MovieChat Forums > The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) Discussion > This is the worst movie I've seen in man...

This is the worst movie I've seen in many years.


I can't believe anyone likes this. All the characters hold a single facial expresssion thoughout, except Agnes Moorehead eventually manages three. There wasn't a single exchange of dialog that looked or sounded real. Each person just gives his lines while the others stand locked in position, counting lines until it's their turn, like a community theater rehearsal.

And the story is so vapid. Not a tragedy at all, since nobody in the family changes. Not enough story for a melodrama, and would have lost nothing being condensed into a half hour.

Even if the "lost ending" had been grand, which I doubt, it came after everyone in the audience had snuck out.

reply

I agree, I have no idea how this is a 7.9, my attention span had a hard time keeping up with this film, I am pretty sure I had no idea what I was even watching through 90% of it

reply

Watch Transformers. Your attention span will thank you.

reply

I just read the novel and I don't think it was the acting, I think it was the editing. There are whole chapters throughout edited out. In the novel I cared about the characters, the film: I didn't care one thing because you don't get to know anyone and the first 30 minutes of the film takes place during almost half the novel.

I guess if this was about some dude picking his nose it'd be excellent because Orson Welles name was slapped on it but then he was left out of the editing process entirely.

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

reply

nammage says > I just read the novel and I don't think it was the acting, I think it was the editing. There are whole chapters throughout edited out. In the novel I cared about the characters, the film: I didn't care one thing because you don't get to know anyone and the first 30 minutes of the film takes place during almost half the novel.
I've never read the novel. I liked the movie a lot when I originally saw it. That was almost two years ago and I've seen a whole lot of movies in the interim so I'd pretty much forgotten it. I just watched it again and love it even more now than I did before.

It's a really good movie with a great message. It's kind of odd how it wasn't appreciated when it was originally released and all these years later some people still don't appreciate it. To each his own!

I guess if this was about some dude picking his nose it'd be excellent because Orson Welles name was slapped on it but then he was left out of the editing process entirely.
Welles' involvement is not the reason I like the movie. I've seen Citizen Kane and even though I do see similarities between the two movies I like one but not the other. There are other Welles' films I like but, like this one, he's disavowed many of them. They start with his vision but often others step in and things get changed. Does that make me a Welles fan? I don't really know.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

I watched half the movie first and my mind wandered. I wasn't sure I was watching an Orson Welles film. I stopped it. Read some reviews and articles on it then I read the novel. I could tell when watching it after reading the novel, it was almost literally the first 15 chapters squeezed into the first 30 or so minutes.

The film does not do the character of Lucy justice, and she's an important part of the story. An integral part of the story. A lot of the emotions George conveys is based on the character of Lucy.

I understand that sometimes one has to overlap certain scenes in a film from an adaptation of a book but there is no excuse in a 35 chapter book to squeeze 15 chapters into 30 minutes. To do that, and I don't believe Welles intended that (I don't know for sure), is to take away the essence of a story.

The film was poorly edited. The ending Welles intended would have been a travesty as well because the ending that the film has is more in line with how the novel ended.

-Nam


I am on the road less traveled...

reply

nammage says > The film does not do the character of Lucy justice, and she's an important part of the story. An integral part of the story. A lot of the emotions George conveys is based on the character of Lucy.
This happens because there just isn't sufficient time in a movie to include that much detail. Welles apparently tried in his version to include more than what we see in this version but the movie was deemed too long. The country was at war and audiences didn't want to sit through this kind of movie. It didn't test well.

Anyway, I think Mary does play an important role in the movie even though she's not in a lot of scenes. I felt I had enough to understand the message. Are you saying the story had a different point in the book that wasn't in the movie?

It's not like the book and movie have to be the same but you seem to enjoy one and not the other. It could be that some people need more to explain the story than others. I find that often when I'm telling various people a story. With some I can use shorthand but with others I have to explain every detail lest they get confused and left behind.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

Lucy not Mary. Who the hell's Mary?

It's 1h 28m long. That's not enough time for nothing. And it was too long? "All Through the Night" starring Humphrey Bogart came out the same year, it is 1h 47m long. "Captains of the Clouds" starring James Cagney 1h 54m long. One of the most famous films of all time "Casablanca" 1h 42m long. Another big movie that year was "Mrs. Miniver" starring Walter Pidgeon and Greer Garson and it was 2h 13m long. "Pride of the Yankees" came out that year. It's 2h 8m long. I could go on. 88 minutes isn't long enough to tell this story. I'm not suggesting people were willing to sit through 3-4 hours but the original edit was only 2h 28m long. That was too long? Really? They could sit through "Mrs. Miniver" for 2h 13m but just couldn't do it for the extra 10+m for this film?

Please...

It's not like the book and movie have to be the same but you seem to enjoy one and not the other.


Actually I tend to separate the two but BEFORE I read the novel the movie seemed rushed. It's like the film "The Big Red One", if you haven't seen it, I recommend it. I enjoyed the theatrical version but it felt too short at 1h 43m. Like they edited out entire scenes that made some parts not make much sense. Then the Director's Cut came along at 2h 42m and it made more sense. I guess they just didn't think audiences would sit through that long of a film, right?

Ever seen "Reds"? That's 3h 15m long and audiences had no problem with that. If it's good: I don't think people care the length of the film. No matter what's going on in the world.

-Nam


I am on the road less traveled...

reply

88 minutes isn't long enough to tell this story. I'm not suggesting people were willing to sit through 3-4 hours but the original edit was only 2h 28m long.

IMDb's running time info is misleading. If there actually was a version that ran 148 minutes, (2 hours, 28 minutes), it would have been a rough assembly put together at the beginning of February, 1942 just before Welles left for Brazil. Welles never intended this to be anything more than an assembly of every scene that had been shot. He worked with editor Robert Wise via telegrams and phone calls throughout February and early March to bring the film down to a relatively polished 131 minutes (2 hours, 11 minutes) - and by "polished", I mean the film now had credits, optical effects and a music score completed. However, this version was never previewed. EDIT (I've amended the following approximate preview running times after going back and referencing Robert Carringer's book "The Magnificent Ambersons: A Reconstruction"): Welles requested the film be shortened further by taking out approx. 13 minutes from the middle section along with the removal of the first porch scene. This (approximately) 110 min. version was the first version to be previewed (in Pomona in mid-March, 1942). Due to the negative response to this test screening, Wise restored most of the material Welles had asked to be cut, but eliminated two or three other scenes (Wise believed the abruptness of the middle section of the film was to blame for the negative response). A second test screening (in Pasadena) went better (the film's running length during this screening was probably around 117 minutes), but the studio ignored the numerous "audience remark cards" calling the film a "masterpiece" and "one of the best I've ever seen" and, instead, focused on the ones that said "it stunk" and "we need more laffs".

I doubt the running time was really a concern since the versions test audiences saw both hovered near two hours. A bigger problem was the film was never going to be a mass-audience-pleaser that the studio needed it to be to recoup its investment. Eventually reducing it to under 90 minutes seemed to make it more tolerable to test audiences, but that's probably because it just ended sooner! I suspect if RKO had just released the 131 minute edit, the box office for the film would have been about the same, but the studio would have saved the expense of re-shoots and additional editing...and we'd now have a more complete version to evaluate!

reply

I didn't use imdb.com's information. I used the sourced information and the original edit version was 2h 28 minutes long. Snipping out a minute or two here and there is one thing but they didn't do that, they edited out entire scenes. The rest of what you state is mainly conjecture based on minute facts.

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

reply

I'm not disagreeing with you, "nammage" - the significant, and largely inexplicable, cutting (and reordering of sequences as well) damaged the film's continuity and certainly lessened its impact.

However, I don't think the running time was the thing that troubled the studio the most; it was the fact that Welles made a very downbeat, "Chekovian"-type drama and not the mainstream costume drama the studio was expecting.

I referenced IMDb since it lists an "original cut" as running 148 minutes. But what is that "original cut"? The "March 12th, 1942 Cutting Continuity" for the film shows the running length as 131 minutes; importantly, this version was still completely under Welles' control. Logically, the 148 minute running length appears to be an earlier assemblage (likely containing scenes like Isabel visiting George in his bedroom after the ball and the full version of Eugene and Isabel's scene by the tree that were deleted in preparing the 131 minute edit). Given that Welles asked for around 13 minutes to be cut from the 131 min. version prior to the first preview and Wise re-worked the film again before the second preview, it appears the 131 minute edit was never an actual "preview version" as identified by IMDb.

I'm sure this all seems like minutia, but I was just trying to point out that I believe the IMDb running time data is inaccurate. It should read: "148 min.(rough assembly) - 131 min. (initial fine edit) - 88 min. (release version)". Since there were numerous previews of the film, I don't know that one can correctly identify the length each time, but one thing is known for sure: invariably, the running time kept being reduced with each test screening after the second one.

reply

It's 1h 28m long. That's not enough time for nothing. And it was too long? "All Through the Night" starring Humphrey Bogart came out the same year, it is 1h 47m long. "Captains of the Clouds" starring James Cagney 1h 54m long. One of the most famous films of all time "Casablanca" 1h 42m long. Another big movie that year was "Mrs. Miniver" starring Walter Pidgeon and Greer Garson and it was 2h 13m long. "Pride of the Yankees" came out that year.


Yeah, and Robert Wise's bloated 'epic', "West Side Story," is 5 hours long. That's how long it is, right? Because it sure felt like it. One wonders why the studio never chopped 50 minutes out of it and then changed the ending so Tony lives.

No evidence that a 148 minute cut was ever put together. And no way that the bits and pieces from the final shooting draft of the script that didn't make it into the original post-production cut added up to 16 minutes - unless it was edited atrociously. (It's known some of that wasn't even shot.) His first cut was 132 minutes. He wasn't going to release it at that length; he had no plans to release it at anything longer than 120 minutes, as he was outspoken about not liking pictures that lasted more than 2 hours. He had put the gears in motion to make his own questionable editorial decisions (which were briefly implemented and then discarded by RKO after the Pomona preview on March 17, 1942 bombed) to get it down to that length, which included treating Isabel's death like a silly Hollywood cliche. That the 89 minute final cut is a chopped-up mess that looks like it was edited with a lawnmower is besides the point. Welles was going to chop it up himself by taking out scenes that we all know. Had he gotten his way, perhaps we'd all be lamenting the loss of George's and Lucy's breakup, or Isabel's horseful car ride home instead of what we are.

I am sympathetic to Welles to an extent, but not all the way. The fact of the matter is, he left the country - and, in effect, abandoned his own film; he did authorize them to reshoot scenes without him there - and, in effect, opened the door for RKO to do whatever reshoots they felt like without him there; and, ultimately, when he found out the picture was taken away from him over the summer, made no attempt whatsoever to try to get his reels back from Brazil. He left them there. He had years to go back and get them, and didn't. He may have departed for noble reasons (although, honestly, he probably departed to dodge the draft), but all the same, if it meant that much to him, he would have been there for his child when it needed him most instead of skipping town. That being said, I never really bought the legend that RKO was trying to lighten up the picture. If that were the case, they would have kept funny scenes like Friend of the Ace and Drunk Uncle John instead of all the gloomy parts they did keep. And call me sacrilegious, but I do feel that a few, not all, of the retakes did improve what was there, at least from a scriptwriting standpoint. It's also readily apparent that they completely butchered other areas (the entire section where Isabel and the Major die is incoherent).

reply

I enjoyed it. It felt like an incomplete film, its running time so short and ending kinda unexpectedly but I was never bored, loved the atmosphere and the performances were very good. I just wanted more.

reply