I'm not trying to attack any of you, but I just want to know the reason that you didn't like this movie. Was it because it's an old movie, or that you weren't a fan of the plot, or something else?
shareThere are at least 971 MORONS posting in IMDB. One of the best movies ever, for me it's like 11/10 (lol)
shareI have not seen this movie yet, but I think I can answer this. I have read that this movie is used by Kazan as an answer for those who accused him as a traitor, for his testimony in the macarthy era, when he betrayed his communist friends and delated the names of eight other members of the Communist Party to keep his own name off the blacklist. Names he gave out also included "friends" who had worked with him. I read that the actions of Brando in this film are intended to be similar to the actual actions of Kazan, therefore this movie is intended to be a simple piece of propaganda. He transformed his old friends in villains in this film, to justify his actual actions.
Okay, maybe there was some political/personal propaganda going on for Kazan, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. It's one of the best and if you didn't know anything about Kazan and his problems, you couldn't tell it from the movie.
It's an excellent movie.
"You think I was telling you the truth? Maybe...maybe."
I didn't know about that, Rogeriops, but that doesn't make this movie a bad movie, and shouldn't make people not like it.
PS. Watch the movie! Its incredible!
[deleted]
You were more likely to be killed if you gave evidence against the Cosa Nostra, but the FBI did not believe it existed.
shareThe political angle is there, all right. After all, Budd Schulberg also testified. But he also sat through 40 days of testimony at the actual Crime Commission and considers it a belittlement of the bravery of the longshoremen who appeared there to think that the movie is actually about Kazan's life instead of theirs. However, the heart of the movie is Terry Malloy's personal recognition that "I been sellin' myself out all these years," that throwing the fight on orders from Johnny and brother Terry deprived him of his chance to "be somebody." Whether you like what Kazan did in real life is not the most important thing that should determine your reaction. Watch the movie itself and see one of the greatest performances in the history of film.
shareI can not believe someone starts out a reply in ignorance. Your words convict you as illeterate. "I did not see the movie". Yes, Kazan made this movie. Propaganda is one thing, the truth is another. If you ever see this film, it is quite tame compared to the production of the play. Brando's character dies. In real ife, thats what would have haappend. Not only have I seen the play and movie, I was professionally knowledgable of the NYC waterfront, the Mob, the Reds who infiltrated the Front. The Catholic Church, of which I am a member, which looks the other way when money is put into their coffers to look away. The chacter of the young priest is true to life for most. He was a man of ideals and courgage, and the film does not show how the upper church beats up and transfers one of their own, who is just doing his job, which all of them probably agreed when they were young.
Your rant about Kazan and the "witch hunts" is more propaganda than truth. In fact, the unions and Hollywood were filled by Communists and Communsits s ympathizers. If you take the time, and it would take time. Read the court records and the evidence. Hollywood, and the Unions have been ingaged in "Propagana" about this period to this very day. I will grant that people like Joesepth Mc Carthy were beneath contempt. Howver many supported him, including the Kenndey family. Did you know that? Did you know that Joe Kennedy senior had the fellow Irish drinking buddy to his home at Hyannis Port? Did you know that RFK worked on one of the Senate committes that was part of the "withunt" persons who are incredibly misinformed will still argue with some basic facts. As for Kazan, he was under oath. I know that lying under oath is not something some do not feel is much of a problem. I can only hope that someday, you will be the victim of someone who lies under oath.
Okay, you simply can't bust somebody's chops for being dumb and misspell "illiterate". I don't even think you don't know how to spell it, it's probably a mis-type but it's really bad form.
And it's even worse form to go on about "facts" and "truth" when you don't have a firm grasp of either. There was no production of a play. I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Budd Schulberg wrote a novelization of his original screenplay where Terry dies.
And the question is not whether or not there were Communists. Communism is not inherently evil any more than capitalism is. It's all about how it's practiced and who wins. In a democracy, where we are supposed to have freedom of speech, ideas, assembly, etc., it's supposed to be okay for people to believe in communism as a viable alternative and they should have been able to even attempt to put it in practice. Because we live in a democracy. And if people don't want that they can vote it down. Kazan didn't have to lie under oath to not name names. That's it.
That's a good piece of history you wrote here. Or is it fiction? I don't know if Kazan collaborated with Mccarthy but your short expose looks interesting enough... However, I don't think IMDb users of the age that would care about Kazan that much exist at all...
My take is that those who dislike the film do so merely because it sympathetically portrays a priest and the church, consecutively.
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
I'm sure that some people gave it one star to lower its overall rating and bump it down on the list of the top 250 films.
shareIt is incredible that this could get a 1 from anyone, except maybe those who think "Ironman" and "Transformers" are great movies!
As far as Kazan's politics are concerned -- a few years ago when he was awarded a Lifetime Achievement Oscar, some of the more phony Hollywood Liberal types protested by not standing and applauding, and some threatened to turn their backs on him when he was on stage. I think it was Russell Baker who wrote in the NY Times an article whose title was something along the lines of "Would they be protesting if Kazan had ratted out Nazis in the industry instead of Communists?". Granted McCarthy found most of his Communists in the bottom of a bottle, there were some genuine threats to our country, but Hollywood was the last place to worry about. Most Hollywood-commie types were not conspiring against the government and saw Communism as a solution to problems in the US but were blind to the more pernicius aspects of the USSR threats. Yes, there was over-reaction and yes, innocent people were hurt. One hopes it won't happen again. Kazan made several brilliant and memorable movies. Let his work speak for him and may he rest in peace!
Aaaaah, don't even try to compare Iron Man and Transformers...
share>"Boing_Boing:
"Aaaaah, don't even try to compare Iron Man and Transformers..."<
'Transformers' is better. At least it doesn't pretend to be socially significant.
^
Those who try to make distinctions between education & entertainment know little of either.
It seems that most of the people who have written here about Kazan's 'naming names' to HUAC are missing the point. In the film Kazan - and, of course, Schulberg - portray Terry Malloy as a hero for betraying his comrades, in other words Kazan clearly saw himself as acting nobly by naming friends and colleagues thus in some cases causing them to be blacklisted and unable to work in their chosen profession. Lots of people 'named names' to HUAC and some did arguably more damage than Kazan but unlike Kazan they lacked a forum with which to justify their treachery if only in their own minds. The film is, as many people have said here, a fine film - if viewed as merely a film - but when viewed in the light of a filmmaker attempting to defend the indefensible (betrayal) it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
shareThe real villian was McCarthy and all those that allowed the unamerican activity in the first place.
sharePittgal49 Check out your history. McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC which was a committee in the House of Representatives. McCarthy was a senator. His investigations targeted people in the government not private citizens as did HUAC. His flamboyance made him the poster boy of this era which has lead to confusing him with HUAC's activities.
Neither his investigations nor those of HUAC accomplished a damn thing except to screw up a lot of people lives and careers including those who cooperated since their careers became tainted by this odious association. I blame the publicity seeking second rate politician more than the people who were subpoenaed to appear before them.
[deleted]
aciolino, agreed.
LOL.
And yes, gotta be a clueless idiot to give this movie 1 star.
to me it's surely one of the best movies ever made.
Why horror movies never won Academy Awards?share
What is the lesson here? Chicks are morons
Anyway do not seek out women's opinion about films. They're clueless.
But we all really new that anyway.
well maybe you already "new" that
but as moron chick who "knew" that this is great movie, I have a bit more of a clue than you.
might want to learn to spell before you start commenting on the intelligence of others
[deleted]
[deleted]
In their defense, the female demographic doesn't stray too far from the mean when it comes to Casablanca. Even females under 18 appreciated it. I guess it has to do with the romance element of it.
Anyway, to all the girls who didn't like this movie, I'm sorry there weren't enough cute vampire guys in it. And to everyone else, I apologize for the fact that the story of a man's struggle to overcome insurmountable odds to do what's right didn't merit more than a 1/10 in your eyes. It's not that you're stupid, as other users have mentioned, it's just that your taste in movies is abyssmal, or nonexistant.
The pump don't work, 'cause the vandals took the handle.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14175229
"Among avid readers surveyed by the AP, the typical woman read nine books in a year, compared with only five for men. Women read more than men in all categories except for history and biography.
When it comes to fiction, the gender gap is at its widest. Men account for only 20 percent of the fiction market, according to surveys conducted in the U.S., Canada and Britain."
Come back when you've gone through puberty,and take a fresh look.
Oh, BTW, not many Hollywood actors and writers had access to nuclear secrets. The McCarthy and HUAAC hearings were witch-hunts and show trials, that's all.