Valdez Is Coming (1971) - One Thousand Yards
Uploader Comments (DelStrange)
All Comments (72)
-
both eyes open during the shot.
-
Why can't Hollywood make movies that portray gun usage realistically in terms of their actual ballistics, recoil, magazine capacities etc. instead of the exaggerated fantasies and nonsense they expect people to believe? It's an insult to the intelligence of all knowledgeable and experienced gun owners.
-
@Ridgerunner272 Well observed from a man who understands guns. Of course those ignorant of gun ballistics and the limitations of long range shooting would believe the Hollywood gun fantasies.
-
Wow, a rifle with no recoil, a magic support stick that disallows all movement apparently, a bullet that hits the exact second it's fired from over half a mile off,, and someone that can shoot someone else on a running horse at the same range =p
-
Valdez was with Cooke. They knew how to fight Paches. This was playing marbles for him
-
yea rest the barrel on your support stick why dont you...
it only vibrates and throws off your projectile
-
So that rifle has no recoil at all? reall come on thats horrible
-
I'm the hugest fan of Lancaster's, but that is a distractingly bad Mexican dialect he's using.
-
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I've changed the comments to by approval only because almost four years of people harping on whether or not someone could manage this kind of shooting is just about all I can stand. It's only a movie. If you feel it absolutely necessary to spend your time critiquing the inaccuracy of what happens in film as compared with 'real life', there are plenty of other clips on YouTube with which you may do so.
DelStrange 1 week ago
you miss the point again. drastically. about repeated viewings. does that mean that I feel Valdez is a great western. Nope. As for discriminating what's good and what's not, even Kane I have always found boring, truly boring, except for the first 30 minutes and the last, after they are at Xanadu. In both it rises to pitches of true greatness. But Welles, mostly is pure bluster. Give me the 1000 yard scene you have chosen over almost any of the middle of Kane.
doctornoooo 1 year ago
Ever the iconoclast. I understand that bigger is not necessarily better. Except for when it is. Personal preference is not the same as being technically, fundamentally better. I've seen nothing to suggest that what you embrace or dismiss is based on more than simple like or dislike. Philosophically speaking, I suppose that's enough. In an academic regard, one must distance himself from taste and recognize truth, even if it's one he doesn't appreciate.
DelStrange 1 year ago
we disagree. Sweet Smell I always felt he was badly handled by McKindrick, a very good direct who let Burt call the shots. Look at McKindrick in something like The Maggie. There Paul Douglas is perfect. True Burt was going after the W. Winchell persona, but for me it droned on. Though the scene with Barbara Nichols, that was worth the whole movie, chilling scene. I have seen Sweet Smell only 3 viewings, never again. Ulzanas Raid 6 for instance, and what Burt does at the end of that, wow.
doctornoooo 1 year ago
Number of viewings is indicative of nothing but personal preference. I've seen Return of the Living Dead more times than I have Citizen Kane but it doesn't mean Dan O'Bannon was a better director than Orson Welles or that Clu Gulager is a better actor than Joseph Cotton. All that indicates is at the end of the day I find one film more enjoyable for repeat viewing. There's nothing wrong with personal preference so long as one is able to distinguish between that and what is actually superior.
DelStrange 1 year ago
No, Lancaster is very good in Valdez, was perfect in Gantry, hardly near the end of his career, he chews the scenery to very funny effect in Vera Cruz, but he is very leaden or much the overactor in most of the stuff he did while at the reins of his production company. Put alongside almost any so called major actor today he is a bloody genius. But next to the likes of Freddy March, he is sadly lacking. However we have never seen anyone with his physical presence EVER.
doctornoooo 1 year ago
And I'm as big a fan of Frederic March as the next guy but comparing him to Lancaster is really apples and oranges. Each generally played very different roles, though there is some general similarity in the character parts they enjoyed late in their respective careers.
DelStrange 1 year ago