to the 971 people who gave this 1 star... - On the Waterfront (1954) Discussion

[–] mmitsos-1 16 years ago

Oh my GOD, aciolino a-hole...YOU ARE REALLY ASKING FOR IT. If you're just not looking to get a reaction from your imbecillic post and are serious in what you're saying, you're a complete MORON.

"WOMEN ARE CLUELESS IN FILM, AND IN PHILOSOPHY, AND IN HISTORY????" from your utterly masogynistic tone, I'd say you have a small little wimpy penis for a brain.

I KNOW FROM SOME OF YOUR OTHER POSTS THAT YOU'RE AT LEAST 72 OR SO...YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE IN YOUR "PRIME" IN THE 1970'S...BUT YOU'RE STILL OF A MUCH OLDER, CHAUVINISTIC, ARCHAIC, MYOPIC, CLOSE-MINDED MIND SET THAN MANY OF YOUR OWN OLD PEERS. You're a complete pill.

I've met many intelligent women in the History and Philosopy aisles of book stores, and know many women who actually are, like me, PROFESSORS of Philosophy, and Film, and History...imagine that. Why don't you get with the program and take a look around. The more you talk, the more you just embarass yourself.

reply

[–] aciolino 15 years ago

My, my, my... someone's "on the rag..."

Look ladies, I love you, I really do, but honestly... come on.

Just check out the demo's for most great films, especially those with, heaven forbid, masculine themes.... they're lost.

Yes, I am a complete pill, I admit that.

Nevertheless, you ladies scored this film the lowest. LOWEST.

End of silly discussion.

reply

[–] moseley74 15 years ago

You sir, are a cock.

calling us gay is one thing but calling us dykes is totally unacceptable

reply

[–] hcim90 14 years ago

As a collective, females don't appreciate quintessential 'good film'. I know that. And i know that there are also exceptions. I like to put myself in that category, and so don't get pissed when people make sweeping generalizations about my gender. if you look at the stats, they're probably true.

We may not be very good at parking, becoming president or recognizing cinematic masterpieces... but we'll probably get the kids in the divorce. And we're less likely to go bald. sucks to be you.

Ciao.

I wish I could think of something witty to put here... but I can't.

reply

[–] film_buff12 15 years ago

I always thought that the point of an Honorary Oscar was to celebrate an artist's work. I'm a liberal, and I applaud Kazan's films as some of the best I've ever seen. On the Waterfront is in my Top 5. I DO let his work speak for him and I think everyone should, too.

"Ah, ya's fancy pants, alla ya's"
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yaoi-girl 15 years ago

Holy *beep* batman, you obviously haven't read ANY sort of study that proves your point to be entirely INVALID. Trust me, females are actually more likely to be of higher intelligence than males are, when you look at how well they do in school and how many actually go on to university compared to males.

The ONLY reason I can think of that a FEMALE would rate this lowly is because FEMALES OFTEN DON'T LIKE VIOLENCE IN FILMS. Studies have shown that we tend to prefer love stories and such - heck, why do you think so many girls continually saw The Titanic in theatres, while most of the guys I know seem to hate it?? Because they have DIFFERENT TASTE IN MOVIES.

And OH. MY. *beep* GOD, I actually HARDLY EVER see men in the "Philosophy" or "History" sections of a bookstore, I usually always see females there. And seriously, "self-help" and "feel-good" sections? I see just as many men in there. Probably because they are finally wondering why they can't get a date and a are too depressed to admit it's themselves that's not attracting women and are trying to find something that will save their egos.

Oh, but wait, that's why there's still so much sexism in the world. Because men are so insecure about themselves that they feel the need to put women down in order to feel good about themselves.

reply

[–] paradox_debaser 15 years ago

Interesting response. You respond to ridiculous sexist babble with slightly less ridiculous sexist babble. I don't 'trust' your statement, as the premises are weak, and don't even lead to the conclusion that you want. That is, you haven't backed up your statements about women doing 'better in school(which schools? where??) with any facts. And even if they were backed up, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that women are more intelligent.
BTW I believe he was saying (in a very inarticulate way) that most philosophy books that are found in general bookstores are authored by men. Although, again, this in no way indicates that men are more intelligent than women.
In terms of intellectual prowess, society is slowly moving towards an androgynous state. Whether someone is considered intellectual or not will be independent of their sex. It is clear to any rational, unbiased person, that cognitive ability is not dependent upon sex.

reply

[–] pawson-nick 14 years ago

don't we have like a little section in that thing on the paper with the writing that is kind of a global answer to this debacle? regardless, it's just some more arguing on the internets and we, my friends, are all losers.

9/10 for me and anyone who gave it 1/10 are probably either uneducated or just prejudice against b/w like i was in my teens - not sure why but they could never hold my attention.

reply

[–] danilkak 15 years ago

I couldn't agree more aciolino, almost every movie that I check out on IMDB has a lower score by females

reply

[–] bradlewis98 15 years ago

I give the film a 10/10...just to protect myself here.
but outside of the contingent of folks who just don't "get" real film (coming from the experience of someone who has taught Introduction To Film for several years, that's A LOT of people) I think many probably have serious ideological issues with not just Kazan, but this film in particular. Break down the narrative and it is essentially a love letter to giving up names. Seeing that the Hollywood directors/writers etc who were victimized by McCarthy were mostly innocent of any wrong doing and people like Kazan helped destroy their lives/robbed us of some beautiful art (check out Force of Evil from 1947-8. Perfect film, unfortunately the director was more or less chased out of the country for his political views, no thanks to Kazan) that response is understandable. Kazan has become the face of society's complicity in McCarthy's insanity. I'd put money on many of those "1"s being from folks who have not seen the film, they just hate what it says.

I am probably giving too much credit to the naysayers. I remember reading, a long time ago, some kid giving Citizen Kane a 1 because he felt Top Gun was in fact the best movie ever made. Kids freak out when they see B&W and respond foolishly.

But I do agree with another poster who wrote that we just judge his art and politics separately. We look past Chaplin's fetish for underage girls, why hound Kazan for saving his ass?

reply

[–] heyuactor 15 years ago

To me Kazan didn't do anything wrong--he testified, he told the truth, like others who are called before Congress. We need Congress to investigate many things, it's an important function for our democracy, like in the Senate Rackets Committee hearings which saw Robert Kennedy as chief counsel, and JFK sometimes, and the Church Committee hearings in the 70's--valuable info can be learned to help our government protect us ALL. What was wrong, IMO, was the Hollywood black list, yes, terrible, illegal, destructive, and to the extent Congress was involved with blacklisting we do and did have a serious problem, but it wasn't Kazan's doing, he was doing what he should have done, as an American. Be angry at those producers and studio executives who DID the blacklisting, not those who gave requested testimony under oath.

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WhoopeeDeeDahTroll 15 years ago

Someone needs to give Picasso a life :-D

reply

[–] heyuactor 15 years ago

What for, a "life"? Picasso asks a good question.

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

reply

[–] flecky90 15 years ago

I definitley wouldn't give it 1 star upon seeing it. I actually got a little chill when I first heard the famous "I coulda been a contender". I watched it yesterday for my Film, Media and Cultural studies class at university (only taking it as a minor) but I don't think it is something I would want to buy and see over and over again.

Maybe it's the story is a little lacking, maybe I just don't fully get it's message yet but there was definitley something that made it feel like it dragged a little bit while watching it.

I think it's definitley sending the right message in context as we had a lecture about the effects of the cold war and the Hollywood blacklist that morning so I knew about the film industry trying to bring in method acting and the freedoms of speech slowly once more.

I think giving it one star definitley may be from people who perhaps don't like old black and white films or films which don't have a tonne of action in them (I myself generally like old films, the first one we watched "it happened one night" at the start of term was hilarious and I also enjoyed watching "Breif Encounter" which I own on DVD. And to add to that Buster KEaton films are some of my favourite, which is unusual for a 19 year old I think.

I'd side with you its definitley worth above 7 but for me I'd keep it in that area because I think perhaps I don't fully understand the messages but I think thats forgivable seeing as it was very relevant for the 50's and less so now...

reply

[–] drystyx 15 years ago

I gave it a 3 because Brando plays the same trite hate mongering self righteous character we get in 99% of films, and it was a trite character even then, and I'd conservatively estimate it was the same cliche hero of 75% of films at the time. The same old punk who does something good in the end, but this one fails for three reasons. First, as noted, it is undeniably trite. Second, it is overplayed, not Brando's fault, just poor writing in making this the same one dimensional character, and only a complete masochist even cares by the end.

Bottom line is that it fails because while some characters come across fairly well, Brando's character comes across as someone who is just an actor playing a part, being a creep because he knows there is a camera on him, and never is a natural part of the story, so maybe it is Brando's fault that his character looks like someone doing a movie role, which wouldn't be so bad if it weren't so overdone and cliche.

I didn't give it a "1" because there are so many films much worse on all scales.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time
that's not funny!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]