Too Many Flaws To Be a Great Movie
-
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! -
LightningLad — 15 years ago(January 26, 2011 08:05 AM)
I love this movie but can see a lot of the points made. I tend to regard it as more of a symbolic movie than anything else and don't exactly believe all the technical points of the plot. For one thing it would be a bit odd for the entire plot to involve having the stepson of the guy they wanted to be president assassinate him. He would probably be caught, and once the relation was found out it would actually be pretty scandalous, so much so he would almost certainly have to resign, bringing about a swift end to the scheme.
What I do enjoy about this film is as an expressionist portrait of very damaged person, and how the sympathies of the audience gradually do shift over to Shaw, as unlikable as he is at first. I kind of a view it as a nearly surreal gothic dysfunctional family portrait. But I realize that won't be enough for some people. But for me, there might be more technically convincing thrillers, but few with as much emotional power.
I also love the mood of it. There's just something so early sixties about it, but that of course is purely sentimental (I was born in the seventies, though - guess it's all those reruns when I was a kid.).
Reason is a pursuit, not a conclusion.