….I thought this fell short of the greatness I expected.
Each to his own, but I see MC as a tremendous picture and tremendous character study. It's in the delivery and giving that makes this such a magnificent film for me.
As another poster has already mentioned, it is also great to see this film representing a fascinating era/milieu of the 20th century; the late 60's. The way the film is presented, I find it also has a modernistic feel about it too and could now be taken for a period piece. I find the same with Polanski's terrific
Rosemary's Baby
the previous year.
There is much to admire in both of these films and they have deservedly found themselves at the apex of quality cinema of all time. MC was an instant classic the moment it hit the screen.
Norman! What did you put in my tea?

I like it, I greatly admire Hoffman's performance, I like Voight, too, but I thought this fell short of the greatness I expected.

This message has been deleted.

Really didn't like this thread.

I thought the film was decent and I admired it's technical efforts, but my god I hated the character of Joe. Maybe it's because he's played by John Voight (whose acting really could've been better) or because he was a violent beep I don't know. But that was hard to get past for me.

Excellent analysis!
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

That's understandable if you had no emotional connection to the characters. But still, the movie had a lot to say. Sort of the naive optimism of young Joe Buck trying to make a name for himself on his own. The thin veneer of civilized society and how rather empty and meaningless it is for the people on the streets. One of the themes is to not judge a book by its cover (a timeless one). Ratso Rizzo is originally seen by Joe as a scheming, Jerk who's in it for himself, but is gradually revealed to be a sad, loveable guy dying of TB and living by himself in an abandoned building. Meanwhile, Joe's clients are seen as rich and successful at first, but turn out to be just a bunch of lonely, depressed shells inhabiting the city and willing to pay for cheap tricks. I guess the irony is that is what waits for you at the end of that life, and one of the character's recites this existential dilemma to Joe, "Isn't this all just taking advantage of lonely people?"
To be a hustler, there was clearly only darkness at the end of that path, and it was the "Miserable creature" Ratso that managed to save Joe from self-destruction. And Joe becomes a loving person to Ratso in his final hours. They both end up saving each other, and the sad part is that now Joe is back where he started, albeit in Florida and with a new lease on life. And so the question remains will he find happiness? The film is a grand analysis of the "American Dream", the shallowness of high society, and a realistic portrait of poverty and homelessness, in the same vein as a Steinbeck novel like "Of Mice and Men" or "Grapes of Wrath". But most of all, it is about the true value, the realism, of friendship.
~ There is nothing more pathetic than an aging hipster.

I found no emotional connection to these characters. This movie came across to me as one of those films that's just edgy, and bizarre in order to get a reaction. I mean, yes, Jon Voight's character's back story was sad, and I felt bad for both the miserable creatures, and the ending was sad, but the movie didn't have anything to say at all. It's like "look at these two pathetic folk and all the crazy beep they do and get into". I just couldn't enjoy it at all, still stumped it's so beloved.

there is plenty of "substance" in this film. If there wasn't substance than I wouldn't have cried at the end. It's about two grown men down in the dumps bonding together, what isn't substantial about that?
~ There is nothing more pathetic than an aging hipster.

I agree. It really didn't seem to have much of a plot. Good acting all round, but nothing of substance.

It's an interesting movie, in that, it's not "entertainment" but almost a marker as to where you are in life. A LOT of my acting friends love it because of the constant struggle these two have for trying to get their heads above water. I liked it when I was in college because I shared similar struggles and loneliness, only to grow up, watch it again recently and feltindifferent. I guess it's all when you see it in your life.

The site at Ruthless contains all of the above. No, the Midnight Cowboy review was straight up, many of the reviews are. Others are satire, contrarian and/or commentary on pop culture, high-profile individuals we love to hate, etc. It is up to the reader to get a feel for the site and come away with their own conclusion.
Again, thanks for taking the time to read some of the things at Ruthless. No one is wrong here, but Midnight Cowboy takes on so much more significance when analyzed thoroughly. AS I pointed out in my review, my first viewing was unimpressive. After taking the time to watch the uncut version and all the commentary I was shocked at how great it was.
As with a lot of things, your mileage may vary and even the great Roger Ebert gave this movie only 3 Stars.
Thanks for the conversation, I really have enjoyed it and will be glad to render my opinion on any subsequent questions you might have.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews

Actually I have a problem recognizing sarcasm. It is a social problem. I have difficulty determining intentions so honestly I did not know if the site was satire or not. Thank you for explaining. Question, if the site is meant to be provocative, does that include your Midnight Cowboy review? Is only part of the site supposed to be ruthless reviews?
As for the trolling, I don't understand why if someone posts a contrarian opinion, they instantly must be a troll? I posted in a thread where it was clear the posters didn't like the movie.
The game comment was meant to be a joke, your turn, my turn, etc. fell flat obviously.
I've concluded that I should watch this movie again. Maybe my expectations were too high. I watched Coming Home and was frankly shocked at how much I enjoyed the film. I expected the same from Midnight Cowboy and was quite surprised I didn't like it. So I came here to read more about the film and ask some questions and here we are.
I appreciate you took the time to engage in discourse with me!
I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred

Well, if you can't determine the purpose of our website after merely reading the name, "Ruthless Reviews" and superficially browsing and assimilating the content, I can't really help you. What is this "Thanks for Playing" dismissal anyway? I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a Troll, but I have may doubts after having read your assessments of some of my reviews.
I think you miss the mark, and badly.
*EDIT-Just an additional disclaimer. I don't want to sound defensive or ungrateful. I do appreciate you taking the time to read some of my reviews, I really do. I disagree and think that you have not grasped the "righteous hatred" so ingrained in our site, but at least you have gone to the mountain. As far as "A Christmas Carol" is concerned, ALL of my Christmas reviews are supposed to be contrarian, to elicit a response, sort of a professional trolling if you will. "It's a Wonderful Life" created a virtual beep on Youtube when I dared to negatively review this widely loved classic.
It's just what we do at Ruthless.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews

Your review prompted me to revisit the definition of "character study." It is defined as a work of fiction in which the delineation of the central character's personality is more important than the plot. You are right and I am wrong. This film fits that definition, because there basically is no plot. I was under the impression that a character study revealed more about the character involved.
Midnight Cowboy is a shallow examination of Joe Buck's personality. We are supposed to understand that he was sexually abused as a child through vague flashbacks. He is the embodiment of gentleness but then we see him attack the john and steal his money (out of character). I don't think he turned any corner, as he was a gentle, caring man the entire time. The biggest fault of this film is that it should really be about Joe Bucks dream to leave his terrible past behind and achieve wealth, success and admiration. Sadly, what we get is a jumbled, flashback laden attempt at "groundbreaking" filmmaking that misses its mark. The potential of what this could have been is heartbreaking. I truly believe that this film receives the accolades (that it doesn't deserve) because it touched on such shocking subjects (at the time) as prostitution, drug use, sexual abuse, homelessness, etc.
Quick OT, after I read your review on Midnight Cowboy, which IMO, was overall bit overblown and contained an immoderate emphasis on homosexuality as portrayed in the film, I thought I might read other reviews you had written to get a better sense of your viewpoint. Perhaps with a film or two I am more familiar with, I could see if we shared any common ground and better understand your POV. It proved more difficult than I first imagined. Anyone that pans It's A Wonderful Life (quote: "This wreck of a movie is the very embodiment of Americas gullibility and willingness to adopt sentimental hogwash, regardless of how unwatchable.") and writes a review of Miracle on 34th St that includes references to RealDolls and Fleshlights is not viewing these films in the proper context. My suspicions were confirmed when I read the review of A Christmas Carol (quote: "The message of this story is that it is okay to use the despicable practices of torture and terror to promote your religious agenda." OR "Typical breeders and deeply religious, the Cratchits are content to pump out their defective hellspawn despite their inability to adequately feed them.") I am not certain whether I was supposed to read your reviews as a (misguided) attempt at satire? What a disappointment.
Thanks for playing.
I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred

Again, if you really don't understand after reading my review and want explanations about any facet of the movie, let me know. I did a lot of research before I wrote, so I'm confident that I can answer pretty much anything you can ask.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews

No one says you have to like anything, I just disagree. As far as purchasing the DVD, I bought it at amazon for a whopping .57 + shipping, used but in perfect condition.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews

I think since I was not a fan of the film, I'll pass on purchasing the DVD just so I can watch the commentary and special features. Perhaps you'd like to share your copy with me? Lol
Again, RuthlessGoat, not sure what you expect to see when you click on a thread titled, "Really didn't like this film." Surely not rave reviews?
I will absolutely check out your review and post back. Thanks!
I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred

Ok, I'll complain as well :). Wow, I mean why don't you read my review and see why Joe Buck in Midnight Cowboy was the very embodiment of a character study. It would also be helpful if you read the book and/or watched the commentary and special features on the Collector's Edition DVD.
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/22307/midnight-cowboy/ <-Link to review.
Goat at Ruthless Reviews

Seems as though you are the only one complaining joe. I am not sure what you expected when you clicked on a thread titled, "Really didn't like this film."
I will reiterate that I don't feel I know anything about these characters. It seemed the director felt that 2 second flashbacks of what may or may not be pedophilia and a violent rape episode is supposed to be enough. Oh throw in there that he washed dishes at a diner. All those wasted scenes on the bus trip to NY.
As for Ratso, I totally disagree with you. There is nothing there, nothing about his life. We don't really see anything about him other than through his interaction with Buck. How did he become homeless? Why is he crippled? These are not extraordinary questions. We don't always need to know everything about a character. There are simple ways we could have gotten more of a sense about the Ratso. Then we have this elaborate 60's rave which is nothing but a vehicle for Buck to meet Shirley. Tsk.
There is just not enough here that feels true to me. I don't mean true as in real that this can actually happen. I am a great fan of science fiction and fantasy. But true as in, right, that yes, this what would follow. Granted I have not read the book the movie is based on, so perhaps it is not the directors/screenwriters fault. Have you read it, joe?
The last thing I wanted to touch on is Hoffman's portrayal. If all you are given is he's a homeless cripple with a dream of living in Florida, then it is your responsibility to answer the whys of the character. Usually with a novel as source material, that is not the case, but not having read it puts me at a disadvantage to properly debate the issue.
I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred

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.

"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

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?

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