MovieChat Forums > Chasing Amy (1997) Discussion > Turns out it's not that good

Turns out it's not that good

posted 13 years ago by kkhsiivonen
17 replies | jump to latest

I really liked the movie when I first saw t. I liked it even more when I saw it the second time. I still liked it the third time. After watching it today for the fourth time, I though it would've made a decent book but it's not a good movie.

It's really just people talking, and while that may in some cases mean a good movie, it's not in this case. The film is all about it's dialogue, and there's little to no action (action meaning people doing stuff, or stuff happening to people). Sure dialogue makes movies easier to watch, but today I felt like actually observing the films I saw, I found nothing worth watching in Chasing Amy. The movie gives no reason to keep eyes open, except to prevent accidentally falling a sleep while listening to it.

As for the dialogue itself, it's still good (though somehow it doesn't seem as clever as it did when I was in my late teens), but it almost never a sole reason to watch a movie.

[–] jharmon64 13 years ago

Quite frankly I'm having difficulty understanding how you can go from good to great to good to not good in your four viewings..

I'm curious as to the number of years between viewings and your age.

I know that I have changed opinions on a film from when I saw it at 18, then 25 then 35 as an example.

I still like it and feel it's held up over time.

[–] Ehrgeiz 13 years ago

I did not like it so much, too. Maybe its just me, but all this dialogues about sex are somehow awkward, and especially the later monologues of Affleck and Joey Lauren Adams are painful. Jason Lees play has, especially towards the end, not the depth which it needed.

[–] kkhsiivonen 13 years ago

Quite frankly I'm having difficulty understanding how you can go from good to great to good to not good in your four viewings..

I suppose I expect something different from movies, than I used to. Over the years I've seen a lot of stuff, good and bad, and it gives very different perspective. For example I hadn't seen many Hitchcock movies when I first saw it, and I've seen nearly all them by now. Also my perpective on other movies has changed, for example I used to think Pulp Fiction was a cool movie, and now I think it's a great movie for different merits. Also back in the day I thought Pulp Fiction isn't half as good as Reservoir Dogs, which I don't like that much anymore. And another example is Blade Runner, which I used to think is boring, and now I think it's just dumb action movie.

Come to think of it, I might just be getting old...

I'm curious as to the number of years between viewings and your age.

I can't be very specific on the years, but I first saw it when I was 19 and last this year, soon after turning 30.

[–] kmags84 9 years ago

I was right with you til the Blade Runner comment! An Action Film??? It's so far from it. It's a Noir that's more about Themes and Atmosphere than about the actual "Action" taking place...

Anyways, that's all taste though, I'm not knocking you. I actually agree with the Pulp Fiction statement. As a kid, I didn't see what I do now. I was probably 15 or 16 when I started to see films in a different way. Over the course of my 20's I became interested in Film on a level that only some do. Cinematography became my obsession. I grew up watching Cinema so I always was into Directors. Scorsese and Spielberg mostly. Then as I matured it was Kubrick and Bergman etc... There's some films that can only be understood after you have actual Life Experiences. Even films like Alien, Jaws, Goodfellas and The Shining(Which I've always loved) become more than just Horror, Crime or Adventure Films. You see things differently. Themes you'd never understand at 12 become clearer at 28. I'm 32 in a week and my taste is constantly evolving.

I'm definitely just getting old lol.

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

That's all so well stated.

I wish I could add more, but it would just be redundant.

I think the gist of your exchange is summed up nicely with the observation that as we gain life experiences, we learn to appreciate/view things differently in art (whether it be music, movies, or images), and it can alter how we absorb said art.

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Interesting how many people are saying the exact smae thing about this film. In 2012, the film is so badly dated, its unwatchable. I liked this film in 97, now I think its laughably terrible. Joey Lauren Adam's tirades about how life has been so unfair to her are just LOL funny. I have to say in 2012, this is/was an awful film.

[–] prime57 9 years ago

hmm ... why Joel Lauren Adams's tirades about her life are just funny now?

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

What exactly do you mean by there being no action?

The stuff that happens in this movie is that a guy falls in love with a lesbian. It's a romantic comedy/drama. Does every movie have to have someone being killed or a car chase?

You realize that stories can be entirely dialogue driven right? If people go to see stage plays that entirely revolve around people talking, then you can watch a movie that does the same.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wallacesawyer 9 years ago

It's my least favorite of the Jay and Silent Bob films. It's just not a very pleasant movie. Holden and Alyssa start out alright, but it starts to go downhill once their romance kicks in. And Banky is a massive prick who ruins every scene he's in.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

[–] crypticanomaly73 9 years ago

For me it could have been more interesting but it only ever scratches at the surface, why does he really have a problem with her past, what is it about him that has made her want to consider men again etc etc

It makes the whole story revolve around sex when it is really the emotions around that, that matter.

Sometimes a movie or tv show plot is so stupid that only the stupid can understand it.

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

Your question just summed up the problem with like 99% of romance films out there.

We almost always have a catalyst or impetus to put two or more people together on-screen but rarely any explanation as to why they actually like each other and what their actual problems are with some aspect that drives them apart.

Whenever the topic of LGBTQIA+ relationships enter the picture there's always this hands-off safety net approach to the story to avoid diving into the rules of attraction, lest they reveal (or revel in) something that the propagandists don't want people to discuss/explore.

[–] KirH 9 years ago

It is a borefest.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BrickNash 8 years ago

Snappy dialogue that makes good use of minutiae is the heart and soul of a great film and this is loaded with it. Kevin Smith was at the peak of his writing skill here and I find every scene charged with so much passion and emotion.

I'm not sure what kind of films you like that don't use dialogue but I'm guessing they aren't foreign art noir films.