Medium Cool-Underrated?
-
cls_y2k — 21 years ago(June 06, 2004 08:25 AM)
Yeah I totally agree that this is an under-rated movie I watched it and the documentary of the making of the film and it was so well made that it made me think about how the media still potrays stories in the same black and white context today.
Paramount wanted to stop this movie from being released dont know why suppose it was just the politics at the time great movie 4/5! -
Verdoux-1 — 20 years ago(August 04, 2005 09:12 AM)
I totally agree that this film is vastly underrated. The cinematography is amazing, especially the last few scenes with the cuts between the trees and car windows.
I've noticed that the story takes on a very ambiguous tone - especially with black issues, violence in the media, and so forth. I think people tend to want things that are more clear cut, this film forces you to consider certain opposing points - leading to you to a possible ideal of what the filmmaker is trying to say.
Yes, I agree that the cinematography is great, but the story just sort of floats, it doesn't go anywhere. To me it seemed that the movie was full of random scenes that didnt contribute to the story very much.
By them selves, the scenes were good, but put them together and you have one boring movie.
"I believe you are in league with the butcher" -
jeffoneonone — 20 years ago(March 11, 2006 11:17 AM)
"Yes, I agree that the cinematography is great, but the story just sort of floats, it doesn't go anywhere. To me it seemed that the movie was full of random scenes that didnt contribute to the story very much.
By them selves, the scenes were good, but put them together and you have one boring movie."
The movie is experimental probably one of the first American films to use the kind of non-linear storytelling more associated with European filmmakers. Give it another chance maybe looking at it from that perspective will improve your opinion of the film. -
summerisle — 17 years ago(June 01, 2008 07:23 AM)
jeffoneonone: "The movie is experimental probably one of the first American films to use the kind of non-linear storytelling more associated with European filmmakers. Give it another chance maybe looking at it from that perspective will improve your opinion of the film."
Definately. I saw it for the first time, yesterday (on the big screen) and it absolutely has this "Cinma vrit" quality, even more than Cassavetes films. In fact I would say it's the most Godardian US film, I've ever seen. And I absolutely love those quirky characters created by the great Marianna Hill. -
Greaserdemon — 21 years ago(January 20, 2005 10:32 AM)
Medium Cool - an under apprediated film. It was this film along with others (but this was one of the first) that rearranged and explored how films could be made differently, giving more credit to the audience without explaining every little detail and letting the audience make their own conclusions. Combining real and fictional, it is a powerful film.
-
k-lao — 20 years ago(August 07, 2005 12:25 AM)
I'm not sure if I liked any of the characters. Maybe the colored cleaning lady at the hotel whom the soundguy acts sleazy towards.
I don't think its underrated, its just not a film for the majority; its important to those who care about the subject matter. It's still a well=made powerful film despite its detractions. -
mjscarface — 20 years ago(February 27, 2006 07:57 AM)
I saw it today at uni and I thought it went in the wrong direction - instead of spending time on the politics (which could have potentially been very interesting) it just carried on with the dull-as-hell love story.
As ppl have said, the editing kinda got a bit annoying aswell. Frustrating. -
trpalzang — 18 years ago(July 31, 2007 10:16 AM)
I loved this movie when it came out, and I still consider it one of my all-time favorites. Yeah, it's different from your standard cookie-cutter Hollywood garbage. That's a good thing, imho. While it seems to be free form and disconnected, in reality nothing in the story is disconnected from anything else in the story. And the fact that the riot scenes weren't staged but real make it unique. A powerful film for anyone who likes to actually think.
-
win200 — 19 years ago(June 19, 2006 12:04 AM)
This is probably one of the most OVER-rated films I've ever seen. I have no problem with slow films or challenging films, so long as there is some attempt to be comprehensible and pragmatic. Every time I see someone praising this film, they unfailingly have to bend over backwards to make excuses for the film's abysmal editing, horrendous logic gaps, and coy, self-indulgent direction. Roger Ebert praised the film for having the confidence in the audience's intelligence to skip B when going from point A to point C; that's fine, but this movie goes from about point A to point W, omitting everything in between. I'm sorry, I'm simply not THAT smart. And the actors are terribly directed, forced to give line readings that simply make no sense given the context. And I'm sorry I know the convention riot footage is the centerpiece of the film, but stringing together some flimsy reason for the "heroine" to wonder around the riots googly-eyed for fifteen minutes simply to have a reason to shoehorn the footage into the film actually BELITTLES my intelligence.
And finally, inept films are common but inept films convinced they're TELLING you something are uniquely obnoxious. This movie rubs your nose in its importance like you're a dog having your face shoved near the mess you made on the carpet while someone shouts "NO!" in order to make sure you never do it again. -
mobocracy — 17 years ago(September 14, 2008 11:45 AM)
I'd have to agree that it is overrated.
I seem to remember liking it the first time I saw it in the late 80s. My most recent viewing found it merely self-indulgent, with the '68 riot footage something of an out of context curiosity.
I think the only reason it retains cachet is the footage of Chicago '68. If the riot footage had been staged or from some insignificant event (drunken students, sports revelry, etc), I think this movie would just be considered an experimental curiosity best ignored except by film school die-hards.
Certainly the dull, almost incomprehensible narrative and occasionally headache inducing handheld footage isn't what people are watching it for. -
Tenma09 — 17 years ago(March 14, 2009 10:19 PM)
Yes indeed, I agree. this film is amazing and so underrated. paramount at first delayed the issuing of the movie cuz its controversial but now I think it has passed the time, at least literally. it should have like a 40 year collector's version or something in this year 2009, i think thatd be cool.
-
pbertovich05 — 14 years ago(January 25, 2012 08:17 PM)
Bump
saw it in class. I think it was an okay film looking back but it def had some flaws. The story didn't really go anywhere until near the end of the film and the editing and camera work could throw people off.
I didn't like the ending either. -
glenstff — 12 years ago(May 22, 2013 05:13 PM)
Glenstff
I love this film a hard hitting attack on the media and how violent, 1969 was. This film was originally rated X. So many film goers did not see it. Either they were too young or if they were older the X rating drove them away. Back them rated X meant the film was porno based. A must see Film. Loved itand YES IT IS UNDERRATED. -
kenny-164 — 9 years ago(July 27, 2016 08:17 AM)
I have a hard time rating this film, but do think the current IMDb rating is too low. So in that I agree with the OP.
The film deserves credit in several respects. First count me among those who admire its differences from a standard film, and related way in which it took chances. The editing was part of this, and on first viewing you are challenged by the film's sequencing, yet soon see how well it all fits together despite its non-standard approach. Its uniqueness is also of course tied to the way it incorporates not only "real" footage but its mix of trained and untrained actors. In that respect it seems very much influenced, in a good way, by French new wave films, especially Jean Luc Godard.
I also thought the cast was great, especially Robert Forster, Vera Bloom and Marianna Hill. And the kid playing the son was great as an untrained actor. A small part like the young black fellow who is shown directly facing the camera (from John's perspective) was awesomely played. And perhaps best of all was how the gritty and of the moment portrayal of the times in which it was set seem to hold up so well today.
But there were some issues.
A small one I found personally jarring was the otherwise well played scene in the dance club. I take it the filmmakers had a relationship with the Mothers of Invention, who contributed several other pieces to the film. But was the choice of the song about "where plastic hippies meet" was either a mistake or what seemed to me like an intended ironic comment that was inappropriate.
The ending I thought worked in and of itself, but I am not sure how it ties into any point about the overall film itself. On one hand the randomness of it makes its own point. But films that are about stories have already chosen to focus on a narrative that is about one or more people has already by definition limited itself to a way of looking at the world that is NOT random. This did not seem to me to be about randomness per se, or even how characters searching for meaning might hit a dead end as it were before they continued their search. I suppose one could see the end as an open one, and be left to ponder what might happen to the characters after the end. But what does that have to do with the main themes and subject of the film? I am not sure.
In the end I gave it a 9, though, which is very good to excellent. But to be clear that was more in spite of the concerns I had than to say they were not enough to take it down in rating it. In other words if it were not for the film's getting credit for being creative and inventive for its time, I probably would have lowered it to an 8. -
lukejbarnett — 4 years ago(July 03, 2021 10:55 PM)
it's underrated bc it hasn't been talked about as a great film anywhere near enough. it is a powerful film and it has a lot to say about philosophy, gender roles, race issues.
very few films have as much artistic and political ambition and bravery as this film.
but unfortunately it often feels like you're watching the news and so its boring. and if i want to watch the news then i will watch the news i'd much rather watch a movie than watch the news and this movie often feels like a news story on tv which is wrong. a movie should be a movie.
lukejbarnett