to do.
And the C-2 knew Hemlock's target would go up the Eiger Sanction, but they could not pintpoint who? I mean, there were only three other mountain climbers going up, with very different backgrounds. Surely they could just figure out who might have been the one most likely to have killed the agent Eastwood ist supposed to revenge.
All that apart, I’m very happy to say, following my comment of January 2016 that I’d buy another iteration of the score, that I did. And it retains its huge appeal where some of the bravado and corny lines that I enjoyed once upon a time have palled a little.
Yeah, the score is beautiful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are some parts that just make not sense, and other parts that are indeed cringeworthy. Apart from the fact that the main character seemed implausible. Who was John Hemlock supposed to be? An art professor who moonlights as a special-unit assassin? Seems unlikely. Or a special unit assassin who moonlights as an art professor? Also seems equally unlikely. Seriously, Indiana Jones was more believable. And his motivation for killing people and accepting various assignments is... just money? And not even a lot at that, like $10,000.- seems to be the standard rate here. That's pocket change for James Bond. But he had super-expensive artwork in his... cottage?
Did you watch the newer version of "Bourne Identity" (ie the Matt Damon version)??? None of that makes sense or is believable. Truck-sized plots holes or contradictions. And your criticisms are way off base, like the money angle: did James Bond even discuss his income or what he spent it on? Is it really so unusual for a real or fictional character to have a passion which they subsidize by whatever means possible? Hemlock has other motivations besides money, like his friends and enemies, but has lost any ideals after dealing with the government and/or serving in the military. Seems like you want it to not make sense.
No, I would much prefer to have THE EIGER SANCTION make sense, or at least be enjoyable. Sure, THE BOURNE IDENTITY by Doug Liman also has plot holes and whatnot, just like many conspiracy/action/spy thrillers. Unlike THE EIGER SANCTION, THE BOURNE IDENTITY is a more gripping movie though, because you actually care about the protagonists. I found THE EIGER SANCTION falls flat for several reasons, though I obviously re-watched it and found some good things about it.
To answer your question: no, it's not unusual for a fictional or real character to subsidize his income, but you don't become a clandestine assassin by going through Craigslist for a job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
