MovieChat Forums > Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) Discussion > Actually, it's a bomb

Actually, it's a bomb

posted 9 years ago by marfrie56
45 replies | jump to latest

Saw the movie when it came out in 1969.
I was a college freshman.
The night I saw it, I was on a date with a new girlfriend - some big things happened that night - let's just say that I was in the process of becoming an adult.
Everything clicked that night - it was magical - I had a car - I had a girl - I was in COLLEGE - and I just loved loved loved the movie.
Thought it was the greatest thing I'd ever seen on the screen.
It had entrenched itself as one of my favorite movies of all time.

I hope I've aged better than this movie.
Re-watching it for the first time in many years last night - I could not get over how awkward it actually is, how sloppy, how corny - how contrived, how dopey - how Butch and Sundance are NOT the groovy cool dudes I once thought (but they are actually robbers, murderers, and low-lifes - however much I still like Paul and Robert), how Katherine Ross's character doesn't work for me, how the montage sequences don't really work, how the music doesn't work, how pretty much EVERYTHING doesn't work.
The poor props - phony plastic looking saddles on all the horses.
Bad pacing.
No development.
This movie has no soul, stands for nothing (except putting pretty star's faces on the screen), and would best be forgotten.

I'm not saying it's a total piece of trash like some of today's pointless action hero movies - it has some entertainment value, good chemistry between the two main actors (who are, let's face it, fantastic together or apart), nice cinematography, and some good spoken lines. But a GREAT movie or even a GOOD one, it is not.

Long segments of repeated action - robbing banks, then fleeing on horseback as they are pursued by inept posses, miraculously escaping as they laugh, and then sitting in a saloon across the street from the bank they just robbed.
Keystone cops stuff.

Part comedy, part Western, part romance, part road movie, part period piece - and it works at none of them.

This was when movies started really going bad. This was not the first, but certainly a fine example of: Let's get some big stars and put them on the screen. We'll worry about what we're going to do with them at some point!

I don't say that's how it actually went, but it may have been for all the dubious content in this picture.

I had to give it 5/10.
I have to wonder now about my other unimpeachable favorites from that era:
The Graduate
The Sting
Easy Rider
Slaughterhouse Five
Midnight Cowboy
One Flew Over the Coocoo's Nest

Are they all really just turkeys?
Sorry, but Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is a bomb.
A pleasant bomb, maybe, but a bomb nonetheless.
I don't know how it could succeed today, much less years from now, as a true classic would.

[–] Zoomorph 8 years ago

It's boring, cheesy, and fairly pointless. The characters are dull. It's not very good. Congrats on growing up.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] pattana746 8 years ago

I love Newman and Redford, but this movie is boring as hell. I never got into the story or the characters. Ross seemed vacant. I've tried watching it later in life and it's still flat.

[–] JohnMcClane88 8 years ago

I first seen Butch and Sundance when it was re-released in 1976 at the Drive-In and I thought it was AWESOME!

I have seen it dozens of times since and just bought it on DVD this week because I still think is AWESOME!

For me, like wine it gets better with time.

[–] AtoZ2014 8 years ago

The most common thing in the world of IMDB Message Boards is for someone to watch a movie and then immediately come over here to complain about it.

With recent movies, it's usually a film like Boyhood, which doesn't follow all of the "formula movie" conventions, that is attacked. I didn't want to go but my girlfriend dragged me to it and it sucked (and I can't tell her that 'cause I might not get laid!). Why was it popular, why did the critics like it, why did it get nominated, why did it win the Academy Award? These are the typical questions and complaints. Why are girls playing the parts in the new Ghostbusters?!!!

Here, we have someone that saw the movie fifty years and didn't enjoy it as much the second time around. When I saw it, maybe in 1970 or so, it was great. The first third was fun, highlighted by the humor, the two train robberies, the bicycle, and Raindrops. The second third is the chase scene (who are these guys?) highlighted by Robert Redford not knowing how to swim and having to jump to save his skin. The third third is Bolivia, not knowing the language, getting acclimated, the bank robberies, guarding the payroll, Etta leaving once she realized they were going to die, and the great ending with the Bolivian army arriving.

First time around, all of this was surprising and suspenseful.

Second time around (or fifth or tenth), the plot is known, but there is still plenty to enjoy. I watched it twice in the last day or so, first just the movie, second with the William Goldman commentary--he wrote the script to this movie and The Princess Bride, among others. It was fun. I enjoyed it.

[–] mrprovolone 8 years ago

surely this movie that cost 6 million to make and made 100milion can not be called a bomb

[–] geor1772 8 years ago

The only thing that is a bomb is your horrendous laughable opinion. One of the best westerns of all time!

[–] activista 8 years ago

For real---I saw this some years ago---thought it silly and too obvious with the humor, but I've seen at least once since (it's on PBS now) and kinda liked it. I'm watching it now,even though I didn't intend to, and I got all caught up in it again because not only is it a great-looking film (the California locations were stunningly beautiful) there's plenty of action, so it's not boring at all in the least. People who claim it's boring obviously are way too used to these fast-paces quick-edited ADHD films that are the norm for a lot of mainstream movies now. And, no, it's not a bomb at all---I think the OP just had a bad day when he saw it---some moves, or least certain ones, you have to be in a certain mood or just a good mood to appreciate.

This film is from an era when moves were actually about people, and not just special effects, explosions, or the biggest and best overblown CGI, like today. Also, it's cool to see both Redford and Newman in their prime and in their first real pair-up as leads in their first film together. Plus, they're both hilarious as Sundance & Butch, and have some of the most fun lines in the film. And they're both fun to watch in it,too---and their characters aren't complete d****, like a lot of male characters in old Westerns tend to be,which is refreshing. Plus most of the characters are well-drawn, and each one has something to add to the complete whole that is the film. (I like how the film starts with an old silent Western flick,too.) Another thing that's interesting about it, is how well the few women characters,especially the main one--are treated, which is pretty cool. I have to admit, I didn't like that scene where one of the men has snuck into a woman's place, makes her finish undressing at gunpoint---even though it turns out that they know other, but that was still disturbing for the few minutes it lasted.

The film is actually a lot of fun as well (and since it's '60s film, it goes without saying that I love the music in it.) and it's interesting to watch because it basically deconstructs a lot of Western tropes (the guys' plans don't always work out,they don't always have the perfect solutions to every problem, and they end up having to wing their way out of a lot of situations, which makes for some good laughs)---it's not at all your typical predictable Western from that era, which is probably why it seem so remarkably fresh even today. Plus,it's still a great-looking film, very well-shot and well-made, and it's one of the key transition Western films into much more realistic depictions of the genre. So,yeah,it deserves its classic status and then some---no doubt about that, because it still holds up well even now.

[–] henryonhillside 8 years ago

You're pretty much correct about "Butch" IMO. And most of the films in your "I wonder about them" list have indeed not aged well IMO, especially "The Graduate," which I find to be amazingly bad. That said, I must disagree with your opinion that "This (i.e., 1969) was when movies started going really bad." In fact the first half of the '70s was a golden age for film - "The Godfather" saga, "Chinatown," "Mean Steets," "Nashville," "Patton," etc. - all of which hold up beautifully.

[–] rsgre 8 years ago

Watched this again too on PBS after 40+ years. Still the goofy western I remember from years ago. A product of the times, the anti-establishment era, where the bad guys were the good guys. A tribute to star power, Newman & Redford hold the film together, and the director has a sure and steady hand in the proceedings. Between the lines is the fact that they are tragic characters doomed to end in a violent manner. Accept it as a goofy 60's product that may look a little strange today.

[–] b5erik 8 years ago

I cannot agree more with the original post.

Stealing from a catchphrase from the 80's - Where's the PLOT???

This movie was so disappointing to me when I saw it. It wasn't all that funny, wasn't all that exciting, didn't have a real plot/narrative, was all style over substance - I didn't enjoy it much.

As I've noted, it's not horribly bad, but it's not very good, either. It's no classic. It has two classic actors who have AMAZING chemistry, but that doesn't make a bad script, mediocre direction, and bad editing any better. It just keeps the movie from being a disaster.