MovieChat Forums > Sullivan's Travels (1942) Discussion > wait... isn't this movie terrible?

wait... isn't this movie terrible?


I mean, right? You guys aren't serious, are you? I'm so confused. maybe i'm missing a joke here. Isn't this just a terrible, terrible film?

I mean, right?




reply

No, it's a wonderful, unique movie that is very funny, quite unpredictable, and surprisingly moving. Joel McCrea is sensational in it.

reply

I must admit I couldn't see anything particularly funny about this movie. Had I not watched it in a class about American Comedy, I would never have even dreamed that it was supposed to be amusing. Nonetheless, I wouldn't call it terrible. However, I will avoid anything in the future made by Preston Sturges.

reply

Its in my top 10 personal favourites of all time.



"This could mean actual advances in the field of science."

reply

I think it's a great film. I've yet to see a bad Preston Sturges picture.

reply

I must admit I couldn't see anything particularly funny about this movie. Had I not watched it in a class about American Comedy, I would never have even dreamed that it was supposed to be amusing. Nonetheless, I wouldn't call it terrible. However, I will avoid anything in the future made by Preston Sturges.

Please tell me you're not a film student.

(and I hope you didn't get an A in the class)

"Always look on the bright side of life. Do do. Do do do do do do."

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

No, this movie is not terrible. You couldn't see anything funny: what about the scene in the church, where the black people were told to pity the poor (white) prisoners, and where Sullivan suddenly found himself laughing when he saw the Disney movie? (No, on the whole I do not like Disney) I think it is a great movie. No, I am not a film student, I am almost as old as the film.
What certainly strikes me is that, apparently, people are still reacting to a film that is over 60 years old. Great!

reply

WARNING: SPOILERS


According to the documentary included on the Criterion DVD, this movie was Sturges's response to a then recent trend on the part of his fellow comedy directors to make "message" films. Sturges's answer seemed to be, making people laugh is in itself a worthwhile endeavor.

What I'm less sure about is his level of earnestness here. Was he trying to send a sincere message with this film? Or was "Sullivan's Travels" rather an exercise in self-parody? (You know, "Hey guys, here's MY message film -- see how tedious we are when we try this?")

The first third of the movie had some sidesplitting moments, mostly courtesy of the bus and roadster chase. The second act was mostly tedious, and really, despite her allure, Lake's blossoming relationship with Sullivan was seriously spark-deficient.

The final act was of course the "message" -- as heavy-handed as the bludgeon used to hit Sullivan over the head. Hard to imagine a more perfect visual metaphor, isn't it? Especially considering the result of said bludgeoning -- Sullivan temporarily forgot who he really was.

I guess I just answered my own question. The structure of "Sullivan's Travels" is Sturges demonstrating how to kill a comedy! A parody indeed.

"Sullivan's Travels" was worthwhile, but for the most part it's comedy with a decidedly intellectual edge (i.e. one better appreciated than enjoyed). For pure laughs at a breakneck clip, and far more plausible romantic chemistry, look to Sturges's previous flick, "The Lady Eve" instead.

reply

"No, on the whole I do not like Disney."

You mean you don't like even the early Mickey Mouses? My heavens!

The Disney short "Playful Pluto" is generally considered a landmark in animated films, because it's one of the first (if not /the/ first) that shows an non-speaking animated character (Pluto) thinking and reacting, as he tries to free himself from the flypaper. This is what makes "the flypaper sequence" (as it's known) so funny, and is likely the reason Sturges selected it.

reply

I watched this last night with my partner and despite being fans of classic movies we found little to laugh at short of a few good lines of dialogue and almost gave up on the movie.

However the later dark section proved to be the films saving grace for us and we are glad we have seen it. I have ordered the Preston Sturgess DVD set and hope to be rewarded further.

We are not fans of slapstick and that spoilt things for us, we were expecting more witty dialogue along the lines of the Cukor movie "The Women" (1939)

And yes people like me are responsible for the rating decline I give it a 7.

Academically fascinating but not neccesarily perfect for a modern audience

reply

I pity you. I can't imagine how one could see this film and never want to see another Sturges picture. Your damn loss, but I hope to god you have no influences...

reply

Watched it for the first time, recently. Wasn't sure I'd like it, at first, but found myself absorbed by the story. I thought this film was excellent, quite entertaining! Enjoyed Joel McCrea performance in this film, and Veronica Lake was just lovely...

reply

One might legitimately argue that there /is/ nothing funny about this film -- that it shows a foolish man making a stupid decision that almost costs him his life. It wouldn't be difficult to rewrite "Sullivan's Travels" (I assume you get the reference in the title) as a straight drama.

Unfortunately for your particular view, Preston Sturges was one of the great screenwriters. Note that I didn't say "he is /considered/ one of the great screenwriters". He /is/. If you refuse to see any other Sturges films, you are missing some wonderful movies.

reply

I'm sensing a troll.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Of course he's a troll, which is probably why he never responded after his OP. Some folks just like to spend 15 seconds swatting the bee hive and then watching others waste huge amounts of time defending the film.

reply

Nope...You Are Wrong. This is one of the greatest movies ever made. You are missing more than a joke. And THAT'S a terrible thing. That and your loss.

Enrique Sanchez

reply

I have to agree with you. I think people are getting just a bit more riled up about it then they need to be. We should be slapped for disagreeing? We are asses for disagreeing?

Sad.

reply

For those to lump headed to love this film as the masterwork it truly is, let them be. I'm sure they will love 'Transformers' just as they enjoyed all the other Michael Bay films (excluding The Rock). For those of us who love it, we will have our AFI spot for at least the next 10 years.

http://moviedudemovies.blogspot.com/

Last Film Seen: Sulivan's Travels (A+)

reply

I loved Sullivan's Travels, but I can see how it is not for everyone. Sturges changes styles frequently, and makes subtle references to numerous different films and styles, sometimes with multiple layers of irony. If you don't get the references, and don't care to think hard about all the nuance, then I can see how the movie would be disorienting.

There is something artificial about describing a movie as "good" or "great" or "bad" or "terrible" because we are essentially making a moral judgment about something that is more a matter of taste.

reply

I wouldn't say it was terrible, but I would like someone to sit down and explain to me why it was in the American Film Institute's top 100. It made position 61, so I need someone to demonstrate why it was better than the last 39 of the top 100 and better than the 23 demoted films of the 1997 list:

DOCTOR ZHIVAGO (1965)
BIRTH OF A NATION, THE (1915)
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953)
AMADEUS (1984)
ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930)
THIRD MAN, THE (1949)
FANTASIA (1940)
REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (1955)
STAGECOACH (1939)
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977)
MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, THE (1962)
AMERICAN IN PARIS, AN (1951)
WUTHERING HEIGHTS (1939)
DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990)
GIANT (1956)
FARGO (1996)
MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (1935)
FRANKENSTEIN (1931)
PATTON (1970)
JAZZ SINGER, THE (1927)
MY FAIR LADY (1964)
PLACE IN THE SUN, A(1951)
GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER (1967)

I can believe it was good, and I can believe I'm an *beep* for not seeing it, but I wonder if those people insulting or discounting those of us who can't tell are only being such bigheads because they really don't know what the hell they're talking about. I'd love for you to prove its preeminence. I'd give you money to do it, but I don't like PayPal.

reply

This is a truly funny post, thank you. So as I understand it, you take the time to post this list and you are insulting people as being "bigheads because they really don't know what the hell they're talking about" but you haven't seen the movie you are commenting on (which would suggest you don't know what you are talking about)? Why don't you watch the movie and let it prove its pre-eminence on its own. There are also many good comments that describe why this movie is special if you would take a few moments to read them.

Also I have seen all the movies on your list above and would agree that Sullivan's Travels is better than most on this list (for me) and probably better than some ranked above it. But crazily enough I am only able to consider the films I have actually seen. Take the money that you would have given to someone for "proving" and buy the DVD it's worth it.

"still chuckling ..." thanks again for the laugh.

reply

Of the 23 movies that were demoted, the only one that could seriously be considered on a par with Sullivan's Travels is The Third Man...an exquisitely acted movie, with brilliant peformances, and the cuckoo clock speech (which was factually inaccurate, but anyway...). A Preston Sturges script--with two exceptions--has more good dialogue than all but a couple of score of screenplays ever written by anyone else. That doesn't necessarily make them better than all of those movies with inferior dialogue, but it's an enormous advantage. The day Hollywood turned its back on Preston Sturges was among the darkest days in our nation's history.

reply

Sullivan's Travels is terrific and I can understand why it was included. Great dialogue and message. But out of the demoted films, I still prefer Close Encounters of the Third Kind - brilliant, brilliant movie. Fantasia is slow and lacks a cohesive narrative, but the animation is beautiful. For the most part, the demoted films are big Hollywood productions, many of them dated, while the additions are more artistic, have more passionate fan followings, and are more influential to filmmakers today. I do think parts of Sullivan's Travels are a tad dated, though.

reply

I, also, was never impressed with this movie, heh...

reply

Obviously not.

reply

I'm going to say good but not great.

If I'd gone to the theater in 1942 to see this movie (and had been alive and an adult then, bla bla bla), I'd have felt treated well for my quarter. Wouldn't have been NEARLY my all-time favorite movie, but would have fit right in and made some witty contributions to the ongoing dialog about what movies were supposed to be good for. A good way to spend Wednesday evening and then have an interesting discussion afterwards over coffee.

What I really like about it is how Sullivan keeps trying to make this wonderful enlightening road trip and keeps winding up back home -- and then just when you think the story's over, he winds up going out again for the real knockout punch of a road trip. It's fun to be lulled into thinking you're headed one direction and suddenly be pulled somewhere else by a story.

Certainly Veronica Lake is gorgeous. Certain Joel McCrea does a swell job in the lead. Certainly the supporting players are up to snuff. But the shortfall in the production, curiously enough for a movie whose message is that movies ought to make you laugh, is that this is not a movie that makes you laugh very much. The comedy is workmanlike, not outstanding. I like the snappy dialog when the leads meet for the first time in the diner, but that's pretty much the high point for grins. After all, comedy was not primitive in 1942. This was pretty dull compared to the real stuff.

It's a high-concept film, and the concept works, and that gets you through it all right. It's a key piece of cinematic history that any movie fan should see. I'm glad to know now why the Coen brothers wanted to title something "O Brother Where Art Thou." But it's not in my personal top 200 movies... maybe my top 500.

reply