Overrated movies

[klingsor]

Caught "You Can't Take It with You" (1938)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030993/

the other night (actually early AM) and was reminded just how much I dislike Capra.

Maybe they're good films but most of 'em make me wanna... nevermind.

[dirac]

Caught "You Can't Take It with You" (1938)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030993/

the other night (actually early AM) and was reminded just how much I dislike Capra.

Maybe they're good films but most of 'em make me wanna... nevermind.

I always think of Pauline Kael's crack, "No one else can handle the ups and downs of wistful sentiment and corny humor the way Capra can, but if anyone should learn to, kill him." (From memory, could be a word or two off.) I actually think he did okay with it until Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. ("You Can't Take It with You" was a Kaufman and Hart play first, so Capra and Robert Riskin -- his screenwriter, a crucial figure) aren't totally responsible. Some of his very early movies, like The Bitter Tea of General Yen, are really interesting.

[klingsor]

Caught "You Can't Take It with You" (1938)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030993/

the other night (actually early AM) and was reminded just how much I dislike Capra.

Maybe they're good films but most of 'em make me wanna... nevermind.

I always think of Pauline Kael's crack, "No one else can handle the ups and downs of wistful sentiment and corny humor the way Capra can, but if anyone should learn to, kill him." (From memory, could be a word or two off.) I actually think he did okay with it until Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. ("You Can't Take It with You" was a Kaufman and Hart play first, so Capra and Robert Riskin -- his screenwriter, a crucial figure) aren't totally responsible. Some of his very early movies, like The Bitter Tea of General Yen, are really interesting.

Thank you so much for the quote.

I've heard it before but totally forgot it.

[papeetepatrick]

'Wuthering Heights', as per my paragraphs under the 'What are you reading?' thread. This is probably to me the most overrated of all those considered classics--many Oscar nominations including for picture and actor. It follows the story faithfully, whacks it off in half, leaves out several of the most crucial characters; and has none of the desolate spirit, brutal and even morbid (Heathcliff digs up Cathy's grave after 15 years or so, claims 'she still has her face') of the amazing book. Plus Olivier does Heathcliff very little differently from Darcy in 'Pride and Prejudice'. And even though the part of the story that is told is very faithful, it's boring because there is no atmosphere of fearsome landscape except for the big snow at the beginning; and the balls at the Lintons look like something out of Bette Davis's 'Jezebel' or Garbo's 'Anna Karenina'.

Going to ask here as well: How does the POB piece treat the story? Is it like the movie, just a doomed-love-story about Heathcliff and Cathy? That might make sense as a ballet (while it was just weak as a movie)--even if only because the movie already gets us used to this truncation, which falsifies Bronte, but could also seem more natural an excision for a ballet than a film adaptation of a book.

I don't like 'You Can't Take it With You' either. It's like early-hippie, flower-child-commune stuff, with Ann Miller being 'creative' dancing in the house, I think that's what it was.

[Azulynn]

Papeetepatrick, the POB piece would be closer to the book I think. It features most secondary characters (Edgar, Isabelle, Hindley, Nelly, Joseph and both children : "Cathy" and Linton), and some of them have received first-rate performances over the years - Jean-Guillaume Bart retired last year as Edgar, and Wilfried Romoli used to dance Hindley. The ballet is quite dark overall, and the story flows rather well, although the design is a minimalist one. One of the most interesting twists is the reference to romantic ballet in the second half, when Catherine comes back as a ghost and is surrounded by the female corps de ballet in modern white dresses, playing tormented spirits.

[papeetepatrick]

Azulynn--thanks so much. I had looked up an old thread which was not so clear about this, but was also useful about a few other aspects. And while I would have found a truncated story somewhat more acceptable in a ballet, than a film which starts by being a faithful translation of a novel, then whacks itself in half without warning--this makes the ballet more magnetic than ever, now that you have been explicit that the daughter Cathy and 'little Linton' are also in it. I simply loved the few clips I saw of the ballet, and haven't been able to get it out of my mind since. Your report makes it only the more upsetting that I don't know when I can get back to Paris (and time my visit for seeing this), and that it is not yet a commercial DVD although have been televised in France, as we discussed a few months back. Yours and other reports (as well as the clips) make me think this must be a masterpiece, and the 'dark overall' quality is what is needed--even the Lintons would have been just genteel country English, and provincial, they were not sophisticated urban people. This is the kind of work that gives the most hope: I don't see how it could be carried off in this anti-romantic era, and yet it was. And someone had also mentioned those plastic flowers in the set that would pop right back up after rolling around in them. I believe some of those were in the clip I saw--minimalist, but really enchanting, and the ballerina so supple that someone I showed it to who works in animation was even reminded of animation in the free looseness as she was being swung around--magical, without needing a million 'special effects' to make itself marketable.

[dirac]

It’s not Emily Bronte, but a Wuthering Heights that was true to her bleak vision wouldn’t have been possible in 1939 Hollywood. I didn’t care for it when I first saw it years ago because I had just read the book, but over time I began to like the movie for its own sake. Many adaptations have cut off the story after the death of the first Catherine simply for the sake of time – if you try to work both stories into a two hour feature then both of them get short shrift. The producer, Samuel Goldwyn, saw the story primarily as a vehicle for his big lady star, Merle Oberon, and the final product reflects his priority.

Wyler’s direction is fine and it’s a good screenplay, although I can’t stomach the ghosts of Cathy and Heathcliff at the end. Oberon looks lovely in her ballgowns but is otherwise a bad mistake as Cathy and her deathbed scene is better left unmentioned. Olivier had wanted his then little known lady friend, Vivien Leigh, in the role. Wyler offered her Isabella instead and she turned it down, wisely if not shrewdly – she was completely unsuited to Isabella, whereas she might have made a fine Cathy.

Olivier back then wasn’t yet Olivier – he always credited the director, William Wyler, with showing him how to act in front of the camera, so in a sense we’re still looking at apprentice work, and given that consideration he’s darn good. His big dark eyes with their melancholy regard aren’t those of Heathcliff – you know Olivier isn’t going to hurt anybody –but he has passion, and his rejection of Isabella (played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, a remarkable performance, true to the character and to Bronte) was cold enough for this viewer. Had the movie been made at, say, Fox, we probably would have had Tyrone Power as Heathcliff. Power wouldn't have been awful, exactly -- I can't think offhand of another young male star of the era who would have been better suited to Heathcliff, in fact -- but in the context of the time Olivier was a solid choice.

Darcy a year later is a far more polished performance – he was learning fast.

And even though the part of the story that is told is very faithful, it's boring because there is no atmosphere of fearsome landscape except for the big snow at the beginning;

Well, they tried, growing heather in a back lot for accuracy. Unfortunately, they didn’t count on the California sun, which grew the heather to cornlike proportions, and Olivier and Oberon practically had to use machetes to get through it.

[papeetepatrick]

Going through old posts that always get revived, I recall I said I hated all of Woody Allen, but I recently remembered there's one I admire, partially for what he does with it, even though I'd never have watched it unless I was a huge Gena Rowlands fan--that being 'Another Woman'. Also with Mia Farrow.. A blogger recently said she thought this an 'anti-woman' movie, and it does seem so in that Farrow's dizzy character with the babies is seemingly allowed to prevail in her judgment that Rowlands's successful like, which includes a secret abortion, is empty. It's a very arcane sort of film, dated and exotic but still worthwhile--a writer (Rowlands) rents an apartment in lower Manhattan and hears Farrow's psychiatric sessions through an AC vent.

I've heard very few people ever mention this film. So even if I think most of Woody Allen's more famous films are overrated, I don't think this one is. OTOH, I don't know if this one is considered 'underrated', so I wrote it up under the auspices of my previous assessment of his general overratedness.

[GoCoyote!]

I don't post very often but after reading this revived thread I really wanted to share some fascinating film analysis of Kubrick's films I came across recently on youtube by Rob Ager. Especially for anyone who finds his films overrated. He has posted videos analyzing 2001, The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut (all mentioned a few pages back) as well as others like Hitchcock's The Birds, The Matrix etc. All extremely well thought out and presented in my opinion.

Kubrick's films are particularly fascinating because (it would appear) he made them so subliminal/ multi layered/ symbolic.

Just search youtube for 'Rob Ager The Shining' (or whatever film).

I'm not sure if 'Vanilla Sky' was highly rated or not when it was released but I'm glad no one has mentioned it so far. I've just been defending this film with friends who say it is a typical laboured Cruise-fest .... and in many ways it is! But I think it is a genuinely remarkable and very moving film - far more than it 'should' be.

Lastly - The Godfather, my feelings about that trilogy are exactly the same as those of Peter Griffen! (Family Guy). There is hilarious sketch where the family are all about to drown and in their last moments together he confesses to not ever having rated the film.

Quote: '.....It insists upon itself'.

[dirac]

Lastly - The Godfather, my feelings about that trilogy are exactly the same as those of Peter Griffen! (Family Guy). There is hilarious sketch where the family are all about to drown and in their last moments together he confesses to not ever having rated the film.

Thanks for posting, GoCoyote. I’ll check out the Ager links when I have a chance. I admire Kubrick, although mostly from a distance. I’m one who doesn’t think the first two Godfather movies are overrated, though. They’re not perfect but I find them endlessly rewatchable for some reason, perhaps because I grew up with them. I didn’t much care for the first Godfather film when I was younger but it’s one of those pictures that got better as I got older. (Diane Keaton really sucks in both of them, though.)

I don’t think ‘Another Woman’ really registered on the radar screens of anyone who wasn’t an Allen fanatic, Patrick, so you can probably call it underrated. I did see it when it was first released and and my extremely vague recollection is of one of those middle period Allen movies with a stunning cast of A-list actors where everyone stands around listening to classical music in rooms with nice furniture while wearing tastefully color-coordinated Jeffrey Kurland separates. Perhaps I should check it out again.

About Allen's oeuvre in general I have mixed feelings. He's no Bergman but to his credit he knows that, and he has had a remarkable career - it's very tough in the American film industry to do exactly what you like with exactly whom you like, and for many years Allen succeeded in doing that. He gets maybe too much love from the Richard Schickels of the world, but I'd not call him overrated. He's accomplished a great deal.

(Thanks for reviving this thread, BTW.)

[Helene]

I think that given the reviews and build-up of the new Star Trek movie, it could go into the "overrated" pile, but I thought there was enough to love in it to make it worthwhile seeing. I was particularly impressed with Zachary Quinto's young Spock, which I found to be a remarkably subtle, gentle characterization, apart from the occasional fisticuffs.

I can't remember where I read this, but one reviewer noted that the father/son thing with young Kirk was "Star Wars" territory, and said it was like getting a Communion wafer in synagogue. I agree with this and am glad someone articulated what I couldn't quite put my finger on.

[papeetepatrick]

and my extremely vague recollection is of one of those middle period Allen movies with a stunning cast of A-list actors where everyone stands around listening to classical music in rooms with nice furniture while wearing tastefully color-coordinated Jeffrey Kurland separates. Perhaps I should check it out again.

Yes, you do need to . That description is closer to 'Interiors', which it resembles in some ways, but is much more subtle without such things as that absurd contrast between Page and Stapleton, which is so crude. It really is very interesting the way these two women--Rowlands and Farrow--pick up on each other's lives, become aware of the other. It's the kind of thing few would have thought of even approaching, a bit like the 60s 'Bye Bye Braverman'. Even at the time, reviewers who didn't like it all that much, did say 'well, it's not we're going to get another movie about New York Jewish intellectuals'. I remember liking George Segal in that, but it never went to commercial video, so I haven't been able to see 'Bye Bye Braverman' a second time, and I would like to. Rowlands uses her strong jaw stunningly when the father of the child she had aborted becomes enraged when he finds out. I forget if that is her husband, or whether this other, more wimpy type is the husband--yes, you have the hardest time figuring out why Rowlands even cares--these wimps seem to populate Allen's movies a bit too much for my taste. I guess they're authentic, I've certainly seen enough of those smug and bland types around New York through the years--esp. ridiculous when they think they are some kind of Lothario. I do remember that Mary Beth Hurt somehow made 'interiors' worth seeing, and sorry we haven't seen more of her. I remember Diane Keaton is in it, being tearful and disgusting, almost like the 'Miiii-chael' in 'Godfather' we talked about. Some people like 'INteriors', if so., I'd say it was very overrated (remembering Penelope Gilliatt's rave review when it opened), and would definitely say 'Another Woman' is underrated, but I'm not sure I can judge, because I might not have cared had it been Another Actress than Gena.

[cubanmiamiboy]

'Wuthering Heights', as per my paragraphs under the 'What are you reading?' thread. This is probably to me the most overrated of all those considered classics--many Oscar nominations including for picture and actor. It follows the story faithfully, whacks it off in half, leaves out several of the most crucial characters; and has none of the desolate spirit, brutal and even morbid (Heathcliff digs up Cathy's grave after 15 years or so, claims 'she still has her face') of the amazing book. Plus Olivier does Heathcliff very little differently from Darcy in 'Pride and Prejudice'. And even though the part of the story that is told is very faithful, it's boring because there is no atmosphere of fearsome landscape except for the big snow at the beginning; and the balls at the Lintons look like something out of Bette Davis's 'Jezebel' or Garbo's 'Anna Karenina'.

Patrick...this is so interesting. Wuthering Heights was THE book that marked the beggining of my adult readings, back when I was 12 or 13. It hunted me for years, and I often went back to re-read some of my favorite parts. I have never seen any WH movie, and the other day I was digging a bit the net searching for one. Is the one you're refering to here the only one...?

[papeetepatrick]

http://www.imdb.com/find?s=tt&q=wuther...mp;x=17&y=9

Well, here's a list of productions over the years at IMDb, which I was pretty sure there'd be, English TV things and the lot, probably. I think if you love the book, you'll hate the old 'classic movie', I consider it a travesty, plus think they were doing fine film versions of novels even back then, not only 'GWTW', but Pride and Prejudice, Rebecca, Anna Karenina (Garbo version only IMO), and How Green Was My Valley (a little later I guess for that one.) Maybe someone else will have a recommendation for some of the other versions, I just haven't seen any of them. Anyway, I consider this to be Olivier's worst movie, easily.

[dirac]

I love the book and I like the 1939 version of Wuthering Heights for its own sake and for the reasons mentioned above. Despite its flaws it has not been supplanted by any other film version, even those more faithful to the original story line (the 1939 film more or less ends with the death of Cathy, moves up the timing of the death of Heathcliff, and omits the next generation altogether, for reasons of length no doubt).

I did see a Masterpiece Theatre version recently that wasn’t bad.

[sandik]

I think that given the reviews and build-up of the new Star Trek movie,

...

I can't remember where I read this, but one reviewer noted that the father/son thing with young Kirk was "Star Wars" territory, and said it was like getting a Communion wafer in synagogue. I agree with this and am glad someone articulated what I couldn't quite put my finger on.

Oh ouch! I haven't seen it yet, but everyone I've spoken with who has liked it. But I will certainly circulate this comment, for the twinge factor if nothing else!

[dirac]

I think it's fair to say that all successful summer blockbusters are overrated these days. It used to be they didn't get enough serious appraisal and these days they get rather too much. One summer everyone is hailing the latest pop masterpiece and in a year or two the next one comes along. Fond as I am of the old Star Trek, this year I placed a personal moratorium on going to see pictures based on old teevee shows or comic books, so I won't see it any time soon.

I would say the original "Star Wars" is overrated. It also had the baneful long term effect of causing Hollywood to come down with the blockbuster-itis that afflicts the industry to this day. ("Jaws" is also responsible, but at least it was a better movie.)

Rowlands uses her strong jaw stunningly when the father of the child she had aborted becomes enraged when he finds out.

I think that was Gene Hackman, wasn't it? Actors like Rowlands and Hackman can put anything over, even Woody at his most mannered. I'll have to see the movie again.

I'm not sure if 'Vanilla Sky' was highly rated or not when it was released but I'm glad no one has mentioned it so far. I've just been defending this film with friends who say it is a typical laboured Cruise-fest .... and in many ways it is! But I think it is a genuinely remarkable and very moving film - far more than it 'should' be.

I think Vanilla Sky got a very mixed reception, GoCoyote. I can't say I loved it but it was an honorable effort by Crowe and Cruise, I thought.