What a colossal bore.
-
CharlesTheBold — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 08:34 PM)
It isn't just that Harry is dead that's the twist, it's that Holly's friend is actually the very criminal he's believes him not to be.
And another thing.
Harry originally promised Holly a job, presumably a role in the racket. And Holly finally figured out Harry thought HOLLY was a sleezebag who would be won over by amoral speeches about people being dots and peace producing nothing but a cuckoo clock. -
Jamesir_Bensonmum — 12 years ago(March 24, 2014 06:36 AM)
I loved it. Why? I do not know why. Is it the dreary atmosphere? Is it the lighting of the dark ruined city? Is it the suspense? Is it the camera work with the face closeups? Is it the music? There are so many unusual features to this film which vault it to the front of any classic film library.
Orson Welles has the tremendous acting skill of adding little nuances to a part to give Harry Lime a unique personality. Sucking on a heartburn pill, his eye movement or his expressions with his mouth. It all adds up to a dark foreboding post World War II piece
As I mentioned before, I think the film is great because of the way it presented the "bad guy", Harry Lime, to be a charmingly likable person with a twinkle in his eye and a spring in his step, while the "good guy" (or simply the protagonist), Holly Martins, was portrayed as an sad-sack loser and a sap.
The villain had an extremely likable personality while the good guy was unlikable. Movies never did this prior to this film; this was a groundbreaking film that ushered in the "Modern Drama", a drama that does not rely on the old-fashioned ideas of "ultra-heroic good guy versus sinister villain.
Sure Harry Lime was sinister, but he was outwardly charming. Holly Martins did "save the day", but he is a loser with a sad-sack personality that drives people away.
THAT'S what makes this film special. -
The_TJT — 12 years ago(February 09, 2014 03:43 PM)
I finished roughly at one hour mark, found it very boring. Rated it a 3/10 since I didn't watch it through and it might get a bit more interesting towards the end
Overall a rather average film of it's time, but much more long-winded. Frankly I don't understand what other people see in this film, it's probably all about the reputation like with Citizen Kane. At least I had the guts to NOT watch this bore to the bitter end, I doubt it would have gotten much better. Rosebud. Nonsense.
Let's face it people, lots of noir was decent in it's own time but quite often time has passed by these films. It's interesting that if critics decided a film being great several decades ago they still hold the same status. And no, I didn't notice anything exceptional with cinematography either. -
NewtonFigg — 12 years ago(February 11, 2014 05:18 PM)
I think some people don't understand Graham Greene protagonists. There are no "heroes" in Greeneland. That makes them tough to understand which upsets some who want clear cut characters who can wrap up all the issues neatly.
-
romefan123 — 11 years ago(February 20, 2015 09:41 AM)
I dunno about thatthink you CAN judge a film based on a brief watch (at least half). I almost did the same thing, but did manage to finish it. It does rapidly pick up after the first hoursome of this could have been shaved off, quite frankly. Didn't find this as alluring as CK or other Noir; ending was wonderful and the moment that
Harry shows up out of nowhere, was jaw-dropping.
But in all, it was a touch weaker than I expected. Hoped for more. Will re-watch sometime, and perhaps "get it" then.
"You know it" Snake Karate Kid III -
pjmcgill142 — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 03:23 AM)
I agree with Underhill. Why give it a rating if you haven't watched the movie?
I finished roughly at one hour mark, found it very boring. Rated it a 3/10 since I didn't watch it through and it might get a bit more interesting towards the end
Ya think? If you haven't finished it don't vote.
Fine, why not come onto the discussion board and tell us you couldn't focus long enough to last the final 30 minutes So close!! But no cigar
But then to give the movie a rating? I'm speechless. I am literally without speech. -
The_TJT — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 11:51 AM)
a think? If you haven't finished it don't vote.
I hardly ever vote without watching the whole film
But having seen thousands of films you just sometimes know it's not going to get better or at least the odds are negligible. One hour is certainly enough for that. Even if it does get better the film HAS failed if you're bored to pieces at one hour mark.
Yesterday I watched a bad film to the very end Godzilla 2014. It was not worth it. If you don't believe me go ahead and try it yourself
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0805723/ratings -
pjmcgill142 — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 04:02 PM)
But having seen thousands of films you just sometimes know it's not going to get better
That happens, I'm sure. My point is that your reviews are not valid. Not unlike those people who give a movie a 1 for no other reason other than because they don't agree with its rating and feel it's their mission in life to balance out the wrong.
Isn't there another site that caters for your types of review? haven'tseenit.com? Something like that, anyway. -
The_TJT — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 05:08 PM)
I rate films for myself. If I haven't rated it there would be a chance I might forget I watched it and try to watch it again.
I used to take rating a film very seriously and still do to some extent for example my ratings have nearly Gaussian distribution which certainly can not be said of most around here - so I don't just throw ratings around. But one hour is certainly long enough for me to tell that I do not like the film at all and rate it accordingly.
If you rate the films for some other purpose than for yourself I think you're on a wrong track on a site that ranks Dark Knight as all time 4th and such complete rubbish as 2014 Godzilla as 6,7
Maybe you should go the site "I watch rubbish to the bitter end dot com" just a thought.
And in general I think many old classics are overrated; they have gotten a reputation but it doesn't match the modern standards. The reputation stuck while the film got outdated. Not all but many. I find this especially true for many films made in 30s and 40s. -
The_TJT — 10 years ago(December 20, 2015 09:25 PM)
If it makes you any happier, I now watched the last 45 minutes of the film. And liked it a lot.
I have to say that it was very good. Great atmospheric cinematography and the story got some momentum as well.
I'm not sure if I'd still like the first half, although I have seen a bit film noir since last try and learned to appreciate it more. Also became to like Valli a lot, especially in "The Paradine Case" - and Cotten isn't that bad in "Shadow of a doubt" either. -
pjmcgill142 — 10 years ago(December 20, 2015 10:06 PM)
If it makes you any happier, I now watched the last 45 minutes of the film. And liked it a lot.
Not that it matters, but yes, I am happier. I'm glad you liked it.
I would've been embarrassed if your initial impression was proved correct! -
JohnM_99 — 11 years ago(March 02, 2015 06:00 PM)
You found "Citizen Kane" to be average and claim it depends mostly upon "the reputations." You're also dismissing the entire genre of the film noir as they usually don't "age well". Then what other movies do you like from the periods (the 40's and 50's)?
Sorry this old movie doesn't live up to the visual effects of other old movies like "Jaws" or "Star Wars". You might think these "old" movies are all from around the same time but not really.
This film is not even in the category of the "film noir" but to you, you probably can't make a distinction from one black&white film to others.
Oh, you probably do like the soppy "It's a Wonderful Life" and the glitzy "Ben Hur" & "Gone With the Wind" from that period, but what else? -
Readerman — 11 years ago(August 05, 2014 01:22 PM)
My favorite film. The cinematography is exciting, Valli is gorgeous, the setting is wonderful, and the acting and script superb. Easily Carol Reed's best direction. The final scene is spectacular. I even love the weird music.
-
Quest_Shield — 11 years ago(March 09, 2015 02:23 AM)
The first half of the film I thought this isn't that great. Joseph Cotton was so bland and the story wasn't that great. Then Orson Welles appeared and straight away the film improved. Every scene after that famous appearance with the cat at his feet was enhanced by his presence. That's why I give it 8/10 after first viewing.