Saw the movie when it came out in 1969.
-
thomaswilliamboner — 10 years ago(September 06, 2015 07:04 PM)
I see where you are coming from and understand about liking a movie as a kid/young adult and then not liking it as much.
I disagree with you on this movie though, I don't think it's the greatest western or movie ever but it's a damn good movie.
The pacing is fine in my opinion and the movie has soul. I actually end up rooting for them in the end and hoping they escape.
I will agree with the cheesy part, it does have that and could take itself more seriously. I believe the combination of Paul Newman and Redford makes up for any bad spots though. -
RugGuy — 10 years ago(January 07, 2016 09:32 AM)
I would say the movie suffers from being the template for the genre of buddy movies. Since it was made we have seen so many variations of the theme that the template looks plain and vanilla.
Also it is dated in the sense that when you watch you know it was made in the 60's. THE STING does not have that feel. It's still fresh.
Is BCATSK dated? Without a doubt. Is it still a great movie? Without a doubt.
But like many an old girlfriend , it may be better to reminisce that revisit. -
RobbieCalifornia — 10 years ago(February 09, 2016 10:45 AM)
I liked it fine, then and now. Not being the picky type, I wasn't bothered by the saddles or the music.
I'm gonna enjoy any movie where I can watch Paul Newman and the rest of the fine cast, in a good story.
The OP saw the same movie both times. His criticisms say more about his current state of mind than they say about the film. (I don't mean this in a nasty way.). Just my opinion. -
lexyladyjax — 10 years ago(March 30, 2016 11:03 AM)
The film is exactly as it was when you were a collage student. You are now nearly 50 years older. A static recording has not changed when what's really different is your own point of view. You've grown and matured nearly half a century since then. Do you have children, grandchildren? Some people get more conservative as they age. Have you done so? You're not very introspective or you would have figured out this before now.
Butch and Sundance were the archetype of the antiheroes. Yes, they robbed banks but there is no record that Butch Cassidy ever killed anyone. At a time when life was cheap, that was something of note.
Have you ever been depressed? One person out of five in the USA has a mental illness. It could be.am undiagnosed illness. There's no shame in that. Maybe you were having a bad day? I just learned it was.being shown on the big screen in January. I wish I'd known. I regret I missed seeing that.
Oh, I nearly forgot to mention: I have a 55 inch HD screen LGTV. I perused my BCATSK HD DVD, but I cannot see any plastic saddles. In which scenes did you see them? All I saw were saddles made of honest leather. There were one or two highly oiled and shiny that looked brand new. A new saddle, a brand new one, sort of looks like vinyl. A freshly oiled saddle is very shiny. I noticed two new saddles hanging on racks for sale, was that it?
Great white sharks are attracted to death metal music. -
JohnMcClane88 — 9 years ago(July 02, 2016 05:44 AM)
I first seen Butch and Sundance when it was re-released in 1976 at the Drive-In and I thought it was AWESOME!
I have seen it dozens of times since and just bought it on DVD this week because I still think is AWESOME!
For me, like wine it gets better with time. -
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.