Crap, Just crap.
Yet another boring film. The only thing that was enjoyable about this film was that kinky character Mary-Lee. Other than that, it's just another snoozefest.
shareyoure an idiot
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Written on the Wind (1956) Discussion > Crap, Just crap.
I also enjoyed the Mary-Lee character; however, unlike you, I loved this picture for just what it is: a stylish example of a great director's artistic talent. It's not about great story or good acting (we've all seen these actors in other films and we know that they are capable of great acting); it's about style. Like Hitchcock, Sirk's films have a visual style that is as unmistakably his. Just gorgeous to look at while the actors perform the outrageous stunts the plot requires.
share[deleted]
This movie is anything BUT boring. Sorry. You're just not " getting it."
shareThis film is the epitome of Hollywood trash. My professor gave us an hour and a half lecture of why this film sucks.
Perhaps you're just easily entertained by something this dimwitted? I'll admit, it's romantic, it's entertaining -- but no this is nothing that is the essence of film-making and/or though provoking in the least bit... whatsoever.
FYC Catherine Keener, Into The Wild
The "crap" label was thrown at ALL of Douglas Sirk's films from the day they hit the screen, so your observation is nothing new. But in recent years a number of directors have rediscovered him and apparently found certain aspects of his style and technique useful, most notably Todd Haynes (though you may know all of this). That doesn't make the films any less crappy, but it should give you pause.
Anyway, Dorothy Malone was so hot in this movie that she's worth sitting through it for.
I am in a blissful state, so don't bug me.
wow. i'd instantly distrust any film professor who lectured for 90 minutes against the genius of douglas sirk. but then again, i'd distrust most film professors. as a former film major, i learned quite early that most professors are pedantic, pretentious *beep* with forced, bad taste in movies...
shareI'm a film student as well, and my professor had us watch this film and analyze its use of color. He doesn't consider it a particularly important film, but he certainly recognizes that it has value.
I agree with him on that. There are elements of this film that really are quite beautiful. One example is the sonic flashback Bacall's character has on the riverbank. This scene made me laugh because it was so stupid-looking (and some terrible acting), but the color in that scene is lovely, and the use of the sonic flashback is perhaps even slightly avant-garde. (Perhaps!)
So this isn't the greatest film ever, by any means -- I'd take Kubrick over Sirk any day -- but this film is definitely not straight crap. Just intermittent crap. As someone pointed out in an earlier post, the terrible acting and story cover up some genuine artistry on the part of Sirk.
. . . but this film is definitely not straight crap. Just intermittent crap.Intermittent crap? Maybe, but also good crap to the tune of 7/10 or thereabouts.
As someone pointed out in an earlier post, the terrible acting and story cover up some genuine artistry on the part of Sirk.I agree. share
A class taught BY a moron, FOR morons. Perfect!
sharethis is classic soap melodrama,there's no room for criticism beyond whats its supposed to be,it think its stupid to try and judge soaps,its enough millions of people watch them(i dont),thats enough for their reason for being.
The only thing that bothered me in this movie is the misunderstanding about the pregnancy in the plot.This makes the doctor the ultimate idiot in the movie,who told mistakenly a former alcoholic he couldnt have children and turned him back to drink.They should have found some other plot device based on the faulted Stack character.
re--bbfan1998
What kind of dimwit professor wastes an hour and a half lecture pontificating why a film is trash?
Who listens to an analysis of "crap, just crap" for an hour and a half only to insist it's not "thought provoking in the least bit..whatsoever."?
Why excoriate the masses for being "just easily entertained by something dimmwitted" only to concede, "I'll admit, it's romantic, it's entertaining--BUT NO THIS IS NOTHING THAT IS THE ESSENSE OF FILM MAKING." (!!!)
Inform your professor that it takes a sucks to know a sucks.
I know this is 2-1/2 years later, but me thinks your "professor" was
probably a:
"has been - I didn't and couldn't - make it as an actor -
in Hollywood - or anywhere else for that fact - and I am just plain
jealous and envious of anyone else who did."
"OOO...I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"
In your original post, you say the movie is boring. In your next post, you say it's romantic and entertaining. So which is it? What law says that every movie has to be the essence of filmaking or thought provoking? There are some movies that I watch for fun or entertainment purposes. This movie is one of them.
share[deleted]
Couldn't your professor get a good job in the movie field rather than spewing out trash to punks like you?
shareMy professor gave us an hour and a half lecture of why this film sucks.
Incapable of forming an opinion yourself? What great film has your professor directed?
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, teach film studies." share
You've got to be kidding??When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
No, it wasn't. It was a bit boring during the first 10-15 minutes, but the rest of the film was quite good. "Imitation of life" is even better than WOTW, but i give it 7/10.
it's definitely not one of the 1001 movies you must see before you die, i could've died just fine without seeing this
so many movies, so little time
According to her autobiography, Lauren Bacall was told by her husband Humphrey Bogart after this came out, "I wouldn't make too many of these."
I wouldn't call it crap, as it is professionally made on a technical level. But I would call it TRIPE, as the story is completely hollow.
.