MovieChat Forums > Out of the Past Discussion > Utterly overrated

Utterly overrated

posted 11 years ago by lisztnet
16 replies | jump to latest

This movie along with "Cape Fear" 1962, and many Garbo's early silents also, is just overrated because it features some big movies stars, so one is overwhelmed by Mitchum's (real) charm for example, but the plot is weak or misguidedly complex, hence it makes no sense. And here, we get a great romantic plot which doesn't fit into a film noir, maybe Casablanca derived... The picture is OK, it's a nice & clean RKO work. In my opinion, The Killers (1946) is also much overrated. Lancaster is just crushing everything else in this movies, he is like a bull. Who can believe in any plot whit him and Gardner ?

Don't be fooled by the "star system", a movie featuring a great star is not always a masterpiece. Sorry for my poor English.

[–] tehck 11 years ago

Your premise is strange on its own, and it has no relevance to this film whatsoever. The only 'star' in the cast at the time this movie was made was Robert Mitchum. Kirk Douglas was just breaking into films (this is his second), and the rest were B players at best with leading lady Greer virtually unknown. What it has, in addition to Mitchum's "overwhelming charm" is a fabulous director, a great script, and a powerful story.

By the way, the reason that Mitchum and Douglas are now regarded as "great stars" is BECAUSE their talents (perhaps "charm" in this case) can "overwhelm" a viewer and elevate a middling movie to a classic. That's why they receive the adulation they do and why studios paid them a small fortune to appear in films. The fact that the performers improve a movie doesn't undermine its quality. The fact that a movie has a complicated plot doesn't necessarily harm it either (some might argue that it is a mark of a superior film).

I'm responding to your post because I rate this movie a 10 out of 10 (one of about five films I would rate that highly), and I admit a bias towards it. Nevertheless, my bias is shared by the vast majority of people who have seen it. Yours, on the other hand, would seem to be a strange idiosyncracy shared by almost no one. If that' your goal -- to be different -- you've succeeded.

[–] lisztnet 11 years ago

I have already almost forgotten this movie, sorry.

But i remember every moment of Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard, or the Trespasser, etc. Or even the Network, and many others.

Many movies are over rated just because they feature 1 moment of romance, so peoples are dazzled. OR because there is a big star.

You cannot let down a movie with... etc, because X and Y are in, it must be a great movie ! Period.

The plot is confusing, there is no sens for what happens or not. So the dramatic action lacks on clarity and i can draw no meaning what so ever from it, no conclusion and from the artistic point of view, there is nothing unforgettable.

Compared with a great masterpiece as Sunset Blvd or The Postman ring twice or, Opening night or what ever, Grand Hotel, dozens other, Sternberg's masterpieces, etc.

I rated this 2, because it brings me nothing, nothing at all ! It didn't give me a single moment of happiness, of being fascinated. Yep rated 2 by me, just checked.

BTW, Kirk Douglas not being a star at the time the film was made doesn't say anything about rating from the users since then, for who he is a famous actor. So your argument value is 2/10, like the movie.

I have wast enough time with you, bye.

[–] monsieurzy 11 years ago

I would ignore the OP..sounds like a pompous little git who sits around saying "worst..move..ever" and "overrated" to any film that is above his/her limited comprehension ..and wouldn't you love to know what he/she has EVER done that would impress us mere mortals (who love this film)

[–] USAFmedicVET 10 years ago

Posted by: monsieurzy replied Dec 27, 2013

"I would ignore the OP..sounds like a pompous little git who sits around saying "worst..move..ever" and "overrated" to any film that is above his/her limited comprehension ..and wouldn't you love to know what he/she has EVER done that would impress us mere mortals (who love this film)"

This is message board where opinions are discussed. Yet instead of doing that, you denigrate a poster because they don't share your opinion!
My comprehension isn't limited in the least, and in my opinion, this film is a 5 at best and that's just for Mitcham's acting. The plot is so convoluted, it's nearly impossible to understand who is double-crossing whom, or how any of them figure it out. The two women are so similar in character, I had to keep rewinding to tell which one was the more diabolical in any particular scene.
The film is wholly unrealistic, even for 'film noir' which is one of my favorite genres. Even after several viewings, the ending still doesn't make sense or provide any cohesive conclusions for the audience...IN MY OPINION.
And it's possible that I and others have done remarkable things "that would impress..mere mortals"
So how about allowing others to express their own opinions in any way they choose, before your "limited comprehension" is challenged by those who despise the film...IN MY OPINION!

"We in it shall be remembered;
We few, We happy few,
We Band of Brothers" ~ W.S.
(member since 2006)

[–] rtw416 10 years ago

I just think the plot was too complicated for you to follow-You seem to not have paid attention-I reason this because you mention Burt Lancaster-who's not in this film.
"Out of The Past" is in my opinion-The best example of Film Noir.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

Burt Lancaster was in The Killers 1946... the film has good beginning and one great scene with Gardner.

I agree that the story in Out of the Past is way too convoluted... no time for the viewer to reflect or feel much. I felt nothing when they died in the end... that is not successful storytelling. Mostly style, little substance imo.

As for best example on Film Noir... not sure about that, I would rather describe this as Prototype Noir, full of cliches.

[–] darmandom 10 years ago

Couldn't agree more with that reposte to the OP. I shudder to think what type of fare he/she considers above average etc ....

[–] pt100 11 years ago

I'm not as annoyed by your poor English as by your poor judgment in films. This is considered one of the best classic film noir examples, and for good reason. The writing is terrific (Daniel Mainwaring, with some help from mystery master James M. Cain), and every actor's performance is perfect. Great cinematography, too, and the shots of SF are wonderful.

Unlike some noir classics (e.g., The Big Sleep, in which it's author couldn't even figure out who killed one of the victims), it is not overly convoluted. Everything makes sense, but you have to pay attention, which really shouldn't be hard to do if you take such films seriously.

This summary/evaluation at Wikipedia is quite accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Past

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

The film is a good example of a film noir with betrayals and double crosses. Might be a little overlong. Well acted by all the principles.

Its that man again!!

[–] SamoanJoes 10 years ago

Might be a little overlong.

A little? It's a 97 minute that seemed well over two hours.

[–] Trax-3 10 years ago

This movie has some good things in it but in the end it didn't really work for me.
I wasn't drawn into the story and felt mildly annoyed with it most of the time.

7/10

I intend to rewatch it some day. Perhaps I wasn't in the right mood or something.

[–] BB-15 10 years ago

"Out of the Past" is a solid classic noir. 8/10 imo.
Very good acting.
Plenty of double crosses in the story.
Some of the photography by the river was clever.
And there was lots of that dark noir mood.

* But I can understand why the OP and some others found the story confusing.
Unlike many popular modern movies, these older mystery films do not spoon feed the story to the audience by repeatedly telling viewers what was going on.
The viewer needs to pay attention.

"Out of the Past" has probably the most complicated plot of any noir I've seen but I was able to follow it.
One strange thing about the film is that people instantly travel back and forth from San Francisco to Lake Tahoe to the central valley and to the high Sierras as if it's going a few miles. It isn't.
That was strange. But I got used to it.
- Someone in the thread (pt100) mentioned that "The Big Sleep" was more convoluted than this. I disagree.
I can follow "The Big Sleep" more easily. (BTW Joe Brody killed the chauffeur.) 

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] syldeanh-25986 9 years ago

Agree. I can follow the Big Sleep, and it keeps my interest. This was so over complicated, I couldn't care what happened.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

I think Big Sleep is slightly more convoluted. Out of the Past feels more rushed, as in story changing shape all the time. In Big Sleep it's just hard to follow who killed whom and why, and I'm not sure it makes sense in the end at all. I also think that Martha Vickers stole the show from Bacall but I digress - which is fitting when talking about convoluted plots.

But I agree that the most convoluted plot goes to either of the two. At least in film noir genre.

[–] Noir-It-All 9 years ago

In his commentary, James Ursini constantly mentioned that noir was about the Why, not the How. It was about the psychology behind the characters' motivations.

[–] liscarkat (18367) 15 hours ago

"Out of the Past" is one of the greatest movies of all time, and deserves all the rating it gets. Too bad the OP missed out on enjoying it.