Point 1) Absolutely NO CHEMISTRY between Ralph Fiennes and Kristen Scott Thomas!
Point 2) Boring, Boring, Boring (and I'm not some A.D.D. High Schooler here, folks)
Point 3) The acting is that of the time-honored Academy Award Notice worthy acting that is the equivalent of big screen Soap Opera Acting. (Notice the cringe-worthy look on Fiennes' face as he carries Thomas from the cave near the end of the film).
I disagree with your entire post. Let's start from the top, shall we...
Point 1) I thought there was an incredible amount of chemistry between Fiennes and Thomas. Their dynamic actually felt very much like old Hollywood films such as Casablanca or To Have and Have Not. The English Patient is a dying breed of epic, but it hails back to movies like Laurence of Arabia, and Dr. Zhivago.
Point 2) I can actually see and understand where this point comes from - first time I saw the film, I understood where the critical acclaim came from and appreciated the layered performances, but I didn't like the film that much. Things changed when I watched it the second time. This is a movie of incredible complexity and subtlety - and subtlety is not something the modern moviegoer is used to. That being said, I can see from your comment history that you also thought The Dark Knight was boring - I'm curious to know what movies, be them classic or new release, you find interesting. I'm also morbidly curious to know what you thought of The Godfather - since you sat through Gone with the Wind, I assume you've seen The Godfather.
Point 3) Out of curiosity, have you seen the movie Written on the Wind? It's the one movie with Lauren Bacall that I've seen that I did not like. I recommend you have a look at that film, because The English Patient is one of the finest performance pieces I've ever seen - certainly this is my favorite Ralf Fiennes performance, although a case could also be made for The Constant Gardener. Written on the Wind is one of the most appalling soap opera movies I've ever seen, although admittedly Bacall did an admirable job with a script that was well beneath her considerable talents. A movie being very emotional does not mean that it is a soap opera.
Here's the bottom line. The English Patient is a very acquired taste. It is not too accessible and it is slowly paced. People that are used to the majority of the movies that have come out in the last ten years may have trouble understanding why the English Patient is such a masterpiece. You are not the first to criticize the movie for being long, boring and over the top, and you certainly will not be the last.
"Come with me if you want to live!"
I guess you never saw Gladiator, American Beauty, or Forrest Gump.
"Charming company you keep."
Actually, I have seen Gladiator, Forrest Gump, and American Beauty... they are all "good" films.... personally I didn't think any of them deserved Best Picture though.
shareI guess you never saw Gladiator, American Beauty, or Forrest Gump.
Many are pissed that FG won over Shawshank and Pulp Fiction.
They find FG to be contrived and nothing poignant or unique, like SR or PF.
"Contempt loves the silence, it thrives in the dark" -Merchant
Both Kirsten Scott-Thomas and Ralph Fiennes were extremely convincing. So convincing that the high pathos scene when she carries her out of the cave, which I would otherwise loathe, is nothing short of brilliant. That is accomplished exclusively through the performances of the both leading actors and Minghella's great skills as a director.
Having said that, I must add that I don't like Juliete Binoche and her boyfriend at all. I just wanna see the desert parts, because they are great!
The scenes with Binoche are the best in the film. She was charming.
I would rather walk for 3 days in the desert (as Ralph Fiennes did) than sit through this nonsense.
For an accurate review for the film just watch the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine watches it... I feel her pain.
wiseowl... I loved Casablanca... but Fiennes and Scott Thomas were cardboard in this film...
sharewiseowl... I loved Casablanca... but Fiennes and Scott Thomas were cardboard in this film...Fair enough. But of course, there is no other onscreen pairing in history that matches Casablanca just in terms of chemistry. With the English Patient, if you didn't buy into the chemistry between Fiennes and Thomas, you didn't like the movie, because the relationships were really the whole point.
Long answer: I saw The Godfather part II when I was about 13... didn't appreciate it then.... I actually only saw the first Godfather about 4 years ago and loved it... so I then gave The Godfather part II a chance and liked it a lot... I thought the Godfather part III was good, but of course had the same complaint as everyone... Sofia Coppola is no actress.
So yes I love The Godfather... even better than the audience favorite Part II..
I also enjoyed the Bogart and Bacall romance in To Have and Have Not as you did... not to mention Bogart and Katherine Hepburn in The African Queen.
But - to further make people hate my opinion - I thought that Lawrence of Arabia was only average... it had its moments of brilliance... but at 4 and a half hours, I could have used a bit more of that brilliance... I don't know, maybe it's because I didn't particularly like the character... or perhaps I should say Peter O'Toole's characterization... I was annoyed by him at times. But I would never put Lawrence of Arabia in the same category as The English Patient... which I thought was awful.
wiseowl... I have not seen Written on the Wind... but I will definetly seek it out... the only Bacall movies i've seen are the ones with Bogart (Key Largo, To Have and Have Not, The Big Sleep, and Dark Passage) and Murder on the Orient Express and I have to say that I am a fan... she has a very distinct voice and look... and seems so mature for her age (only 19 in To Have and Have Not).
As for modern films that I like:
Slumdog Millionaire
The Wrestler
Role Models
Iron Man
Tropic Thunder (especially Downey,Jr. and Tom Cruise)
As far as The Dark Knight is concerned... it's the action sequences I was bored with... the performances were great... In fact Heath Ledger was so good as the Joker, I don't think anyone will ever want to play him again... I almost wish the film were just a character story... Christian Bale was so good in Batman Begins, but almost wasted in The Dark Knight.
Good to know you had the good taste to enjoy the Godfather, and obviously one can easily see why you didn't enjoy it at 13. My father made me wait until I was old enough to follow it properly before letting me watch it, which is why I loved it at once. I tend to go back and forth between Parts I and II depending on the mood I'm in. They are both masterpieces, choosing between movies of that calibre is very difficult. Part III is easily the weakest of the three for too many reasons to list, but you've seen the movie so you know what the problems are.
I am a huge fan of both Bogart and Bacall - first movie I saw with the two of them was The Big Sleep, blew me away, great flick. Absolutely watch Written on the Wind, but it is so grossly over-the-top, I fully expect you to hate it. But it might give you a little perspective on why I didn't think the English Patient took the melodrama too far. Honestly, I've always had trouble with the scene in the cave of swimmers right after the crash - they keep saying "my darling" - ugh! Terrible! But with the exception of a few bad lines of dialogue, I thought the movie was brilliant.
As to the Dark Knight, I love every minute of the movie. But I agree that the main draw was the characterization. Christian Bale had more range - it's true - in Begins, but I thought every performance in the movie was rock solid, with the possible exception of Rachael Dawes (but her character was never that interesting to begin with).
You seem to be well versed in classic film, so I can't fault you for not caring for the English Patient. Let me ask you this though, what did you think of Titanic?
"Come with me if you want to live!"
I enjoyed The Titantic... though not as much as the world seemed to. The subplot of the diamond was a bit contrived and Billy Zane was pretty campy (although I thought he brought a certain energy to his scenes). But I really enjoyed the romance between DiCaprio and Winslet. All in all very entertaining movie. But I rather liked Good Will Hunting and As Good As It Gets better in 1997.
...and yes Dragmio, I know Elaine ate 50 year old cake... in case you were wondering... I was only saying (and jokingly, at that) to watch that one episode for a similar view I share with Elaine on a FILM... not live your life like her... but, hey, if you wanna eat 50 year old cake... knock yourself out.
It's nice to have someone like wiseowl on the board.... someone who totally disagrees with my opinion on the thread, but doesn't act like a child.
shareI forgot to mention that I also would have chosen L.A. Confidential (not to mention Face/Off... but action pics never win) over Titanic as Best Pic of 1997.
shareThis is going to sound like an insult...it is not...but I just hope that people reading this thread do not take seriously the opinions of a cinefile who finds ANY David Lean movie "average".
shareYes, grimeyandcrass anyone who thinks that ANY David Lean movie is only "average" is completey unworthy of being heard... but why stop there?
Anyone who thinks that any Kubrick, Spielberg, Tarantino, Woody Allen, Michael Curtiz, John Ford, John Huston, Hitchcock, Capra, Wilder, or Coppola film is only "average" must be not worth listening to either...
... What? Did I go to far?... are they not considered Master Directors?
Yes, they are. And many of them are my favorite directors... but sorry, not all of their films were masterpieces... in fact most of them made a stinker or two. And as far as Lean is concerned; The Passionate Friends and Madeleine were pretty average films as well.
But, to respond to your - not insulting, but naive - statement... like I said earlier; Lawrence of Arabia had moments of brilliance... the cinematography and music were fantastic. I consider all factors when watching a film (artistic, technical, and, for me, the most important... entertainment), and on an artistic and technical level the film was marvelous... but, as an entertainment it had it's highs and lows. I thought it was over-all a "good" movie... perhaps why I call it "average" is just because I felt it was not the "fantastic" movie I had my hopes up for after it was built up so much... much like I call The Dark Knight only "average", when in fact I think it is "good"... just not the "masterpiece" I thought it would be, due to all the rave reviews and screams for Academy recognition (although Ledger deserved his Oscar). In 1962 (the year Lawrence of Arabia won the Oscar for), I much more enjoyed the smaller scale To Kill a Mockingbird as "Best Picture".
grimeyandcrass, I bet that even you think SOME classic masterpieces are only average or even less-than-average (not everyone can love them all)... does that mean someone should discard your opinion or not take you seriously? No. Because if they are TRUE classics I'm sure they will have SOMETHING about them that you can appreciate.
In closing, you may have a different opinion than me on MANY movies, but as long as you have an opinion to voice... I'll hear it.
Over the last couple of days I've watched The Broadway Melody, You Can't Take it With You, and All the Kings Men, the "Best Picture" winners of 1929, 1938, and 1949, respectively.
They were all enjoyable films.... and if you've seen The Broadway Melody, it seems as if Porky Pig was based on the "Uncle Jed" character.
Now there's only 8 "Best Picture" Oscar winners I haven't seen yet and I still stand by my Worst "Best Picture" opinion of The English Patient.
I just finished watching The Lost Weekend... and what a fantastic movie! Ray Malland was perfect (and is it just me or does his facial features remind you of Jimmy Stewart?). And Jane Wyman was great as well.... I now feel that this is one of the best "Best Pictures" of all time.... I don't know, maybe because the story is very relatable to me.
With the English Patient, if you didn't buy into the chemistry between Fiennes and Thomas, you didn't like the movie, because the relationships were really the whole point.
Elaine also ate a 50 year old cake.
shareI enjoyed The Titantic... though not as much as the world seemed to. The subplot of the diamond was a bit contrived and Billy Zane was pretty campy (although I thought he brought a certain energy to his scenes). But I really enjoyed the romance between DiCaprio and Winslet. All in all very entertaining movie. But I rather liked Good Will Hunting and As Good As It Gets better in 1997.We agree on that much at least. Titanic was a good movie, but it was never the masterpiece of filmmaking everyone seemed to think it was. The relationships lacked any sort of complexity and the movie had very little in the way of subtlety, making it more accessible than The English Patient, but, in my opinion, nowhere near as good. Good Will Hunting and LA Confidential were both movies that were superior to Titanic and both featured layered performances on complex emotion - Good Will Hunting in particular was a hell of a performance piece, leagues ahead of Titanic.
It's nice to have someone like wiseowl on the board.... someone who totally disagrees with my opinion on the thread, but doesn't act like a child.Indeed the feeling is mutual. I'm a big believer in being able to disagree without being irrational. The English Patient is a movie that is very difficult to like. I myself didn't care for it that much when I first saw it, it sort of grew on my over time - now it's one of my favorite World War II period pieces. As a result of it being less-accessible than your average movie, only a small number of film-viewers will see it in the way I do.
I finally saw this film last night. Yes, it's long. Yes it's not for everyone.
This movie came out when I was a teenager, but I didn't see it then. I'm glad I waited, because this requires patience and maturity and life experience to fully appreciate it.
I too was a teen when the movie came out... I watched it back then and perhaps was not "ready" to watch it... I was more of an action movie fan in my teens... so I blamed hating the film on my maturity.
I watched it again for the first time a few days ago (which prompted me to start this thread)... It was my attempt to enjoy films I could not appreciate when I was younger... while there were bright spots (particularly the part where Fiennes was held on the train while Scott-Thomas was dying in the cave... and whenever Binoche is onscreen) the film, in my opinion was not intriguing in the slightest. Like wiseowl said though, if you don't buy the Fiennes/Scott-Thomas romance then the movie fails... obviously, many (most) people think they had great chemistry... but I for one could not see what either one saw in each other. For me, their characters lacked any kind of personality... and the dialogue when they were alone together actually made me laugh... and I'm 31 now.
That being said, the cinematography was beautiful as was the music... also, I just realized that I did like Fiennes' performance when he shared his scenes with Binoche and Willem Dafoe... too little, too late though.
I would like to revise my Original Post and state that The English Patient is the worst "Best Picture" I have thus far seen... at the current time I have yet to see 21 of the 81 "Best Pics". The ones I have not seen at this time are:
2002 - Chicago
1989 - Driving Miss Daisy
1981 - Chariots of Fire
1970 - Patton
1968 - Oliver!
1964 - My Fair Lady
1959 - Ben Hur (One of the first on my list to check out)
1958 - Gigi
1956 - Around the World in 80 Days
1954 - On the Waterfront (I'm embarrased I haven't seen this one yet)
1949 - All the Kings Men
1948 - Hamlet
1946 - The Best Years of Our Lives
1945 - The Lost Weekend (Another one I really want to see)
1942 - Mrs. Miniver
1940 - Rebecca (Only because I can't find it anywhere... I love Hitchcock)
1938 - You Can't Take It With You
1937 - The Life of Emile Zola
1933 - Cavalcade
1929 - A Broadway Melody
1928 - Wings (can't find this one either)
So, if any of these films are indeed worse than The English Patient I will acknowledge it when I see them. I'm not particularly looking forward to watching Chicago, Gigi, or A Broadway Melody... but I've been on a mission to see all the "Best Pics" that I haven't seen yet.
just saw Driving Miss Daisy... not bad... not great... but better than English Patient... also have On the Waterfront and watching it tomorrow
shareI just finished watching On the Waterfront and all I have to say is: BRILLIANT!!! It is now officially one of my favorite "Best Picture" winners.... and even though it is not a traditional romance film I enjoyed the chemistry and romance much more from Marlon Brando and Eva Marie Saint than that of Ralph Fiennes and Kristen Scott-Thomas... for that matter I enjoyed the chemistry between Morgan Freeman and Jessica Tandy (although not romantic... but definitely more chemistry) much more than Fiennes and Scott-Thomas.
shareI would like to add that although I think Ralph Fiennes' character in this film was pretty unlikable... he was fantastic in Schindler's List (I know he was unlikable in that one too... but he was supposed to be) and in In Bruges... hell, maybe I only like him as a bad guy... although I loved him in Maid in Manhattan... okay that was a lie... I didn't see that one.
shareFiennes has an affinity for playing characters that are difficult to like. In the English Patient he plays a man that does a lot of off-putting things - like making deals with the Nazis. His first scene opposite Katherine in the market where he says he is "rusty at social graces". As the movie continues we discover that despite is very difficult and stiff demeanor there lies a lot of passion for certain things, history, folklore and of course Katherine.
Just thinking out loud here, but the relationship between Almasy and Katherine borders closer to obsession than love - maybe that's one of the reasons why the relationship doesn't work for everyone that sees it. In contrast to Almasy and Katherine, Jack and Rose's (in Titanic) relationship is much more young and innocent in many ways.
Although I think English Patient is Fiennes' best performance to date, The Constant Gardener would be a close second - one of the only movies I've seen him play a genuine "nice guy". The End of the Affair was another really good performance, but that was also a difficult character in a lot of ways - very angry, and certainly obsession was a huge theme in that movie.
"Come with me if you want to live!"
I agree... Ralph Fiennes was excellent in The Constant Gardner... I have not seen The End of the Affair as of yet... it doesn't seem like my cup of tea though... but i have been surprised by movies... i thought Out of Africa was going to be awful and Gandhi would be the cinematic equivalant of a tranquilizer dart.... i was wrong in both cases Out of Africa was pretty decent and Gandhi was fantastic.
shareI was surprised that I liked Out of Africa because it seemed like it would be similar to The English Patient. It was kind of similar, but in my opinion... much better... although I easily predicted the downer ending. I know it was based on a true story, but it seems like in these Academy Award Winning " epic adult romances" they always end in similar ways.
shareI watched Oliver! a couple days ago and I just now finished watching Chariots of Fire. As of now I only have 17 Best Picture Oscar winners left to watch...
...and after viewing these two films I must say that so far The English Patient is still the worst "Best Picture" I have seen.
Oliver! was a very entertaining (albeit overlong) musical.
Chariots of Fire was the very definition of mediocre (no film in 1981 was better than Raiders of the Lost Ark)... but it was still better than The English Patient.
If Oliver! is your cup of tea, it's not surprising that The English Patient isn't. You should stay away from Eric Rohmer films too.
shareWell, Oliver! isn't exactly the kind of film I'd line up to see... but I must admit that I was entertained... it had some truly funny parts and some snappy songs... and is a worthy reworking of the Dickens tale.
I just checked out Eric Rohmer's page on imdb and I must admit that I'm not familiar with any of his work.
But by the logic of "If Oliver! is your cup of tea, it's not surprising that The English Patient isn't"... you would think that the same could be said about Gandhi, or Schindler's List, or Platoon... but all of those are film I love.
I love all kinds of movies... from Casablanca to Die Hard (my all-time favorite)... from Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man to The Grapes of Wrath... from Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
I just happen to think that The English Patient is not a good film at all. It is cinematic Ambien.
[deleted]
Any dilettante who likes movies but has no knowledge of their craft can make your complaints: boring, no chemistry, bad acting. Your criticism is vapid, offering no depth or understanding. You enjoy a range of films. Fine. But those you cite are easily accessible, even to kids. They don’t show that you have a grasp of the filmmakers' art.
The English Patient deals with love in many manifestations. Katherine’s early comment enumerating various kinds of love (“filial love, platonic love, romantic love”) lays out the subject of the whole film. With Katherine and Almasy, we have an overwhelming, passionate romantic/sexual love—one so powerful, its thwarting destroys not just the lovers, but those around them. In that, it recalls Bronte’s great “wild workshop,” Wuthering Heights. Add to that its other themes--guilt, infidelity, war, revenge--and the other love stories, resonating like variations on the theme of the central couple's, and you have a great tale of human passion and frailty, beautifully structured and told with stunning imagery.
As with other posters, I don't get your not sensing the chemistry between Fiennes and Scott Thomas. Perhaps the “Britishness” of the lovers—the reticence they embodied, which lent such irony and pathos to their situation—threw you.
At any rate, if you found The English Patient unwatchable, the problem is not with the film.
rrb makes several fine points, one of them has to do with accessibility. The English Patient is perhaps one of the least accessible films I've ever seen - which doesn't make it any less of a masterpiece of storytelling. If you could fault this movie for anything, it is for that. This is a truely great film, one much more intelligent and sophisticated than many other films in the same mold. The problem is that the OP is not in the minority with his opinions. What interests me most is his mission to see every oscar winner ever made - when in fact to any student of film, the Oscars would mean precious little. Many a masterpiece was robbed at the oscars for one reason or another - but we could argue about that all day. Having a grasp of "the filmmakers art" is not as important to me as recognizing a masterpiece when your watching one. Course I've seen many films - many by Scorcesse and Stanley Kubrick for example - that were considered masterpieces by others that I thought were utterly without merit. So who am I to talk down to OP for hating this movie?
I think here you go right to the heart of what makes this movie rather difficult for some people. It is a very British film in its subtlety and nuances. But really I thought the chemistry between Feinnes and Thomas was the most easily accessible thing about the film. Even the casual viewer who might've understood nothing about the peripheral characters or the deep meaning behind the events of the film could still look at it as a love story between those two characters.
As with other posters, I don't get your not sensing the chemistry between Fiennes and Scott Thomas. Perhaps the “Britishness” of the lovers—the reticence they embodied, which lent such irony and pathos to their situation—threw you.
rrb... my criticism was vapid? No, my criticism was valid... how can a love story work when there is no chemistry between the leads (I know you felt the chemistry... I did not)?
The Grapes of Wrath and Gandhi are easily accessible to kids??? Sure, I guess. They may be adult stories... but children could understand them... just probably not appreciate them... but the same goes for The English Patient (except parents probably wouldn't allow their kids to watch due to the sex/nudity), as it is also an adult story, but just as accessible as The Grapes of Wrath and Gandhi.
By mentioning the range of films I enjoy, I was just responding to the comment you made about me liking Oliver! being able to explain why I did not enjoy The English Patient... I was just trying to say that if a person likes one kind of film it doesn't mean they won't like another... and I wasn't trying to "show that I have a grasp of the filmmaker's art"... but if there is only one thing in the world I understand, rrb, it is film... I am more than just a casual film lover and I have dedicated at least 20 years of my life furthering my knowledge of film and filmmaking... I am no dilletante (good word though).
...and as I have stated before there ARE certain technical aspects of the film I enjoy... such as the beautiful cinematography and score... and Juliette Binoche's scenes were highlights... but the dialogue in this film was just awful... especially in the scene where Fiennes is being rude at the table and Scott-Thomas goes to the hallway... when he holds her there and they exchange dialogue (sorry I can't remember what is said) I just rolled my eyes... It was just how I imagined a paperback romance novel's dialogue to sound like...
...and as far as their "Britishness that threw me" comment..... that's ridiculous... Love Actually is perhaps my favorite romantic comedy. Granted, it's not the same type of film as The English Patient... but that's about as British a romance film as you can get... and In Bruges was one of the best films of last year (featuring an Oscar worthy performance by Fiennes)... again, not the same type of film... but if you think "Britishness throws me", then I got an entire arsenal of films that I love to disprove that "theory"... and as far as liking this type of film, Out of Africa qualifies in my opinion... although it was not fantastic it definately was not in any way bad.
At any rate, I never said the film was unwatchable... as I previously stated there ARE things to admire about the film... but if you're saying that the reason I did not enjoy the movie is because the problem is with me, rrb... well, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
[deleted]
Over the weekend I watched Chicago and Patton... and today I have just watched Ben-Hur and Gigi.
Chicago - a film I thought would be horrible - was actually pretty entertaining, if unspectacular. While definately not Oscar worthy it was head and shoulders above The English Patient.
Patton was fantastic... George C. Scott gave a wonderful performance in a great film.
Ben-Hur was yet another surprise to me.... I figured it would be somewhat entertaining, but very cheesy... but it was a damn fine film with one of the greatest action sequences put to celluloid... with only a pinch of the cheesiness I expected.
Gigi was a time-passer that was amusing... not a great film, but nothing to snub your nose at... much better than The English Patient... I guess the "Frenchness" of that film didn't "throw me".... ha ha.
I just watched Around the World in 80 Days and My Fair Lady today... and I must admit I wasn't very impressed with either of them.
Around the World in 80 Days was an incredibly overlong unfunny adventure comedy that was padded with endless travelogue footage. In fact if you were to fast forward through all the post card images the filmmakers seems so fond of, you could cut about 20 - 25 minutes off the film. I know they want to show us the wonders of the world but it doesn't take that long for us to take it in. Also, there is an excrusciatingly laughless comedic bullfight that may have been interesting for a minute or two of screentime... but is strectched into about 8 - 10 minutes.
My Fair Lady was a film that I couldn't stand for the first hour... Audrey Hepburn's grating accent was headache inducing. Now, I know that was the whole point, that Rex Harrison couldn't stand her speech but everytime she spoke I wanted to rip my T.V. off the wall... It was just plain annoying... until of coarse she finally learned to "speak properly"... then the film recovered into an average movie with good performances by Hepburn (one of my favorite actresses) and Harrison.
All in all, a pretty dull "Best Picture" movie day... but I still feel that The English Patient is the dullest.
I'll agree with you on both AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS and MY FAIR LADY, two films I still find unbearable to watch.
However, THE ENGLISH PATIENT is a masterwork. I enjoyed it as much as a movie as I did the book.
Yes, Around the World in 80 Days was a bit of a snoozer... it actually makes me want to check out the horribly reviewed Jackie Chan remake.
And My Fair Lady, for me, was 1/3 horribly annoying and the next 2/3 average as average can be.
And I must say that The English Patient does have some fervent followers. I can definately admit that it is a beautiful film to look at... and I can understand, even appreciate why others like it... not only did they enjoy the aesthetic beauty of the film, but the romance between the two central characters (which is truly the key to the total enjoyment of the film). I, unfortunately, am one of the people who thought the romance in the film fell very flat... and the silly "romantic" dialogue between the two leads did nothing to help.
On another note, I just finished watching Mrs. Miniver, the "Best Picture" winner of 1942. And it was a fine film set against the backdrop of WWII England. The "Britishness" of this film did not "throw me" (ha ha... sorry, I can't let that comment go).
Also, I watched The Best Years of Our Lives, "Best Picture" of 1946. A great, post WWII film. At 2 hours and 48 minutes, it seemed to last about half as long.
Just a thought, but one epic romance that I have always loved was The Last of the Mohicans (1992). The chemistry between Daniel Day Lewis and Madeleine Stowe is movie magic. They express SO MUCH MORE with the way they look at each other, than Fiennes and Scott-Thomas do with all their paperback romance type whispers and proclomations of love for one another.
I love the scene after Stowe dresses Uncas' wound and Day-Lewis is staring at her. She asks, "What are you looking at sir?"... and he simply responds, "I'm looking at you, miss". And when Day-Lewis is in jail and Stowe asks him why he didn't escape when he could have, he says "Because what I'm interested in is right here".
Also, when Magua (not sure on that spelling) and the Huron attack the British soldiers and Day-Lewis sees a Huron indian strike Stowe and prepare to do her in... he screams and runs to her, killing a couple Huron on the way to finally, brutally kill him, and rescue and passionately kiss Stowe.
"Stay alive! No matter what occurs! I will find you. No matter how long it takes. No matter how far. I will find you!".... Now, that's romantic dialogue! I mean they didn't even say "I love you" to each other once in the film... or even whisper what they felt for each other... but they sure as hell showed it.
Another wonderful example of show and "not" tell is Uncas' love for Stowe's sister, Alice... it's just as beautiful as the central romance (perhaps even more so)... we never hear him express a word of feelings to her or anyone... and we don't need to... When Magua takes Alice at the end, the way Uncas touches Day-Lewis' arm and Day-Lewis looks back at him and knows that he is going after Magua to rescue the girl he loves... no cheesy dialogue needed.
It's a crime The Last of the Mohicans didn't get nominated for "Best Picture" in '92 (although the winner in '92, Unforgiven, IS my personal favorite Best Picture winner). At least it won for it's beautiful cinematography.
I just finished watching 1933 "Best Picture" winner, Cavalcade. And I must say that it is one of my least favorite Oscar winners of all-time. This epic(?) film chronicles the lives of two families over thirty years, kind of like the way Giant is structured... the problem is that it never focuses on one issue or character long enough to care about anything or anyone.
One unintentionally hilarious scene was when two newlyweds are on their honeymoon cruise and finish a conversation, then, when they walk out of frame they reveal a life float that was behind them that reads "TITANIC"... it seemed right out of Airplane.
Anyway, it was just a breezy enough viewing to be better than The English Patient... but not too much... it probably didn't help that the VHS copy I watched contained a loud background noise throughout it's entire length.
I watched The Life of Emile Zola (Best Picture 1937) yesterday. It was a very interesting movie, very well acted and well written. But it didn't get real exciting until about the last half hour with a terrific courtroom sequence.
Needless to say, I thought it was definately better than The English Patient. I still have 3 "Best Pictures" left to watch (Wings, Rebecca, and Hamlet)... and I doubt that I will like Rebecca or Hamlet less than The English Patient, as I'm a huge Hitchcock fan and I usually like the well recieved Shakespeare adaptations... but I've heard mixed things about Wings... maybe that can replace The English Patient as my least liked "Best Picture"...
... and if not, I promise everybody on this thread that I will rewatch TEP after I complete watching the final 3 on my list (not that I'm pretentious enough to think you care, of coarse)... just to give it another chance. I did it with Raging Bull and Gone with the Wind, two movies I didn't enjoy the first time I saw them in my teens (like The English Patient), but recently rewatched them and enjoyed them both. But being as that I just watched TEP for the second time only a few months ago... I doubt it will change my opinion of the film... but since I made such a STRONG claim (The WORST 'Best Picture' EVER)... I think I owe it to the film (and the defenders of the film) to give it one more viewing.
I just watched Atonement last night (a movie I got for my wife, as I thought I wouldn't like it). And to my surprise it was a damn good movie...
SPOILERS
...although I would like to know why it is that in all the Academy Award Winning (and nominated) "epic romantic dramas" one - or both - of the leads has to die... so we can cry? Although I did greatly enjoy Atonement, I leaned over and told my wife "at least one of them is going to die in the movie". I also knew this before I saw Titanic, Out of Africa, and of coarse The English Patient... it is incredibly predictable. But if both the lovers were to live happily ever after... it would be called a "Hollywood Ending"... maybe that's why The Last of the Mohicans wasn't nominated for "Best Picture" in '92.
Oh well, just a thought.
And, by the way, the "Britishness" of Atonement didn't "throw me" (I just can't let that comment go... it's hilarious).
Finally saw Hamlet - Best Picture of 1948 - and enjoyed it thoroughly. It was very atmospheric and Olivier was damn fine in the title role (it was also amusing to see Peter Cushing in such a goofy role)... but I enjoyed The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Key Largo, and Red River much more from the same year.
Also, I have to admit that I did enjoy the Franco Zefferelli/Mel Gibson version a bit more than the Laurence Olivier version... perhaps because it was more cinematic and less play-like.
And I still stand by my original post that The English Patient is the Worst "Best Picture" of all-time.
FINALLY saw Rebecca. And it gets my vote for at least one of the TOP 15 "Best Picture" winners ever... if not the TOP 10.
All that is left is Wings... I might order that on ebay this weekend... No matter what, next week I'm going to watch The English Patient again.
Your film education sucks. Your taste is abominable. You get incensed when people call you on your *beep* You are an ill-informend buffoon who doesn't know squat about movies, but seems constantly to be preening himself on his picks of what's good and what isn't. You have gaps in your viewership of classic cinema through which one could maneuver Lucas's Death Star. Try watching Brief Encounter, Great Expectations, Oliver Twist and some of Lean's other wonderful films instead of belaboring his lesser achievements - no one has an uniterrupted string of classics. Lean was a great and beloved film-maker, and for some smug neophyte would-be cineaste to casually disparage his work bespeaks an arrogance which is highly unattractive in one of such rather obvious limitations. You seem to enjoy shocking your audience with your "interesting and original take on classic movies." This reminds me of the story of the would-be writer who receives a publisher's reply after sending him his manuscript. "Dear Sir, thank you for considering us in regards to publication of your first novel, a work which is both original and interesting. Unfortunately, the part that is interesting is not original. And that which is original... is not interesting. Your reluctance to suffer through the musicals earned a smile here. You are so clearly a rather intellectually (and perhaps otherwise?) insecure type afraid readers of your comments my misconstrue your intersest in cinema as something associated certain untoward inclinations. Not to worry; I'm sure you are of a devoutly heterosexual nature, and couldn't so much as hum a show tune under pain of death. "Honest, your Honor, for all I know mauve is the past participle of move. But how is it that someone that has yet to view so many of Hollywood's best (I shudder to think what you know, or rather, don't know, about foreign cinema) has so many opinions which he feels called upon to so vehemently
express?
Wow... haven't checked this thread in a while.... seems as if you need to take a valium there classicavengers...
You say I get "incensed when people call me on my *beep*".... look again... I simply respond... respectfully.
You seem to be the one who gets all "huffy puffy"... and disrespectful.
I've seen David Lean's Brief Encounter and Great Expectations (still need to see his version of Oliver Twist)... I only mentioned his lesser efforts in response to a poster implying that I should not be taken seriously because I thought one of Lean's movies was average... and I see that you agree with me that not every filmmaker has "an uninterrupted string of classics"... I simply pointed out that Lean did in fact have "lesser achievements", something the previous poster seemed to think impossible.
As far as musicals go... no, they are not my favorite genre. But I have the open-mindedness to give them a shot anyway because I want to appreciate the individual film seperate from the genre. Sometimes it leads to being pleasantly surprised... in cases like The Sound of Music, West Side Story, The Broadway Melody, Singin' in the Rain and Oliver! for instance. Sometimes it leads to being utterly bored... An American in Paris is a prime example.
My knowledge of foreign film varies... I'm very knowledgable of Brazilian cinema like Centro do Brasil (Central Station), Cidade de Deus (City of God), Casa de Areia (House of Sand), Polaroides Urbanas, and Carandiru... becuase I speak Portugeuse and love to travel with my wife to Brazil (her home country). But I also like films by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (especially Amelie and City of Lost Children... Delicatessen was OK) Almodovar, Guillermo del Toro, Dario Argento (especially his 1970s output), Truffaut, F.W. Murnau (I know most his German films were silent, but they were still count as foreign)... I have an incredibly vast knowledge of the Italian Horror and Giallo films that were popular in the 60s and 70s. I try to get a different foreign language film each time I go to the library. Alas, I still would love to explore more foreign films.
As far as being "intellectually" and "otherwise" insecure... and in fact bringing my sexuality in to the discussion of film... well, I won't stoop to the low of namecalling such as your "dope(fiend)" and "ill-informed buffoon" remarks (at least you didn't say "troll"), but I will say that you seem to be the one who is insecure and rather disturbingly offended by my simple opinion of a film (or perhaps films)...
All I can say is... Calm down... breathe... hum a showtune or something... LOL... just kidding... but seriously, I do love "Moon River" (from Breakfast at Tiffany's... not a musical, I know), "America" and "Gee, Sgt.Krupke" (from West Side Story), "Greased Ligntning" and "Summer Lovin'" (from Grease),"Too too Tootsie" (from the otherwise bland The Jazz Singer, 1927) and many other "showtunes"... and I don't think enjoying showtunes has any effect on one's sexuality... that was just a naive comment.
To conclude, I just want to say that you may think "my film education sucks" and I have "abominable" taste. But don't get so worked up just because I don't like the same film as you... I'm sure if you and I actually talked that you'd find out we liked a lot of the same films... despite my not knowing "squat" about movies.
I unfortunately haven't rewatched The English Patient yet... and for that matter I still haven't seen Wings... been real busy... but as soon as I get a chance I will.
shareHaven't checked this thread for a while... I was kind of hoping that Mr.classicavengers would respond to my retort... guess he's too busy commenting on Thor and Ant-man (that's not a knock, by the way)....
I just re-read his post again... and one thing I was wondering is... how the hell does he know which classic films I've seen... because apparently, according to him, "I have a gap in my knowledge of classic films that you could manuever Lucas' Death Star through"...
... I would love to compare my knowledge of classic films to his... hell, why stop at classics... I'd love to compare my knowledge of films period...
I saw The Godfather at the theater when I was 16 and hated it--it was a bunch of old men in business suits standing around in dark hallways talking. Then I rented it on video 15 years later and loved it-brilliant dialogue and characters.
Lawrence of Arabia is my favorite movie of all time. I will drive 200 miles to see it on the rare occasion a theater has it on the big screen. There is nothing like a great, beautifully done epic.
And I love romances. Casablanca, The African Queen, and modern movies like 500 Days of Summer or Shopgirl.
By comparison, the English Patient just leaves me cool, if not quite cold. Fiennes and Scott Thomas did seem more driven by lust than by love. Bogie's slide into drinking and bitterness in Casablanca seemed far more natural than Fienne's odd nervous breakdown in EP. The last act of EP also seemed somewhat rushed and, as one poster noted, kind of contrived. And as for the photography--it was lovely and artistic, but it conveyed only the desert's beauty. The combination of beauty, harshness and pain that David Lean's images captured in LoA is absent.
Maybe I will rent the DVD or download EP in another 10 years and love it, but I doubt it.
Juliete Binoche is luminous in The English Patient. A cause for celebration.
shareI agree, wdskinner.
Give me back my 2 hours (3 hours?).
Yeah, pocomarc... I feel the same way... but believe it or not... I'm gonna watch it ONE MORE TIME!
I was a teen when I saw it in the theater and hated it... and I just watched it a couple months ago to give it another chance... I didn't like it then either.
But I'm willing to give it one more go... hey, maybe I wasn't in the right state of mind to watch it the last time. I know I wasn't when I was a teen... I had heard of the Kristen Scott-Thomas full-frontal scene and I was pretty much most interested in that at the time (teenagers, huh?).
Anyway... maybe it will have a different effect on me this time... maybe the third time will be the charm.
It is one of the increasing number of Best Picture winners that have not stood the test of time. increasingly the Oscars are now more of a snapshot of time rather than rewarding a film that would stand head and shoulders above all others.
Its that man again!!
You're a dope (fiend). Ralphe Fiennes and Kristen Scott-Thomas ignited the screen. I'm sorry you're too mentally limited to appreciate such a literate, well-crafted film. Do enjoy the next Rush Hour installment.
shareI was 12 when this film came out on the big screen and I loved it so much i watched it thrice. Then I studied the novel for my English degree and have still not been turned away. I think this film is amazing. As someone else said, it's the subtlety
shareI think many people go to the movies to be passive observers. They love the films that bombard them with sensory stimulation -- to them, those are great movies. A multi-layered story with rich imagery -- one which requires thinking -- is not what they seek or understand. So they condemn a splendid movie like TEP because they simply don't get it.
shareor rrb.... they can enjoy many other "multi-layered stories with rich imagery -- ones that require thinking"... they just did not enjoy that particular film... it was an "epic romance" with zero chemistry between its two leads... so, yes, I "got it".... I just didn't like what I got.
Question: Why is it when people say they do not like this film their intelligence is questioned?
I believe that anyone who thinks that one's intelligence can be based on their appreciation of a single film is sorely lacking some intelligence of their own.
No dear, you don’t get it at all. You never have. After (unbelievably) an entire year of harping on the same 2 empty notes, you haven’t produced a single post discussing the movie’s plot, characters, themes, or visuals with the slightest depth. When others have rebutted your flimsy assertions that the film is boring and the leads lack chemistry, you just repeat those assertions. You don’t defend them with any detail, because you can’t. You merely respond to substantive arguments with a “yes, I got it” and repeat your baseless complaints.
After all this time, we “get” that you don’t get or like TEP. So why come back to this thread? Go watch the kind of movies you do like and stop wasting our time.
Actually..."dear".... the notes I have harped on are not at all empty... when there is no chemistry between the two leads in a romance... there is no film... and MANY TIMES I dicussed the beautiful music and cinematography of the film.... and its not so "unbelievable" that every once in a while I'll check out a thread I started... even if it was a long time ago.... 5 minutes out of my day every few months isn't too time consuming.
I may repeat my assertions that the film is boring and the leads lack chemistry (you forgot to mention my complaint on the god-awful adult romance novel dialogue)... and I stand by them. Your opinion is obviously different... as are many people's who have responded to the thread... but my opinion is still valid... and it is the opinion of an intelligent adult film buff that loves everything from the silent era (especially Chaplin and the German expressionist era), the 30's gangster flicks and screwball comedies, the ultimate movie decades of the 40's and 70's, and contemporary films as well....
... so rrb, you are the one who doesn't "get it"... that just because you think a film is the be-all, end-all... other people may not... it doesn't mean that they don't "get it"... that's just a pompous statement.
Alright... I can finally say that this is indeed "The Worst 'Best Picture' of All Time"... as I have finally watched Wings (which I had to order from China on ebay)... and I also watched The Hurt Locker (the only Best Picture winner since I started this thread) a while ago....
Wings - the first Academy Award Winning Best Picture... and the only silent Best Picture Winner - was an entertaining if not goofy film... it's obvious that Pearl Harbor's plot was heavily influenced by this film and is actually the better picture... while Wings did have some great cinematography and aerial photography... the thin plot went on too long. Still, much better than The English Patient.
The Hurt Locker was a completely fantastic film... I'm so glad that Katherine Bigelow's film beat her ex's silly cartoon Avatar. It wasn't my favorite film of the year.... but damn close.
So now I can say with total confidence that The English Patient is the "Worst Best Picture of All-Time"... at least in my "qualified" opinion.
I have read all of this thread with some interest as it is one of the few I've read on this site where people (on the whole) can discuss film without personal abuse. It's refreshing, if considerably less amusing!
I'm impressed that you have fulfilled your quest to see all the Best Picture Winners. My hubby and I are (slowly) working our way through imdb's own top 250, which is interesting. Not always a list I agree with, but interesting nonetheless.
Anyway, I hope you do find the time to watch The English Patient again. I understand your issues with the film, but feel compelled to add my own take. I first watched it in my late teens and enjoyed it for the passionate romance involving one of my major heart-throbs. I didn't really bother with Katherine's character because Ralph's every smouldering glance was directed only at me (ah, the idiocy of youth!) I didn't give much thought to the complexities of the film and if I'm honest, I didn't understand a lot of the sub-plots. I would put the film on whenever I fancied a bit of a girly-cry then bawl into my Ben n Jerry's.
However, the more I've watched it, the more it has revealed. As I've grown older and more cynical, the film no longer has the full-on emotional effect it used to. Instead, I've found the main romance takes second place to the background themes of pain and betrayal, anger and revenge, an individual's internal conflict in a time of international conflict, etc. The sub-themes are as substantial as the main story and are so sublty delivered that they are easily overlooked.
It really is a film that improves with repeated viewings and one that unveils its secrets slowly. Although I love The English Patient, I'm not going to say it's the greatest film ever. But I do hope you are able to give it at least one more chance.
BTW, well done for tracking down Rebecca. It's another of my favourite films, and indeed one of my all time favourite books. I'm glad you rated it so highly.
This has been a really interesting thread. I also say "well done" to you for actually watching every Best Picture winner to back up your stated opinion on The English Patient.
I have not seen The English Patient, but I will say I don't believe it is "childish" or "ignorant" to personally feel no chemistry between leads. Sometimes this happens. This same feeling has occurred to me during several other films, and the "lack of chemistry" issue can often make the entire picture fall flat for a viewer. You just sort of fail to buy any of it. It is especially frustrating when many, many others extol the virtues of the passion, leaving you in the minority.
Incidentally, I felt this way watching Avatar, in terms of its suggested "brilliance". I feel like one of the only people who did indeed sense a cartoonish feel to the entire thing. I have watched it twice, but felt worse the second time around. Although there were many aspects I did enjoy (interesting settings, clearly groundbreaking capturing techniques with the gear the actors had to wear, some good acting from Ribisi and Weaver, etc), the way the Navi looked just felt very false. Maybe it was the blue colour and the way their bodies looked. But I never quite completely fell into their world. I kept being pulled out of the movie by one thing or another. And I'm afraid I just can't praise as original the plot-line...I felt like I was watching a new version of Dances with Wolves, or Pocahontas, or a dozen others with this theme. In fact, the entire thing was just like a $100 million re-make of Fern Gully.
By the way, I especially enjoyed reading this thread because I recently saw the Seinfeld episode where Elaine is fighting with everyone who is praising The English Patient, because she clearly is not "feeling" any of the emotion! Perhaps you and Elaine would have something in common (although you may not be as interested in the "Sack Lunch" movie she wanted to see instead...)
Saw it on the big screen today, still didn't impress me. Maybe because I expended a lot more from a movie that won 9 Oscars. This could very well be the weakest Best Picture, next to Cavalcade (1933) and The Greatest Show on Earth (1952).
shareEven though I always defend the idea that movies must be judged from a subjective point of view then I must say I am really surprised that someone would call "The English Patient" the worst movie to win the 'Best Picture' award.
Even without thinking hard about the issue then for me both "Shakespear in Love" and "The Hurt Locker" stands out as worse movies to get the award.
"The Hurt Locker" is a good movie though which I can not bring myself to say about "Shakespear in Love", but I guess I just feel what others feel for "The English Patient" on that matter so thats ok.
[deleted]
Mark, we're soulmates. You've skewered the lousiest Best Pictures wonderfully, while praising some of the most deserving and most notoriously overlooked. Bravo!
share'A Beautiful Mind, one of the most falsified bio pics to ever be filmed. I actually went to this film to learn something about schizophrenia, but the whole plot is so bogus that it is useless.'
Elegantly stated!
Its that man again!!
I have not seen every 'Best Picture' but I have to say that The English Patient is the worst of those that I have seen. Chariots of Fire would probably be next, but to me, that film's biggest sin was that it was boring - I really can't remember anything about it other than it was dull and the Vangelis theme song. The English Patient actually made me angry with it's ridiculous historical inaccuracy and narrative plot holes. From the first scene, which shows the lead character shot down by Germans in the desert - hello, there WERE no Germans in North Africa at the time. Plus, are we supposed to think that this fool is dying for all five years of WWII? He never recovers or gets worse until the liberation of Italy? Or that he's unable in all that time to convince someone that he's Hungarian and thus an ally of Germany?
I don't like this director at all - he should not have been allowed to spoil the ending of The Talented Mr. Ripley by tacking on an ending that the author had rejected, but that's another story. No movie as stupid and flawed as this one should have ever been nominated, much less won.