The acting was just awful. John Saxon trying to fake a Mexican accent was just painful. I kept comparing it to Unforgiven and had to turn it off.
You’re treading on sacred grounds here (pun intended) - Two Mules for Sister Sara is an absolute classic! Next you’re going to insult the greatest western of all times - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly!
Now that I’m thinking of it, Clint Eastwood has been in some of my all-time favorite movies. TGTBATU is my favorite Western; Kelly’s Heroes is my favorite WWII movie. The Gauntlet was one of my favorite action movies. Then again, haven’t seen that one since I was a kid. Bet if I were to see it as an adult, it wouldn’t be anywhere near as cool.
The situation is more complicated than it seems, but as it turns out, you’re right! 
A standard 35mm film camera with an ordinary spherical lens (i.e.- non-anamorphic) is going to create images with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, so it’s natural for directors and cinematographers to refer to it in those terms to distinguish it from widescreen. Historically, the Academy ratio came about because with the advent of sound, the optical soundtrack cut into the width of the image, and to compensate, projectors masked a small portion of the top and bottom of the image to create the standard Academy aspect ratio of 1.375:1 which has been a theatrical standard since 1932 (commonly referred to as 1.37:1). For that reason, the digital releases of some films have continued to use that aspect ratio (e.g.- The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) and parts of The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)).
But as it turns out, Saltburn was released precisely as filmed, in 1.33:1, which I just verified by checking that its dimensions were exactly 1440 x 1080. It appeared wider than the sitcom image I compared it to earlier because the latter, as it also turned out, was for some reason 1.29:1. IMDb is also wrong in citing its aspect ratio as 1.37:1. I am a bad dog and will now go sit in the doghouse for a while. 
That makes three of us.
Oh, man you are setting your standards too high for a 1970’s Western! Try comparing it to something more on a level like Chato’s Land with Lithuanian Charles Bronson playing a mixed race Apache.
If you compare it to really good films of course it is going to suffer 
. I mean Duvall as a really broad villain, Eastwood…ermm…being 1970’s Eastwood, Italian John Saxon chewing scenery in one of his multiple Mexican roles (he was also an American Indian at times), Eight is Enough’s Dick Van Patten as three minutes of hapless innkeeper. A bounty of treasures!
Oh, no - I love the latter. I’m not a barbarian! Or maybe I am - I’ve never much enjoyed John Wayne in anything.
But Two Mules…nah. High Plains Drifter, maybe.
Though maybe not one of Clint’s best, and Saxon’s faux Mexican is one of the worst ever filmed, the movie has other merits. Namely there are some classic Clint scenes in that movie:
Clint dumping the pot of food on the cellmate
Clint pulling Lamar down the stairs
Clint’s showdown with Lamar
After Clint learns “Ramon” was the one who tied up his worker when they stole Clint’s horses, sending Ramon into town to see if they’re too close for a sniper. (“thought so.”)
Plus I love seeing the eastern Sierras as the backdrop.
Yeah, I am in the same boat. I understand that it’s not an objectively “good” film, but I love it anyway.
Even with that caveat, though, I don’t think it is a “shitty” movie. It’s a hokey 80s kids movie, but there are a lot of great moments, memorable lines, and some heartfelt scenes. The production design was excellent and Richard Donner was a pretty good director. There are good reasons why a lot of people love it, even if Jack Batty did not.
Perhaps. But that awful music! That awful plot! I did go back and finish it, but it didn’t get any better.
I thought Unforgiven was too dark. I prefer “Pale Rider”.
Last night I watched A Walk In The Woods, based on the Bill Bryson book, starring Robert Redford, Nick Nolte, Emma Thompson, and Kristen Schaal. It was nice, gentle, and had some decent landscape photography here or there, but there wasn’t much to it. Nothing had any real follow through, they didn’t encounter much jeopardy that wasn’t solved a minute later, and I found it hard to believe that Nick Nolte would have survived two days, let alone two months of hiking. But whatever, it was harmless enough.
The film was good- the book was great.
The four of us can not watch it together. Any time works for me. In fact, I’m not watching it right now!
Not watching the Goonies is, well, it’s good enough for me.
I’ve always wanted to be a member of a Film Club, but now I’m thinking that being a member of a Not That Film Club is even better. Such great company!
We’re in with the In Crowd, baby!
I hope that the little controversy over aspect ratio didn’t detract from this important point: Saltburn is a great film, and highly recommended. Promising Young Woman was even better. Emerald Fennell is one talented writer/director, and I’m really looking forward to her next project.
I’m just glad it didn’t derail all the authentic hatred of The Goonies.
At least one poster said he stopped watching it halfway thru- which means his hatred is not authentic.
The film is two hours and does get off to a slow start.
Tonight I watched the Kaley Cuoco, David Oyelowo film Role Play, about a wife who is keeping a rather big secret, and then it all goes pear-shaped. Aside from the British actors putting on American accents, it was pretty good, as these things go. It’s on Amazon Prime.
Hey, great. I won’t watch it later tonight; I’m kind of busy right now.