Too Many Flaws To Be a Great Movie
-
dbre — 16 years ago(July 19, 2009 10:01 PM)
I thought the part of the wife wearing the queen of diamonds was an excellent example of 'star crossed' instinct that true lovers show for each other in order to meet each other's needs in life. She 'knew' exactly what he needed in order to break away from his mother's bondage and that is why he was attracted to her and fell in love with her. The symbolism worked well on that level for me.
I think maybe the reason he was pointing the rifle at the intended target could have worked as a ruse. After all, his mother knew he was in the arena with the rifle and had she looked up at any time and seen him pointing the rifle at them she would have known the game was up and thus been able to duck and avoid being shot. That's the only possible explanation I could come up with -
jxh13 — 16 years ago(July 07, 2009 10:02 AM)
Returning to some of AhaVanuR's points:
Also, if he was going to kill his (step) parents, why would he point the damn gun at the presidential candidate for all but the last two seconds?
It's one thing to decide to kill your mother, it's another to sight in on a rifle and pull the trigger. The brainwashing had a real hold on Shaw, and his mother also had a psychological and implied physical hold on him. That's a lot to overcome; I think the idea is that he waits until the last moment to fool his conditioning.
The most disturbing one for me was this: I assume the point of the film was in part a subtle dig at blind, rabid McCarthyism. But then the film also says we shouldn't trust people simply because their credentials check out ("He's the son of a senator!")which is McCarthyism. Contradictions abound in this movie. Maybe by the end I was looking for them, but they're still there.
I don't know - you may be right. Iselin is a McCarthyesque figure, to be sure. Still, I've never seen it quite this way. McCarthyism had an influence, but so did Cold War paranoia, which would soon produce the phantasmagoric Dr. Strangelove and the gritty Fail-Safe. American party politics were ugly at the time, as well, as Gore Vidals' The Best Man would show in 1964. Again, you may be right, but I don't think there is a simple one-to-one correlation between Manchurian and McCarthyism, so I'm not sure the contradictions you see would be clear to the writers and director.
5/10. It's a shame too, because the acting is uniformly magnificent.
There are other good things about the movie, too, including John Frankenheimer's inventive camerawork. The movie has a lot of thought behind it - when the Liberal Senator is shot, what runs out on the floor? The milk of human kindness. These are smart people trying to entertain while they make a point; I think it's an 8 or a 9, depending on how much the Janet Leigh subplot annoys you. -
markrsutcliffe — 15 years ago(June 27, 2010 02:41 PM)
I assumed the costume choice was an idea of the mother - she invited Jocelyn and I can imagine her saying Shaw would like it. It was surely planned so that he would do what Jocelyn suggested - the shotgun marriage etc in order that he would have easy access to the senator.
-
movieghoul — 15 years ago(November 11, 2010 07:16 AM)
That's not really a flaw, because it wouldn't have been credible for the platoon to be missing for an extended period of time. Remember, the idea was that the platoon went out on patrol and returned with everyone proclaiming Raymond the hero.
-
wargames83 — 13 years ago(May 07, 2012 07:09 AM)
Its only contradictary if you take the events of the movie literally. I think that the events of the movie are too over the top to take literally. To me, the real meaning of the movie is that losing freedom due to anti-Communist red-scare mongering is just as bad and dangerous as losing freedom to actual Communists.
-
gnolti — 17 years ago(December 22, 2008 04:47 AM)
The only thing I always find implausible and a little cringe-inducing is Janet Leigh's character. I know women are supposed to be the kinder, gentler sex and all, but I don't think most women will identify with a woman who would be instantly attracted to a "wounded" and possibly even mentally disturbed man, no matter how good looking he is.
There, daddy, do I get a gold star? -
-
Percivalx — 16 years ago(May 20, 2009 06:40 PM)
I enjoyed this film immensely. It has some great moments (
the suspense of the convention at the end
) and some great performances (
Lansbury and Harvey
) which made me rate it an 8/10. But I agree that there are a couple of flaws. The one that annoyed me the most was Jocie showing up at the party as the Queen of Diamonds talk about coincidence! The second was Janet Leigh's thankless role as Marco's girlfriend.
"Your hair was darker then."
"My heart was lighter then." -
Nikon11 — 16 years ago(June 11, 2009 08:23 AM)
That's what makes a coincidence. Sure, no one wears Queen of Diamonds costumes now, but thenwell, who knows if anyone ever has. But it was a costume party, and it's not like she just wore a QoD costume just for kicks. You have to accept at least a few things in movies and books.
-
Percivalx — 16 years ago(June 11, 2009 11:23 AM)
Sorry buddy but you are wrong. She did wear that costume "just for kicks" because there was NO explanation for it. The question is why did she wear that particular costume? Was she in on the evil plan? Did Mrs. Iselin give it to her? Of course not! It's pure coincidence. It was arbitrary plotting by the writers. It's silly and I don't have to accept coincidence in storytelling. The only coincidence an audience will accept is the one that kicks off your story.
"Mr. Rawitch, what you are I wouldn't eat."
"How dare you call me a ham?" -
Nikon11 — 16 years ago(June 12, 2009 05:11 AM)
So, it wasn't a costume party?
My point was that if she just happened to put on a QoD costume in the middle of the day to hang out in, yeah that would've been completely stupid.
So, she had a reason for a costume, so it wasn't just for kicks. You just didn't buy the coincidence that she'd pick that costume. Fair enough. -
sawyertom — 15 years ago(June 24, 2010 11:15 AM)
Sorry OP, but this is a great movie. One of the all-time greats. AFI thinks so. You are comparing today to back in 1962 during the height of the cold war with the Cuban Missile Crisis going on. You cannot compare today to then. Like another poster the said it was coincidence that Raymond's future wife dressed like that. In some sense it was irony. As thrillers go this is one of the best. I suggest you ask someone who lived during those times about it. Let's not forget that just about a year late our own president was assassinated supposedly by a man with communist leanings. Taken in the context of those times is it really so hard to believe? The world dodged nuclear war when the Cuban Missile crisis was resolved, we had a president assassinated, and later his brother another presidential candidate and a civil rights leader all murdered within five years. So, yes it is a beleievable movie.
-
Strausszek — 15 years ago(July 25, 2010 05:21 PM)
It's not expertly paced or super-tightly scripted in the way a Hitchcock film is, it bustles woth fantastic, ironic scenes and juxtapositions in a way that kind of blurs the back story. I love it, but i can see why it didn't make a big success in the theatre - this is a movie you need to see several times to really appreciate it in full.
At the audition I had to karaoke to "Smoke On The Water". I was 45. A very lonely experience. -
Jaybone23 — 15 years ago(September 04, 2010 05:45 PM)
Now why on Earth would "brianoh2" create this post and not come back to answer its critics? It invalidates everything he said.
I only hope that his reason for not returning doesn't involve deathhis own or that of someone close to him, because then I'd feel REALLY guilty!