From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article has been identified as a core article. Large improvements may make editors eligible for awards. Related task forces (nations and regions): Canadian cinema task force

Removed:

Unforgiven is commonly considered to be among the five best westerns ever produced.

This is one of those statements which is impossible to disprove, but also non-encyclopedic, because it involves a subjective judgment among an undefined group...who considers it to be so? Critics? Film school professors? Fans? Actors? Film actors? Actors in western films?

See also Films considered the worst ever for an example of how this can get out of control. Ellsworth 19:41, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 Roger Ebert 2 You can quote me 2.1 Revisionist? 2.2 Final sequence? 2.3 Citations 2.4 Moral Ambiguity 2.5 Removal of original research 3 Role of Women

[edit] Roger Ebert

Is it true that he originally gave this film two stars? That can’t be true because two stars is a negative review and he originally gave this film thumbs up. Not only that, Unforgiven is #9 on his list of the 10 best films of 1992. Perhaps we should consider removing that fact from the page?

Siskel and Ebert’s 1992 review for Unforgiven:

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=Unforgiven

Roger Ebert’s top ten lists:

http://www.innermind.com/misc/s_e_top.htm

[edit] You can quote me

Clint (on "Charlie Rose", I think) said, "If I didn't have to have stars, I'd have cast this whole damn thing out of Edmonton."

BTW, I consider Unforgiven among the five best Westerns ever produced, up there with "Silverado", "Josey Wales", & a couple I can't think of offhand... Pale Rider 07:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionist?

The opening line calls this a revisionist film. This seems like a very strong statement, which is not backed up by any discussion in the article. I'm not saying it is or it isn't revisionist, but if it is in the topic sentence, it needs support. Since there is none, I'm removing it. -- Samuel Wantman 07:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final sequence?

I've seen this movie (an indisputable classic) a few times recently on cable stations in Canada that do not have the final text about Munney's move to San Francisco and prosperity in dry goods; they just run the final image of him visiting his wife's grave followed by a fade-out. Does anyone know why I might be seeing this, why they would remove the final on-screen text, and is this version is seen elsewhere? I swear it looks to me like they cut it because it wouldn't fit properly in full-screen. Is it worth a mention in the main article? - dharmabum 08:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Immensely good article, good discussion, but no citations. Which is a shame since most of this stuff can be cited by a good film student (I use this in the general sense of students of film, not in the particular sense of those going to film school) with access to materials, so if any such students read this, cite on young man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moral Ambiguity

I removed the section about Munny's motives for killing Little Bill. It was poorly written, orignal research, and some of it was just factually incorrect. Dancemotron (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I took out some more of the Munny's motives for killing Little Bill. Any basic study of the film and one can see that he already has the money, never particularly bonded with the whores and therefore has NO REASON TO GO BACK except to avenge the murder of Ned. He doesn't do it "as retribution for killing not protecting the town's whores from cowboys who cut-up a whore". -Anon 28Feb08

[edit] Removal of original research

I've deleted the "Themes" subheading from the article. While it is fairly interesting and detailed, it is original research and thus not appropriate. While I suspect many of the points raised can be verified, I think that given the essay-like nature of the content means that re-editing it to conform with standard guidelines would be far more labor-intensive than simply rewriting it from scratch.

Sadly, I don't have enough time now to take a look myself, but I would suggest that the next step be to read through some of the critical analyses of the movie--I imagine it can't be too difficult to find critical commentary talking about the ideas that were raised in the deleted section. Here are some links that should prove useful:

• Find sources for "unforgiven+eastwood" ( you must add "+" between words for phrase search ) : gbooks, a9, msbooks, gscholar, msacademic, gnews current, gnews archives

--jonny-mt 06:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role of Women

I removed the advertising from this section, but it still amounts to little more than original research and doesn't improve the quality of the article. The article could include greater critical analysis, but it should cite sources. Doctofunk (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Can i just add that this part of the article in its present form is also poorly written with obvious spelling errors and poor grammar. Shaun3001 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)