Actually, it's a bomb
-
AtoZ2014 — 9 years ago(July 02, 2016 11:01 PM)
The most common thing in the world of IMDB Message Boards is for someone to watch a movie and then immediately come over here to complain about it.
With recent movies, it's usually a film like Boyhood, which doesn't follow all of the "formula movie" conventions, that is attacked. I didn't want to go but my girlfriend dragged me to it and it sucked (and I can't tell her that 'cause I might not get laid!). Why was it popular, why did the critics like it, why did it get nominated, why did it win the Academy Award? These are the typical questions and complaints. Why are girls playing the parts in the new Ghostbusters?!!!
Here, we have someone that saw the movie fifty years and didn't enjoy it as much the second time around. When I saw it, maybe in 1970 or so, it was great. The first third was fun, highlighted by the humor, the two train robberies, the bicycle, and Raindrops. The second third is the chase scene (who are these guys?) highlighted by Robert Redford not knowing how to swim and having to jump to save his skin. The third third is Bolivia, not knowing the language, getting acclimated, the bank robberies, guarding the payroll, Etta leaving once she realized they were going to die, and the great ending with the Bolivian army arriving.
First time around, all of this was surprising and suspenseful.
Second time around (or fifth or tenth), the plot is known, but there is still plenty to enjoy. I watched it twice in the last day or so, first just the movie, second with the William Goldman commentaryhe wrote the script to this movie and The Princess Bride, among others. It was fun. I enjoyed it. -
activista — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 12:20 AM)
For realI saw this some years agothought it silly and too obvious with the humor, but I've seen at least once since (it's on PBS now) and kinda liked it. I'm watching it now,even though I didn't intend to, and I got all caught up in it again because not only is it a great-looking film (the California locations were stunningly beautiful) there's plenty of action, so it's not boring at all in the least. People who claim it's boring obviously are way too used to these fast-paces quick-edited ADHD films that are the norm for a lot of mainstream movies now. And, no, it's not a bomb at allI think the OP just had a bad day when he saw itsome moves, or least certain ones, you have to be in a certain mood or just a good mood to appreciate.
This film is from an era when moves were actually about people, and not just special effects, explosions, or the biggest and best overblown CGI, like today. Also, it's cool to see both Redford and Newman in their prime and in their first real pair-up as leads in their first film together. Plus, they're both hilarious as Sundance & Butch, and have some of the most fun lines in the film. And they're both fun to watch in it,tooand their characters aren't complete d****, like a lot of male characters in old Westerns tend to be,which is refreshing. Plus most of the characters are well-drawn, and each one has something to add to the complete whole that is the film. (I like how the film starts with an old silent Western flick,too.) Another thing that's interesting about it, is how well the few women characters,especially the main oneare treated, which is pretty cool. I have to admit, I didn't like that scene where one of the men has snuck into a woman's place, makes her finish undressing at gunpointeven though it turns out that they know other, but that was still disturbing for the few minutes it lasted.
The film is actually a lot of fun as well (and since it's '60s film, it goes without saying that I love the music in it.) and it's interesting to watch because it basically deconstructs a lot of Western tropes (the guys' plans don't always work out,they don't always have the perfect solutions to every problem, and they end up having to wing their way out of a lot of situations, which makes for some good laughs)it's not at all your typical predictable Western from that era, which is probably why it seem so remarkably fresh even today. Plus,it's still a great-looking film, very well-shot and well-made, and it's one of the key transition Western films into much more realistic depictions of the genre. So,yeah,it deserves its classic status and then someno doubt about that, because it still holds up well even now. -
henryonhillside — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 07:16 PM)
You're pretty much correct about "Butch" IMO. And most of the films in your "I wonder about them" list have indeed not aged well IMO, especially "The Graduate," which I find to be amazingly bad. That said, I must disagree with your opinion that "This (i.e., 1969) was when movies started going really bad." In fact the first half of the '70s was a golden age for film - "The Godfather" saga, "Chinatown," "Mean Steets," "Nashville," "Patton," etc. - all of which hold up beautifully.
-
rsgre — 9 years ago(October 13, 2016 03:46 PM)
Watched this again too on PBS after 40+ years. Still the goofy western I remember from years ago. A product of the times, the anti-establishment era, where the bad guys were the good guys. A tribute to star power, Newman & Redford hold the film together, and the director has a sure and steady hand in the proceedings. Between the lines is the fact that they are tragic characters doomed to end in a violent manner. Accept it as a goofy 60's product that may look a little strange today.
-
b5erik — 9 years ago(November 12, 2016 08:03 AM)
I cannot agree more with the original post.
Stealing from a catchphrase from the 80's - Where's the PLOT???
This movie was so disappointing to me when I saw it. It wasn't all that funny, wasn't all that exciting, didn't have a real plot/narrative, was all style over substance - I didn't enjoy it much.
As I've noted, it's not horribly bad, but it's not very good, either. It's no classic. It has two classic actors who have AMAZING chemistry, but that doesn't make a bad script, mediocre direction, and bad editing any better. It just keeps the movie from being a disaster. -
georgemartini — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 04:06 AM)
Man, this flick was a gas back then, but now it's kind of a bummer. I can dig what you're saying about those saddles looking plastic or maybe they were covered with Naugahyde for that authentic fake leather look. Even a classic western like The Magnificent Seven comes off as being a little corny now, but time keeps on slipping into the future.