Really didn't like this film.
-
tthomaslew76-234-269609 — 10 years ago(December 04, 2015 03:54 PM)
Threads like this make me wonder if some of the people who start them like film, understand film/direction/acting. B/c clearly no one with a knowledge of film and acting can say that this film is boring.
Even if you hate gays, Hoffman and Voight, and John Schlesinger, just seeing a 1960s New York City is interesting enough in itself to captivate an audience.
Oh,well can't please everybody I guess! -
sukhideol — 12 years ago(February 27, 2014 02:09 PM)
Just watched this movie for the first time and thought it was really good. I have to admit watching older movies is so much easier to watch. If find it very off putting when homeless or very poor characters have perfect straight white teeth, perfectly groomed eyebrows and coiffed hair. It was so much easier to immerse myself in these characters and their hardships.
-
Singingorilla — 11 years ago(April 18, 2014 11:48 AM)
I have to agree. I watched it last night for the first time. I wanted to see it because A) its reputation and B) I recently saw Coming Home and was stunned by Jon Voight. He was amazing in Coming Home and I had already seen Deliverance. I have no issues with "avant garde" films but imo this film did not deserve Best Picture. It was choppy and sloppy. I felt that everything (including the characters) were purposefully outrageous merely for shock value. It's a shame because it could've been a great character study.
I realize I'm in the minority here.
I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred -
Singingorilla — 11 years ago(April 21, 2014 09:12 AM)
How am I supposed to surmise anything about Rizzo besides the fact he is crippled and homeless? It's a totally flat character and I find it amazing the Hoffman was even nominated for this role.
I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred -
Singingorilla — 11 years ago(April 21, 2014 11:52 AM)
Lol. I understand my opinion is in the minority, but perhaps instead of just sarcasm, you would be interested in sharing why you believe differently. I am always interested in other's opinions.
And in defense of my opinion, he was nominated but didn't win, did he? Admittedly however, many times the Oscars are more about Hollywood politics than anything else.
I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred -
joependleton78 — 11 years ago(April 21, 2014 07:43 PM)
How am I supposed to surmise anything about Rizzo besides the fact he is crippled and homeless? It's a totally flat character and I find it amazing the Hoffman was even nominated for this role.
Because your trollish comment really doesn't deserve anything but sarcasm, if even that. But since you asked, I'll try to dignify it with a better response. I disagree that all Ratso amounted to was a cripple and a homeless person. He was a real person with dreams and fears. There was a vulnerability to both characters and with Ratso, what started out as a selfish, only out for himself loser, ended up as someone who could actually care about and for someone. There is an intelligence and wisdom to Ratso that is, on the surface, absent in Joe Buck. I could go on, but really, what's the point? You're mind is obviously made up.
As for your argument about Hoffman not winning as if that somehow proves your point, you have to remember that since both performances were regarded as phenomenal at the time (and still nowget over it) that they probably cancelled each other out. Add to that the fact that John Wayne was the huge sentimental favorite that year.
How old are you btw? -
Singingorilla — 11 years ago(April 21, 2014 09:38 PM)
"I have to agree. I watched it last night for the first time. I wanted to see it because A) its reputation and B) I recently saw Coming Home and was stunned by Jon Voight. He was amazing in Coming Home and I had already seen Deliverance. I have no issues with "avant garde" films but imo this film did not deserve Best Picture. It was choppy and sloppy. I felt that everything (including the characters) were purposefully outrageous merely for shock value. It's a shame because it could've been a great character study.
I realize I'm in the minority here."
Above was my original comment, which I don't feel was trollish at all. Then I responded to your comment about the character study. Still not trolling.
You are obviously passionate about the film, but your ability to present your case is lacking. You seem more interested in disparaging others for their opinions. I clearly stated I was interested in hearing your opinion. I still am actually, but frankly have no interest in a halfhearted contretemps.
I didn't say Hoffman losing proved my point, I said it supported my argument. I should have been clearer.
I am 45, 46 in June. How old are you?
I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred -
joependleton78 — 11 years ago(April 21, 2014 10:57 PM)
I'm pretty sure I explained what I thought about the character of Ratso. Hoffman delivered that performance beautifully. His performance has been honored and studied for the past 45 years. I think the burden really is on you to explain why it's such a bad performance. So yeah, when you bash a performance like that, it's going to come off as trollish. Understood?
And the Hoffman losing thing doesn't support your argument either. I explained that as well. Support, prove. Same beep
I'm exactly a year older.