Really didn't like this film.
-
RuthlessGoat — 11 years ago(April 28, 2014 06:48 PM)
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 -
statuskuo — 11 years ago(September 19, 2014 06:11 AM)
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.
-
degree7 — 11 years ago(October 31, 2014 01:34 AM)
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. -
getyerownpizza — 11 years ago(October 31, 2014 01:54 PM)
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.
-
degree7 — 11 years ago(October 31, 2014 05:26 PM)
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. -
alexferguson86 — 11 years ago(November 16, 2014 11:23 PM)
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.
-
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(March 25, 2022 12:26 PM)
….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?