The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, no contest. I’ve seen it maybe half a dozen times, once in the theatre (although the screen wasn’t quite wide enough – during the opening credits, it claimed that the movie starred LINT EASTWO). I have it on DVD, of course.
#1:The Good, the Bad and the Ugly #2:Kelly’s Heroes
Got 'em both on DVD. GBU I’ve seen all the the way through about 5 times (including during its original theatrical run). KH at least 15 times, again including in the theatre.
I’m going to have to say Pale Rider is my #1, perhaps because of its parallels with Shane which I grew attached to as an early teen. I do like Unforgiven and The Outlaw Josie Wales almost as much, but I think the way Eastwood comes to life as Preacher is more compelling than the other two big ones.
I just saw Dirty Harry and Magnum Force the other night for the first time in years. They just don’t hold up technically and story wise. The catchphrases are still cool, and the gunplay is fun, but they’re just entertainments.
The clips they showed of his monkey movies make me want to see them again, or for the first time. I have never seen at least ten movies on his acting list.
Of his directorial (no acting) films, I like Bird best, but I can’t say why beyond loving the story itself. Whitaker was not a convincing Parker for me.
ETA: Posted before seeing posts after the second one.
The Outlaw Josey Wales is my pick if I get only one. Also like High Plains Drifter. Been a long time since I’ve seen any of the Dirty Harry series, but I generally like Clint better in westerns.
You do have a point. Perhaps a follow-up thread for “What’s your least favorite Clint Eastwood movie?” might help with the choices. Even there, it’s hard to pick.
Would you be able to answer with a straight face, “What’s your favorite Chuck Norris movie?”
Unforgiven is my personal fave. I just like the way it sort of explores what it might be like for the man with no name once he aged out of his wild years.
You know, this may be the first version of that explanation (that Eastwood was making some personal statement about his earlier roles and the attitudes they appeared to promote) that I can buy into. I never had the feeling that Clint was apologetic for the type of character he had played, but I do see that the spaghetti character(s) were what really launched his career beyond the relatively safe and clean Rowdy Yates guy. The international following and superstar status those movies gave him definitely propelled him into the position he has maintained since the 60’s. He has gone well beyond that level of acting and film-making, but the label those early movies put on him of being a pro-violence, gunhappy sadist must have weighed on him to whatever degree he’s not that type of person at heart.
The documentary said more than once that Clint doesn’t go after roles to “make statements” all that often. He likes telling stories and is good at doing so in a direct way. Often the directness masks some serious social commentary but it has always been secondary to the entertainment value of his efforts.
To put it differently, I had always thought the analysis of why Unforgiven was such a “great” movie because of its reference to his earlier roles was a bit flawed. Your version I can buy. And you said so in one neat sentence. Eastwood style.