MovieChat Forums > Blue Jasmine (2013) Discussion > Without a doubt, one of the worst movies...

Without a doubt, one of the worst movies I've ever seen!


Now, before all the pretentious snobs start chiming in with "you just don't get it" or "you're just not smart enough," let me explain a couple of things. I don't hate movies with non-traditional endings. I am a big fan of Indies and I am quite educated. This film had some of the worst writing I have ever seen. The dialogue was about as well-written as a Sci-Fy Network original movie and the ridiculous over-acting reminded me of bad community theater. Add to that a plot-line that goes nowhere and you have this steaming pile. Just because Woody Allen may have made some good movies once upon a time, people seem to faun over this when really they should be putting the inverted plastic bag over their hand and locating the nearest receptacle.

PS-Seriously, always clean up after your pets.

reply

As someone who went through a traumatic divorce and suffered some PTSD afterwards (in hindsight...I didn't know it at the time), I recognized Jasmine's behavior in certain scenes. That was not overacting, I can tell you.

I don't know if you've ever been close to a nervous breakdown or been around someone who has been. They can be very dramatic, because that's their state of mind. They're out of control in their heads. They are unable to cope.

Now, I'm a normal, well adjusted, happy mature person. I'm talking about a period of time many years ago. But I remember it well. Not the sort of thing you forget.

My way of saying, the acting wasn't overboard. I would say that Woody Allen has known some people who have had nervous breakdowns.

I agree this wasn't a great movie, though. I saw it only to see Blanchett's performance, which was gold worthy. Were it not for that, I wouldn't recommend it as worth seeing. The writing? Hmmmmm....I'm not sure. It was okay. It seemed realistic but not overly creative. Maybe it was the subject matter.

reply

As someone who went through a traumatic divorce and suffered some PTSD afterwards (in hindsight...I didn't know it at the time), I recognized Jasmine's behavior in certain scenes. That was not overacting, I can tell you.

I don't know if you've ever been close to a nervous breakdown or been around someone who has been. They can be very dramatic, because that's their state of mind. They're out of control in their heads. They are unable to cope.
I have been there too. I ended up making huge mistakes during that time because I couldn't focus properly. I was in a fog for like 2 years.

I think the OP, although smart, is lacking empathy for the characters. Which is fine. There is no rule that you have to put yourself in their place. I am surprised he has never met a "real life" person who behaves like that. I would like to live in his world.

I didn't love the writing either but I watch Woody for his Manhattan (and other cities) mostly. Nobody captures the day to day experience like him.

reply


I would say that Woody Allen has known some people who have had nervous breakdowns.

Given Woody's history & the crowd he hangs around, he probably had a dozen people complaining that he made Jasmine about them.

reply

This was a great movie about a self-destructive person. You may like heroic characters, but that's not what this movie was.

I don't have a signature.

reply

This was a great movie about a self-destructive person. You may like heroic characters, but that's not what this movie was.


The Gambler is about self destructive behavior.

This movie is about pretentiousness and PTSD.

It's a good movie because Cate Blanchett saves it with some amazing scenes. A less talented actress, the movie would have probably been "Okay."

reply

It reflects life.

SPOILERS?

Mostly life goes "nowhere". Around in circles. People make mistakes. "Learn" from their mistakes. Do better. Then make the same or similar mistakes.

People try to make believe they are something more than they really are. Some are phonies. Some worse than others, of course. Some pride themselves in being "honest", when, in fact, they are just as bad as everyone else.

So, therefore, unlike the usual Hollywood nonsense, the film reflects life.

reply

I don't care for woody Allen I watched this film because I love Cate Blanchet. With that said, this movie is bigger than Cate. The way I related to this film, it was an amazing experience and her performance wow I'm glad she got the Oscar but I haven't seen the other nominated films so it don't have a say. Anyway, this movie wasn't for you and that's okay doesn't mean the movie sucks. I watched 'HER' and this movie praised by everyone, I was bored throughout doesn't mean it sucked.

reply

I Love Cate, and the story was realistic enough, but this was a terrible movie. I can hardly believe anyone, including Cate, thought this was going to be a good movie? That is what I kept saying to my self through the entire movie. I kept waiting for it to get better - saying "but everyone loved this and it got an award and nominations..." "just give it another minute and it will get to the good part....." Well it never got there for me... JMHO - terrible story, shallow characters, bad writing… I won't go on.......

Sooooo Sorry Cate, Love You Cate, but I think this was a huge mistake. Definitely Not a movie I would Ever Suffer though again.... What a waste of time……. Making it and watching it.






There are many things in life that catch your eye but only a few will catch your heart-pursue those

reply

I, too, kept waiting for it to get better and more interesting. I honestly thought when she met Dwight, she might be imagining the whole relationship. Since the film starts off with her talking to herself on the plane, you would have thought that her mental decline would be a driving plot point.

"First you ask if you can be red, knowing that I'm always red."

reply


For the love of God will you people just get that not all movies are about plot??

And that not all great movies are about plot either??

This just keeps going on and on - somebody crawls out of the woodwork and says "I was waiting for the plot to..." - sometimes there is no plot

There are characters and stories

And sometimes there is a plot and that can be magnificent but it isn't required

Follow the latest films around the world!! http://7films.dendelionblu.me

reply

TROLL ALERT! You can usually spot trolls due to:

a) their off-the-charts disagreement with the general consensus
b) their lack of examples of exactly WHY the movie is bad
c) their use of similes "The acting reminded me of bad community theater".
d) their use of hyperbole: "I they should be putting a plastic bag on their head and locating the nearest receptacle".

Don't feed the trolls!

reply


Look up the meaning of the word 'troll' before you comment. I'm so over this word being thrown around about people with different opinions.

reply

If you're so "over" it, then this shouldn't bug you at all, right? I think we know who needs to look up the meaning of words. Try "over", for starters.

reply

Exactly...so basically anyone who disagrees with the sheep-like mass audience is a troll... WTF is wrong with people? When did people morph completely into Lemmings?

You Suck...now deal with it.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Is too, FOOL.

reply

[deleted]

The automatic gainsaying of others is also a TROLL-trait. You and the OP are heavy on the insults, and vacant on the reasons. Anyone can insult; only the intelligent and articulate can reason.

reply

[deleted]

You prove my point. Insults without any real rational thinking behind them.
Fire away, please!

reply

[deleted]

You said the OP backed up their "opinion with justification".
Below is their post. He criticizes the writing and the acting, but he gives no examples, instead choosing hyperbole (exaggeration) to make his case. In fact, his post is really nothing but hyperboles using "the Sci-Fy network, bad community theater, inverted plastic bag", as well as the first 3 sentences dedicated to showing how qualified he is to write this post. He ends his criticism with a wordy dig at Woody Allen fans. Yet we learn nothing specific about WHY the film was bad. He's entitled to his opinion. But to call a film "one of the worst movies he's ever seen", a movie which won an Academy award for acting--and just drop a few exaggerated bombs about how terrible it was, without explaining why--that's just troll behavior. If he is not a troll, then he is a very inarticulate viewer who resorts to childish exaggeration and similes to make his case, instead of saying something intelligent like "Blanchett exudes a raw emotion, but at times her scowlish persona monopolizes the scene too much". That is a comment that makes you really think about the acting. The poster did not even specify which actors were bad, or why. Or what was really bad about the dialog. He's just an idiot.
Keep defending him, I don't care. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but if that's all they have to offer, they should just click star rating, and not try and write anything.

Now, before all the pretentious snobs start chiming in with "you just don't get it" or "you're just not smart enough," let me explain a couple of things. I don't hate movies with non-traditional endings. I am a big fan of Indies and I am quite educated. This film had some of the worst writing I have ever seen. The dialogue was about as well-written as a Sci-Fy Network original movie and the ridiculous over-acting reminded me of bad community theater. Add to that a plot-line that goes nowhere and you have this steaming pile. Just because Woody Allen may have made some good movies once upon a time, people seem to faun over this when really they should be putting the inverted plastic bag over their hand and locating the nearest receptacle.

reply

[deleted]

Agreed. Trying for attention.
There are so many many movies that suck. But the beautiful cinematography, alone, is something to commend in this masterpiece which has 91% on RT.

reply

Well I agree the movie was deficient and here is why:
1) Condescending: the rich characters, while morally often questionable are attractive, intelligent and witty. The working class characters dress badly, their speech patterns are stilted. They are the opposite of charming, they are annoying. One gets the feeling, as mouthed by Sally Hawkins to Andrew Clay, that they are lucky to get laid once.
The "poor" sister's apartment is in downtown San Franscico and it's spacious and bright. It does not fit with her income. Allen is out of touch. He writes inside a clamshell.

2) Low-budget Indie production values: The film is all dialog, like a Kevin Smith creation, but unlike Smith, instead of clever and irreverent, the dialog relies on absurdities added to an absurd premise. Allen emasculates the leading man (Cannavale), sanitizes the relationship between he and Kate Blanchett, makes fat, old Baldwin into a Satre whose personal trainer jumps at the chance to date him, even when asked in a "you'll do" kind of way, infantilizes Sally Hawkins to the point where she runs off with a married man with no clue -- meantime she has an ex, 2 kids and a boyfriend.

3) Setup/shots: nothing special here, very mundane and barely passable, especially when more than 2 people are in a shot. Did you notice Sally Hawkins head is cut off when she stands to great Cannavale at the dockside cafe? Amateurish.

4) Facile and surface: there is no subplot, message, social commentary or redeeming value whatsoever. Instead you are given a good seat at a peep show of the breakdown of a rich lady. Yes, Andrew Clay's character is shown as someone who is hurt by the immorality of Wall Street, but he is told by everyone to "get over it", and it is significant that the part is filled by a comedian. He has no friends that are shown, there is no scene where anyone commiserates with him, and in the end he is shipped off to Alaska.

5) Capricious inclusion of personal material: how much like Mia Farrow can the Cate Blanchett character be? Then, just to juice things up, both she and her "sister" had been adopted (Mia Farrow again). And Jasmine's son is also adopted. Then Hal runs off with a 17-year-old. Need I spell it out? This last may have some relevance but none were necessary to the plot such as it is.

6) Music: OK we get it Woody Allen plays jazz clarinet. And he is also really old. But come on some great music has been made and continues to be made since 1932.

I love Woody Allen, have since his first efforts, and I admire Match Point, tho it too fawns over the rich. But do not tell me this is a great film. The truth is, that in this era of kids films like Marvel, Fast & Furious and Pirates, etc. this is the best adult fare we have available.


reply

I did 'get' the movie..almost until the end. I thought the performances were all flawless. I liked the set design and wardrobe. The ending...completely unsatisfying. Dropped like a big turd. Ruined what I had watched before the end. That was Woody Allen being self indulgent and he no longer has the priviledge to do so.

reply

So you think the film was badly edited. Where do you think it should have ended - with Dwight and Jasmine in front of the jewellery store, before Augie turned up? A day later from seeing her on the park bench, where she jumps off the Golden Gate bridge? Being carried away in a police car to a psychiatric facility? How about a fantasy sequence where she wakes up in her bed in her Park Avenue apartment and says, "I just had the most terrible dream"?

A 'slice of life' film can legitimately end at any point.

Woody makes strong points with the ending he chose:

No matter how secure and privileged a person is, s/he can lose it all due to bad decisions and bad luck.

The unfortunate homeless crazy person you see on a park bench is deserving of consideration and sympathy.

reply

Blue Jasmine is not a slice-of-life film. The movie has a single plotline with a beginning, middle, and end: Jasmine starts off wealthy, loses the money, and has to stay at her sister's place. In the end she is homeless and muttering to herself. The only twist is that the story is not told in chronological order.

Happy-Go-Lucky is a slice of life story. A teacher goes out, has fun, walks around the city, we see her in a bookstore, she takes a flamenco class, some driving lessons, meets a guy at her school who she likes, and he likes her. SHe talks to a homeless guy. In the end she is boating on a lake with her friend. It start Sally Hawkins, and it is an excellent movie. The driving lessons prove to be quite dramatic as the instructor and student prove to be opposites that drive each other crazy. The flamenco teacher has a breakdown in her class. So interesting things happen, but they are in isolation of the other passing events. Isolation is the key in a story like this. Events happen which have nothing to do with each other.

Although never made into a movie, Lanford Wilson's The Hot L Baltimore is a slice-of-life play. Here is a good description of the play:

The scene is the lobby of a rundown hotel so seedy that it has lost the "e" from its marquee. As the action unfolds, the residents, ranging from young to old, from the defiant to the resigned, meet and talk and interact with each other during the course of one day. The drama is of passing events in their lives, of everyday encounters and of the human comedy, with conversations often overlapping into a contrapuntal musical flow. In the resulting mosaic each character emerges clearly and perceptively defined, and the sum total of what they are-or wish they were-becomes a poignant, powerful call to America to recover lost values and to restore itself in its own and the world's eyes.

reply

[deleted]

Yes...it is the unsatisfying open ending that makes it a slice of life film. If it ended as I suggested above, with a defined resolution of one kind or another, then it wouldn't have been.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Huh? Woody Allen of all people has earned the right to be as self-indulgent as he wants (not that this film was self-indulgent).

reply

Camp - Imo many poster's antenna are raised when a movie is declared the worst or one of the worst. Classic films that I treasure, and that are universally praised, inevitably have a "worst movie " thread or several. I believe the troll designation is used, because those who hold the film in high regard are puzzled when others feel the opposite. However, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and may genuinely dislike a popular movie. As a huge Woody Allen fan, who has watched his films numerous times, I would put Blue Jasmine somewhere in the top third of his body of work. The acting was superb, with CB a standout. Someone wrote a review that if this movie didn't have WA as director, it would have come and gone with little fanfare. I tend to agree with that statement, but it would also apply to any esteemed director, such as Hitchcock, Mankiewitz, Spielberg, et. al. They all have films short of classic status, but their reputation, and the quality of their actors fill movie seats.

reply