MovieChat Forums > The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) Discussion > Roger Ebert didn't like the movie, eithe...

Roger Ebert didn't like the movie, either!

posted 11 years ago by poettesse
21 replies | jump to latest

Read Ebert's review here: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0063688/externalreviews

I was looking forward to seeing the original 'Thomas Crown Affair' because I wasn't impressed with the remake....and my b/f wanted me to see the original.
My first clue that the movie blows chunks was the theme song, that ridiculous 'Windmill' thing. I giggled even as I thought 'Oh, NO!'
I suppose in '68 the movie came off as suave, sophisticated, sexy....The split screen stuff seemed pointless. McQueen was obviously straining to appear rich & bored. Faye Dunaway looked like a mannequin as she preened & smiled enigmaticslly for the camera. I couldn't seem to notice anything other than her too-elaborate hair piece, the extra long & thick false eyelashes and the acne scars on her face.
In my opinion, 'The Thomas Crown Affair' missed on all cylinders. Thumb down.

[–] SunCanyonRoad 11 years ago

So you and Roger Ebert didn't like it. So **WHY** the hell should I or anyone else care?

"Im telling you when my boss sees these figures he's gonna have a stroke."
- Rudy Russo

[–] poettesse 11 years ago

Oh, geeze, you're one of THOSE....
You know, I couldn't care less whether you do or don't care that neither Roger Ebert nor I liked 'Thomas Crown.' This is a FORUM, where everyone can record their thoughts, feelings, etc about movies and etc. If you don't care what other people have to say, then don't read the forums! It's anyone's right to like or not like something, and to write what they choose. Agree with me or not; that's fine. I just don't see the point in being rude to someone just because you don't share his or her opinion. Live & let live.

[–] evilbastard9 11 years ago

You just contradicted yourself.

[–] poettesse 11 years ago

Fine, whatever you say. I just don't happen to agree--or care.

[–] megArnold 11 years ago

If you don't care, why start a discussion?

--
Grammar:
The difference between knowing your sh**
and knowing you're sh**.

[–] SunCanyonRoad 11 years ago

I wasn't rude. You are too damn sensitive. Look, if you want to openly talk down about a film many people enjoy, then be prepared to hear back from them. And I NEVER said you were not entitled to your opinion, you are! But it's just that, opinion (not fact) So I just said why should we care? So you don't like it. So what? Get over yourself! Your opinion isn't the end all be all to this film and if you want to dish criticism, then be prepared to take it too.

Even though saying "why should we care?" isn't a critique of your opinion, you just want to believe it is one.

"I don't want your watch, man. I want your friendship!" - Lightfoot

[–] rickbernardo 11 years ago

Oh yeah, the Noel Harrison songs were just sucky. At least the movie killed all the split-screen crap hollyweird was toying with at the time.

[–] poettesse 11 years ago

THANK YOU! So nice to know Im not alone.

[–] ZolotoyRetriever 11 years ago

I'm with you on this one, too, poettesse. I thought both McQueen and Dunaway were wrong for these roles. Neither of them came across as believable. I really cringed at that part where McQueen was laughing loudly at something that Dunaway said. It was the most forced attempt at laughter I've ever heard. The cute split-screen/multi-screen gimmick seemed exactly that: a cute gimmick.

As to the music, I didn't have a real problem with that song that you mention, it just sort of went in one ear and out the other. I also liked some of the location scenery, Boston and nearby sites, as well as some of the 60's vibes going on, so, the movie isn't a total waste for me. But yeah, it's not a real compelling flick.

Don’t mess with grandma:
http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/2010/09/22/machine_gun_big.jpg

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] poettesse 11 years ago

Why do so many of you people find it necessary to be so rude?

[–] megArnold 11 years ago

Excuse me? Ebert gave it 2.5 out of THREE, which is a near perfect score!

(this would equal 8.3/10 here on imdb, which few movies ever reach)

Please learn to read!

--
Grammar:
The difference between knowing your sh**
and knowing you're sh**.

[–] poettesse 11 years ago

Rude, rude, rude.
Are you all so unhappy that you can only be happy when you're trying to hurt someone else? Is it that you want to display your 'superior' intelligence? Well, you're not hurting me or making me ashamed, and I'm secure in my intelligence. You're just making me feel sorry for you shallow sh!ts.

[–] denham 11 years ago

Evidently Norman Jewison himself described the film as 'a victory of style over substance', and while one might query the word 'victory', it's surely beyond doubt which of these two elements prevails. It might have helped if we had seen compelling evidence of the Dunaway character's investigative brilliance, but it was not to be.

Btw megAnhalt, the Ebert ratings are out of four, not three. Which would equate to an imdb rating of more like 6.3, compared to 7.0 from users overall (currently).

"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."

[–] oscarunger 10 years ago

ebert liked a lot of crap movies and didn't like a lot of great ones. it was fun watching him banter with siskel back in the day but he wasn't really a great barometer

Faye Dunaway looked like a mannequin as she preened & smiled enigmaticslly for the camera. I couldn't seem to notice anything other than her too-elaborate hair piece, the extra long & thick false eyelashes and the acne scars on her face.

yes. dunaway was hideous. how could we not have noticed.

[–] eelb 10 years ago

Well, you didn't exactly articulate yourself well in the OP, using phraseology such as "blowing chunks" and then proceeding to berate an Academy Award winning song. How can you not expect to receive negative criticism, when this film is an iconic representation of late 1960's culture and music?

I don't know what younger people expect musically and culturally when they view a film almost a half century old. Are you naive to the point that you think your captivity in superficial 2014 pop culture, is magically going to be transported back in time to these films?

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Excuse me? Ebert gave it 2.5 out of THREE, which is a near perfect score! [quote][quote]Please learn to read!

Oh dear! Please get your facts right. Dear departed Roger gave it 2,5 out of 4, which indicates an average movie. You do the math.

I reckon Roger was on the money. All froth and bubble which may look nice, but there's not much substance or suspense underneath.🐭

[–] seahawk3133 10 years ago

Dead-on... That's how I felt...

Lead character was cool, cat & mouse romantic game was decent, but plot was weak, movie not intriguing and rest was fluff.

worth watching if not expecting much..

5 / 10

[–] thatgirl77 9 years ago

Read Ebert’s review here: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0063688/externalreviews

“You’re gonna need a bigger boat”…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crqnn3C87Ko

[–] ridge-m-1 9 years ago

Ebert is the best but he is certainly not infallible. He belittles the photography but then states "Which is not to say it isn't great to look at. It is."

He belittles the intricacies of the first heist which is ridiculous since McQueen nearly planned the perfect bank robbery even to the point of knowing every phone number amongst a row of phone booths only to be identified by a very attractive woman, extremely skilled at her job that does not play by the rules. The complexity of McQueen's character, which is part of the picture's character development that zooms right over Ebert's head, is here is a rich and successful businessman that has it all. However, he does not enjoy the corporate lifestyle, he is a rebel. He wants to have some real fun so he meticulously plans a caper and seemingly pulls it off without a hitch.

The relationship between McQueen and Dunaway is not your typical love affair. She is out to bust McQueen so it's more like a cat-and-mouse game which is extremely interesting to watch especially because of the great chemistry between two of Hollywood's biggest stars. Ebert misses this as well.

I agree the theme song is way too flower-power trippy and should never have been included nor a musical score that is based on that tune but it did win an Academy Award.

The split screen came about more as a necessity than the film editor being "pointless". There was too much film in the can that needed to be included to tell the story properly but the studio, as studios almost always do, interfered with the art of making a motion picture and desired a shorter feature.

McQueen never strains, as in the Sixties, he is still the icon of coolness. All I read in the comment about Dunaway is jealousy.

The ending is classic. Sorry Roger, not one of your better reviews.