7.5 seems to be a pretty high score for this movie in my opinion. Admittedly I am not a huge fan of 70's cinema outside of the obvious (Godfather, Taxi Driver, Jaws, Star Wars etc) just honestly trying to understand why people seemed to like this movie so much. I generally love John Huston but didn't feel like this was one of his better works.
shareAdmittedly I am not a huge fan of 70's cinema outside of the obvious
I generally love John Huston but didn't feel like this was one of his better works.
There is just an unrefined gritty rawness (that sometimes works to perfection in movies like Rocky and Taxi Driver) that generally doesn't appeal to me in 70's cinema, I'm more of an 80's guy myself.
Didn't seem to be anything like Sierra Madre or The Man Who Would Be King (two movies I love) to me but I appreciate your insight.
I ask these questions about movies that others seem to like so I can try to understand more about what people enjoyed about the film, thanks for your response!
Absolutely agree. It's a criminally underrated film these days, which is a shame. It's one of those works that allows us to see the souls of those "beautiful losers" in their bleak environment, and evokes genuine empathy for them. This, I feel, is due to its humane but unblinking honesty.
shareThe empathy I had for the characters. Script.. I could have cared less about the boxing scenes - that's when I took my bathroom break, getting a soda.
shareI didn't like the movie that much. Kinda dragged along, and Susan Tyrell was awful. The movie did not deserve the praise that it received from people like Roger Ebert
shareIt's a very "slice of life" movie that is content to not have much of a plot, and have extended scenes of dialogue play out. I think that Houston was at a point where he was ready to be experimental in his filmmaking. So, having a film that isn't tightly wound actually appealed to him.
It is very good. It isn't a "likable" movie, certainly. But, I admire it.