MovieChat Forums > Beloved (1998) Discussion > One of the worst movies in cinematic his...

One of the worst movies in cinematic history (SPOILERS)


Before the haters come out telling me that I need to be intelligent to 'get' this movie, I get it. I find the theme of this movie to be extremely relevant. That does not mean that a good theme makes for a good movie. And in the case of Beloved, both the book (which I have read) and the movie fail.

I am fully aware the book won a Pulitzer. And I can only imagine that it was the theme that earned the prize. The idea of a mother who would murder her own children to save them from the horrors of slavery is gut-wrenching and heartbreaking in its truth. Additionally, I find and examination of how slavery affected the lives of emmancipated slaves to be extremely compelling. That message, however, is severly marred by the seriously digusting and ridiculous characters of this story.

Sethe, who should be a lamentable character, ends up as a woman racked more by guilt than conviction. This causes her to look like a psychopathic murderer rather than a justifiably compassionate and merciful mother. Paul D is a weak character who is easily seduced, then in guilt, wants Sethe pregnant...which would only repeat the problem underlying in Sethe's life. When things get too heavy, he leaves this already fragile woman to deal with the issues herself. Beloved is a disturbing character strait out of the swamp. The bubbling, gurgling, and tantrums make her into more of a zombie than the dead child she represents. Furthermore, they distract us from the supposed point of her existence. Her actions, beyond the tantrums, are anything but child-like. And, then the twist. She may not be the reincarnation of the dead child at all, but simply another escaped slave accused of killing her master. She is the largest reason for the failure of the novel and the movie. And, because she is the central theme, the whole thing collapses upon itself.

I would never recommend this movie to anyone. As I said, the theme is relevant, but suffered from Morrison's sick imagination. The characters written by Morrison destroyed the beautiful message she had to share. I can only imagine that she was going for the route of harsh reality. She ended up with creepy and largely unidentifiable. It is too bad that a story about a slave who would rather see her children dead rather than subjected to the horrors and humiliation of slavery couldn't have been told without public urination, gratuitous sex, and swamp people.

reply

Totally agree!!!!!

reply

I don't think it requires a level of intellgence, as much as it requires patience and a willingness to actually analyze the story and its characters as a whole. Maybe to "get it," I guess? I understand why people prefer not to. But then there obviously are people who "got it" and just didn't like the movie. An example for me? Mulholland Drive. YEESH. Not for me.

And personally, the first time I saw the film, I was WAY too young to understand what was going on. Just a whole bunch of random, disturbing images. However, MUCH later on, I had the opportunity to watch it a few times over the years. Each time, I had a new understand of the story, and discovered new things each time. Reading the novel a few times helped as well. So, now I have an appreciation of the film from an aesthetic and intellectual perspective. And may I add, I get tired of hearing the word "deep." It's extremely overused. I thought the film was thought-provoking and engaging. If people think that constitutes it being "deep," then fine, but at least find another word to use.

The biggest flaw of the film, to me, is that it requires (in a sense) the viewer to have read or to read the original novel. It's too obscure in some places, and a bit too extreme in others. Some scenes just shouldn't have been included in the film, like Sethe's first physical reaction to Beloved or Beloved's seduction of Paul D. Also, I didn't really appreciate the film interpretation of Beloved. Why the scenes with her eating sloppily, vomiting, or urinating (accidentally) in the bed? All it does is alienate the viewer. I felt she was more of a elusive and mysterious character in the novel, and in the film she was made into more of a revolting, frenzied, hysterical nightmare.

Is it everyone's cup of tea? I certainly doubt it. But would I call it awful? Nope. And it's certainly not deserving of the ridiculous title you labeled this topic with.

I'd rather watch Beloved three times in a row, rather than be subjected to the cinematic horrors known as "The Salon," "Phat Girlz," "Boat Trip," or "Showgirls" ever again.


This time, Effie White's gonna win.

Whitney was wrong. Children are no longer the future.

reply

IMO the MOVIE is deserving of the title. The movie does such an injustice to the book, it's laughable. The story was so poorly translated to the big screen that the beautiful and tragic story it was meant to convey was completely lost.

reply

The movie does such an injustice to the book, it's laughable.


Eh? Speaking as one who has read the book, I thought the movie was pretty damned faithful to it. What did you think the movie lacked?

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

reply