MovieChat Forums > The African Queen (1952) Discussion > The movie is fine, but it's not one the ...

The movie is fine, but it's not one the Top 100 American movies of all time

posted 6 years ago by PrimeMinisterX (8859)
10 replies | jump to latest

According to the American Film Institute, The African Queen is one of the Top 100 American films of all time:

https://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx

I just got done watching the film for the first time. It was okay, but at the end I felt like it really didn't amount to much. After a couple of scenes to establish the characters, nearly all of the rest of the movie is just two people drifting down a river, encountering normal obstacles and then falling in love. There's not much more to the story than that.

It's not a bad movie, but I wouldn't call it a great one either and certainly not worthy of AFI's list. In my opinion at least it shouldn't be on there at all and it definitely shouldn't be ahead of films like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Unforgiven or Saving Private Ryan.

If this exact film was made today with contemporary actors it would probably end up with a 65% on RT or something.

[–] Phids (787) 5 years ago

I agree with you. I also just watched it for the first time, and while it was fine, it didn't seem like anything special. In fact, I thought that Humphrey Bogart's character was downright annoying, and the chemistry between Charlie and Rosy was not very plausible.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) 5 years ago

Agreed on the chemistry. They had none and the romance just didn't feel right.

As I said, I'm genuinely shocked that this film is ahead of films like Raiders, Unforgiven and Saving Private Ryan on AFI's list. I think the voters must be looking through nostalgia glasses.

Even just looking at Katharine Hepburn's films that were ignored, On Golden Pond would be a more worthy addition to the list. Not that I really think it's a Top 100 film, but it's a more satisfying film experience than The African Queen. In my opinion, at least.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

And would we cast Matthew Perry as Bogie? How about Chris Hemsworth and Emily Blunt?
Remakes are for losers.
So maybe this is the 101st AFI film. Raiders is very cheesy, Unforgiven is fine but not terribly challenging, and SPR is also fine but has touches of self-satisfaction and bald sentimentality.
African Queen relies on how magnetic the leads are and has a cracking good story to go along with it. Has a nice pace as to how they were thrown together in the first place and work through their differences.
I always try to watch a film as a product of the time is was made. I think AQ and a lot of films can be judged poorly compared to current production standards, but what they did with the tech available and relying on the actors, there is a lot to be said for how compelling storytelling can be.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) 5 years ago

First off, is anyone casting Matthew Perry for anything these days?

Raiders is an expertly crafted film--if it's cheesy (not a word I'd use for it) then it's cheesy on purpose--and much more entertaining one that The African Queen. Not really sure what you mean about Unforgiven not being "terribly challenging"--was its goal to "challenge" anyone? For that matter, I in no way felt challenged by TAQ. Did you? If so, in what way?

Regarding films being a product of their times, thing is, there are other films of its era that I think are much better and more worthy of acknowledgement by the AFI than The African Queen. How about The Ten Commandments or His Girl Friday or Shadow of a Doubt or Touch of Evil? All are superior films, in my opinion.

Again, this isn't to say that TAQ is a poor film. It's only to say it's not a great one. Ot's fine, but a bit of a trifle really.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

I won't claim it's a deep and expertly crafted film the way Aronofsky or Almodovar or Kubrick might attempt, but it's a nice, compact little story with very likable lead performances. What's not to like?
As far as Unforgiven, I have never understood why people see this as some sort of pinnacle of Clint's career or of the Western genre. It's fine, but it has a pedestrian look to it. It's workmanlike, like a Ron Howard film.
Queen seems like they got more from the budget than current directors could dream of with all the money in the world. And a low budget home run is more satisfying than a big budget blockbuster, in my eyes.
Ten Commandments is a total joke ham fest. I have no fondness for this film.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) 5 years ago

I'm surprised you'd single out Unforgiven's "look" in that way, as I feel like it's actually one of Clint's most striking visual efforts as a director.

For instance:

https://s23527.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/537.png

https://www.goombastomp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/thumb-1920-483499.jpg

I actually just watched the movie for the first time a few months ago and it's visual style was one of the things that was most that was most striking to me.

As for Howard, if you want to see a film of his that I'd never describe as "workmanlike" then watch Rush. Great movie with distinct stylistic flourishes.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

I'm no Ebert. I like movies and I know I am influenced by critical opinion.
I just watch what I watch and give my thoughts. I think the Sergio Leone films are much more interesting than Unforgiven for having a definite stylistic edge to them. Unf seems bland in comparison, at least to me.
As far as Opie goes, I think he has made many good films, but they seem safe. If Rush it the exception, great. I truly would like to see something that makes me think different about RH's very successful career.
Nothing against him and I think Apollo 13 is a really good movie ... but it's expensive while not being very innovative. It just tells the story. Like Castaway. Very nice film to watch repeatedly, but nothing makes you think differently about how you see the world.
You might experience the world differently, but how Castaway is filmed, it's sort of how you or I might film it. It's workmanlike, yet satisfying.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) 5 years ago

Sergio Leone films definitely have more style than Unforgiven, but Leone was really a stylistic king. Once Upon a Time in The West, for instance, is just fucking OOZING with style out of every pore. So if that's the metric, then very few films--or directors--have much style at all. But then again, some say that the best directing is directing that doesn't call attention to itself.

I think you should give Rush a watch. I love that movie, and it's probably my second favorite Ron Howard film behind Apollo 13. If you're not familiar with it, here's a trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XA73ni9eVs

It's a very well-made, entertaining film that sticks close to the true story it's based on.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (18433) 5 years ago

It's decent but yeah, never been one of my favorite Bogart or Hepburn films.

[–] Techto (1388) 7 months ago

I agree — it’s entertaining but not a great film. For one thing, the ending was highly implausible.