The Gun Counter

Just watched this dubious remake of one of the best movies ever ( possibly THE best ), against my own better judgement.

I know that it's meant to be 'closer to the book' and 'darker' according to idiot film critics, but as far as I'm concerned if you think that then you haven't actually read the book.
All the good dialog and interplay with the characters is already in the original film, most of it word for word. The ending isn't quite the same, but who cares ?

Rooster is described as being around the age of 40 in the book, in the new film he appears to be about the wrong side of 70.
And he's not The Duke, he's just some stupid actor with a really fake looking beard

I pronounce a Fatwa against this blasphemous abomination

Meh I liked it. More discussion here:

http://theguncounter.com/forum/viewtopi ... 15&t=14603

I disagree. I hope we can still be friends.

I'm a big fan of the original, a big fan of John Wayne and I had a major crush on Kim Darby because of that movie.

However, I liked this version better.
I'm so ashamed.

blackeagle603 wrote:

Traded for him with an Indian, who said he came by him honestly. I gave up two dental mirrors and a bottle of expectorant. Do either of you need medical attention?

Quite possibly my favorite minor character ever, from any movie.

What do Brits know about cowboys anyway?

Flintlock Tom wrote:I disagree. I hope we can still be friends.

I'll put the matter under consideration Tom

moose42 wrote:What do Brits know about cowboys anyway?

Hey, at least I can ride a horse ( kind of ) - I sometimes tell the truth and can almost shoot straight

You can call me English Bob from now, or the Duck of Death

ROFL. Duck of Death indeed. Better hope that new tungsten buckshot doesn't become available across the pond.

All in favor of renaming our pet Limey "Ducky," say Aye

"Aye!"