MovieChat Forums > Seconds (1966) Discussion > Godawful movie.

Godawful movie.

posted 7 years ago by LetThemEatCake (2717)
6 replies | jump to latest

Some movies fail on initial release and then they get the "in subsequent years it was reassessed and liked" so then no one is allowed to criticize it for fear of being called stupid. Emperor's new clothes syndrome. This is one of such films. It is REALLY BAD. The cinematography is horrific, trying to emulate the horrific Breathless style that has destroyed films for half a century now. Rock Hudson is obviously a fading star trying to keep up with the new gritty currents and all it does is highlight his painful lack of talent. As a horror story isn't really scary, I think the only horror in it is the ass faced actor playing the epitome of mediocrity and blandness, that is the true horror story here but it is so grim, vulgar, upsetting that I don't even think it should be on a film.

My only question is, was this the first of these twilight zone type stories? If that's the case then this will be the film's only merit.

[–] Tricklebrook (316) 7 years ago

Of course, you're not stupid. Although I did like the movie, I can certainly see why someone else wouldn't. Everyone has different tastes.

I thought Hudson did a good job of portraying a man who, though he'd been given a handsome face and a new life, was still dead inside. And his freak-out at the end really made me feel his panic.

I also thought the director used the camera to good effect, showing how detached Hamilton was from the world and people around him.

But, as I said, this kind of movie isn't to everyone's liking. It's a good thing there are all different kinds of movies.

[–] samoanjoes (58446) 7 years ago

I liked it but it certainly is not for everyone. Sort of like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

[–] jdforyou1983 (1470) 4 years ago

It wasn't awful but only okay in my opinion

[–] thingmakersback (1439) 4 years ago

One of my favorite movies. I saw it when it was in theaters and I was too young to understand much about it (I was about nine) but it still scared me. I have seen it more recently and it is definitely a successful "twilight zone type story", and i even like Rock Hudson in it.

[–] seagal72 (2004) 4 years ago

Regarding the casting, I think that may have been a deliberate ploy by John Frankenheimer (in the full knowledge of Hudson's actual limitations as an actor) Given the unwritten (then-tabboo) 'secret'that Hudson had to keep throughout his career, I think it was the a deft touch, casting-wise. Plus, as it stands, Rock Hudson wasn't meant to totally 'convince' (hence the characters plight and ultimate predicament)

I 'dug' the movie (and it's concept completely) which meant that (as a engrossed viewer) I saw only John Randolph throughout the movie (and if you apply that 'mindset' whilst watching 'Seconds', then both the casting and performances take second place to it's core central theme)

Whilst I love this movie (and trust me, it gets better with repeated viewings) I can see why audiences in the 60's (or even present day one-time viewers) are left cold by it. To be fair, it actually plays better today than in 1966 (in this new century of mass social media whitewashing, photo filters, plastic surgery, extreme tattoos/body piercings, gender fluidity and identity politics, etc) More and more people (it would seem) are unhappy with their 'lot' these days, than ever before?

When I see some 'older' celebrities resorting to grotesque botox procedures (or even worse) in a fruitless attempt to stay younger or relevant...I often think of the themes of human dissatisfaction in this movie.
Perhaps, some older burnout deceased celebrities from yesteryear are (in fact) selling out arenas today, as either Justin Beiber or Taylor Swift (or both?)

[–] TheArgentinian (7247) 9 months ago

The way the story develops is not for everyone, ok. But you lost all credibility when you criticized the astonishing and ahead of its time cinematography by the legendary James Wong Howe.