Unpopular movie opinions...

[Miller Fan]

As an avid coffee drinker, I like your quote, your avitar/photo is great, and being new - - - I guess I'm rambling.

 

[Pompidou]

Read the book and see how much longer it could have been. They left out about 1/4 of the book.

I discovered this first hand back in high school, when I picked the wrong book to do a book report on. For all the movie's insane length, it certainly saved the day.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I've never been able to appreciate John Wayne. He can change costumes all he wants but between his voice, walk and general demeanor, the "Duke" seems more like a "Serf". (just my humble opinion)

I completely agree. One of the most wooden actors ever. His movies put me to sleep, with the possible exception of Gengis Kahn which was more like a comedy. Talk about mis-casting for comic effect.

 

[C44Antelope]

If I can't stand Bogart, why would I want to see Casablanca? [huh] The only movie I even halfway like him in is Treasure of the Sierra Madre and only then because he goes insane. ]

You need to check out "the Caine Mutiny" or "In a Lonely Place" He goes a little off in both of those too.

 

[Miller Fan]

Thanks. Gengis Khan - - - I remember now. I think that's why The Last Samuri bugged me so much. The thought of a white man samuri who got his start dancing onscreen in his underwear to Old Time Rock & Roll (Risky Business). I never liked Tom Snooze either.

 

[C44Antelope]

Oh. As far as the point of this thread. I've got a lot of unpopular opinions in when considering what is put out today. As far as older Hollywood, I never understood why anyone found Bette Davis or Joan Crawford attractive and I can only stomach very small doses of Elizabeth Taylor.

Myrna Loy. Now you're talking.

 

[Miller Fan]

Myrna Loy, OMG. What a doll.

 

[24hourteaparty]

Exactly my point. I was discussing this with an avid reader friend of mine. He took Gone with the Wind to Europe with him to read. He said that I was wrong. It was more like half the book that never made it to the silver screen.
Reading the book gives you a better idea about the movie though. The book never got all involved with war politics and such. It was just everything that revolved around Scarlet. Get a larger print version and try to read it. You might be surprised how you change your mind---or not.

I do plan to read it someday as it is an important part of literature and I hope to be a novelist someday, and I feel it is important for me to be familiar with significant lit. (and anything else i can soak up)

I will be getting the large print version.

 

[Diamondback]

I cheated on length--since I could read and interpret Old(er) English, last instructor I had who required book-reports let me do Shakespeare plays despite them being under minimum length. (She did insist that I act a scene from each in class, though... Hamlet's soliloquy brought down the house.)

 

[Edward]

How about Clockwork Orange? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

As often happens with 'future'-set films, this one has dated very badly, albeit that it has some nice set pieces. What really grates on me, however, is the glaring omission of the book's epilogue, without which the punchline of the satire is lost, making it a very different film.

 

[scottyrocks]

Oh. As far as the point of this thread. I've got a lot of unpopular opinions in when considering what is put out today. As far as older Hollywood, I never understood why anyone found Bette Davis or Joan Crawford attractive and I can only stomach very small doses of Elizabeth Taylor.

Myrna Loy. Now you're talking.

I'll +1+ on Bette Davis. What is the big deal, anyway? Not to mention Mae West. Yeesh.

 

[jamespowers]

I do plan to read it someday as it is an important part of literature and I hope to be a novelist someday, and I feel it is important for me to be familiar with significant lit. (and anything else i can soak up)

I will be getting the large print version.

Well, to be fair, Margaret Mitchell wrote Gone With the Wind while she was convalescing after breaking her ankle. It took her three years to get the major part done. She never wrote another novel.
In all reality, after that---what could you do?[huh]

 

[Wally_Hood]

Exactly my point. I was discussing this with an avid reader friend of mine. He took Gone with the Wind to Europe with him to read. He said that I was wrong. It was more like half the book that never made it to the silver screen.
Reading the book gives you a better idea about the movie though. The book never got all involved with war politics and such. It was just everything that revolved around Scarlet. Get a larger print version and try to read it. You might be surprised how you change your mind---or not.

The GWTW movie is the result of extensive reduction of plot and characters, but stands alone as an epic soap opera. That's not pejorative; I love this movie, despite the repellant stereotypes. The book is superior (again, if you can stomach the stereotypes), with more time for characterization and the unraveling of plot threads. The post-war life of the previously aristocratic South is well-depicted. Historically accurate? Probably based more on anecdotes than scholastic research. I am glad I took the time to read it.

 

[jamespowers]

The GWTW movie is the result of extensive reduction of plot and characters, but stands alone as an epic soap opera. That's not pejorative; I love this movie, despite the repellant stereotypes. The book is superior (again, if you can stomach the stereotypes), with more time for characterization and the unraveling of plot threads. The post-war life of the previously aristocratic South is well-depicted. Historically accurate? Probably based more on anecdotes than scholastic research. I am glad I took the time to read it.

She grabbed the characters from several sources. Some people she knew and some places she had been. You have to remember that Mitcvhell's family had been in this country before the Revolutionary War. She had family in the Civil War as well. I suppose she drew from family stories of the actual events too. I think her great grandfather was shot in the head--twice.:eusa_doh:

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's important also to look at GWTW as it fits into the context of thirties popular culture -- specifically the impact of Hervey Allen's "Anthony Adverse" in 1933, the book which proved American readers had the patience to wade thru a huge, epic historical novel. When AA became a best-seller, the race was on to find "the next Anthony Adverse," and when Margaret Mitchell came along, that's exactly what GWTW became. Had Hervey Allen's book not made such a success, it's likely Mitchell's would never have been published. (And for those who haven't read it, Anthony Adverse makes GWTW look like a Big Little Book.)

 

[Miss Golightly]

Oh. As far as the point of this thread. I've got a lot of unpopular opinions in when considering what is put out today. As far as older Hollywood, I never understood why anyone found Bette Davis or Joan Crawford attractive and I can only stomach very small doses of Elizabeth Taylor.

I think when Bette was very young she was quite pretty but I think she aged really badly and quickly - she looked really tired in a lot of her later roles. As for Joan I have seen some stunning photos of her in the earlier part of her career but as she got older her look became more severe - with the eyebrows and all that. A bio I saw on her on the Biography channel said that after Pepsi treated her so badly (after her husband died) she became quite bitter and as a result her look changed and she became harder and this was reflected in her face and style.

 

[jamespowers]

It's important also to look at GWTW as it fits into the context of thirties popular culture -- specifically the impact of Hervey Allen's "Anthony Adverse" in 1933, the book which proved American readers had the patience to wade thru a huge, epic historical novel. When AA became a best-seller, the race was on to find "the next Anthony Adverse," and when Margaret Mitchell came along, that's exactly what GWTW became. Had Hervey Allen's book not made such a success, it's likely Mitchell's would never have been published. (And for those who haven't read it, Anthony Adverse makes GWTW look like a Big Little Book.)

Well there was War and Peace before that too. Now there is a book that I have never gotten through. The whole thing is just cumbersome and the print on my copies was infinitesimally small. I should sue the Tolstoy family for having to wear glasses and I still didn't get through the whole thing. :eusa_doh:
I want to see someone make a movie out of that and have it go over big. Modern readers do not have the patience to read it much less sit there for hours and hours staring at it.

 

[Derek Cavin]

That is a book I've always wanted to read, but shy away because of its size.

 

[jamespowers]

That is a book I've always wanted to read, but shy away because of its size.

Read it but be prepared to snore like the dickens.

 

[DesertDan]

A "classic" is something everyone wants to have read but no one wants to read.