MovieChat Forums > Popeye (1980) Discussion > It isn't 'campy' or 'cheesy.'

It isn't 'campy' or 'cheesy.'


The 1967 Batman, with Adam West, is campy and cheesy. Popeye is subtle and funny. I think people who call this movie a "guilty pleasure" or worse still, hate it, just don't understand it.

As an interpretation, it has a few shortcomings. The cast is imperfect--I don't care much at all for the inarticulate Italian Bluto who makes animal sounds and has dubbed English dialogue. Shelly Duvall is almost too pretty to be Olive Oyl, and J. Wellington Wimpy, who could have been hilarious, was totally wasted in this film.

But the other elements of the movie are fantastic. The in-cast chemistry is superb. Robin Williams and Ray Walston are excellent. The musical numbers are very good and the storytelling by Robert Altman and Jules Ffeiffer lives up to both their reputations. The Sweet Haven set is wonderful and so are the minor actors and extras who populate it.

Even Disney seems to have forsaken it. I have no idea why. It's a great film.

reply

I don't care much at all for the inarticulate Italian Bluto who makes animal sounds and has dubbed English dialogue.


Huh? Captain Bluto was played by American actor Paul L. Wilson, who is most assuredly not an inarticulate Italian. Most of his dialogue, along with that of pretty much every other actor in this film, was looped-in in post-production ADR inside a studio. This is a common practice in film. Often, actors' mouths do not match up with their looped-in lines, which may be what you are referring to.

"Popeye" is indeed a campy film and was intended to be such. It has nothing to do with the viewer's perceived "understanding" of the picture's subject matter. Most filmed musicals have an element of camp or kitch to them, it simply comes with the territory.

-Rod

reply

"I think people/-/ just don´t understand it".

Yeah, that´s because it´s such a hugely complex intellectual challenge. Either way, while I´m not sure about "cheesy" or "campy", it´s certainly annoying as hell with all the idiotic antics by everyone and the completely over-the-top silly setpieces. Also, the constant, often overlapping, blathering and muttering by the characters - an Altman trademark that works fine just about everywhere else he´s employed it to such a great extent - can really drive one up the wall here. I suppose the sweet streak it has, combined with a comparatively adult sensibility that´s occasionally allowed to shine through, make it almost appealing in spots, but then it all inevitably gets lost again in the ocean of irritating buffoonery. Maybe it would have worked better if someone like Gilliam - who has a history of successfully mixing "child´s play" with serious, and seriously sinister, material as in Time Bandits or Baron Münchhausen - would have been a better fit to helm this project. Or maybe not, considering how terrible the screenplay is (which is no wonder, considering it´s the handiwork of this Feiffer guy who also wrote the unwatchably moronic Little Murders as well as the overrated Carnal Knowledge). Anyways, I was just about able to make it through this picture, but it´s certainly an experience I wouldn´t want to repeat. This time, the critics got it right the first time - it really is a poor movie. And coming, as it does, on the heels of that other terrible misfire Quintet which Altman released the year before, one is tempted to conclude his fall from grace in the 80´s was to a considerable extent his own fault. 4/10 for this.




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[deleted]