Wow, this movie is really bad

The film was highly rated at the time because the academy award voters liked it a lot. It is fairly highly rated now bu the people on this board because they liked the fil a lot, but not excessively so.

The botton line is that other people disagree with you. I've never heard anyone, but you say it was a "bad" film, and it is not rated as high as other films of that era suhc as "Shane" and "12 Angry Men." I think I rated it an "8", which is very good, but not excellent. The book was more thorough and more entertaining. I would rate the book a 10. Certain actors were oustanding matches for their characters in the book- Lancaster and Kerr. Clift was very good-oustanding and Reed was very good. Sinatra who was almost twice the age of Maggio in the book (He was 38 in 1953 and 19 in the book, was miscast, in my view.

It's highly rated because it's a good movie .

......


I'd like a chance t' shoot at an educated man once in my life .

Because it is a VERY fine movie, well-written and acted, that's why.

I'm always a little surprised when people say that this film is bad or has aged poorly. If anything I think the complete opposite; it holds up remarkably well and is one of the better movies to have won the Oscar for Best Picture.