This was one of the most idiotic pieces of film ever made. Welles was obviously still regarded as being the genius of Play and Film making. After this most people realised that Welles was just another person with a big personality and lots of arrogance. The plot is incomprehensible. The direction would have been better by a goldfish. The dialogue worthy of Zelda in one of her down periods. The accent convoluted and inaccurate. It is very hard to make Rita Hayworth look glassy eyed and simple but Welles managed to make her look as if she had woken up from a bad dream most of the time. An utter disaster, but obviously there are quite a few simple people around who are so pretentious as to think this good. God help us!
Well OK I'm not going to diss anyone who likes this film, but I just finished watching it and didn't care for it at all. I think that is an extension of the fact that I do not care for Wells' direction at all in any of his films I've seen. I find his style distracting from the storyline. His habit of overlapping dialogue annoys me to no end, his deep focus close-ups are unsettling and obvious. Overall his cloying style is never far from my mind when I watch one of his films.
To the original poster, if it makes you feel better, Orson didn't care for it either. But just because you are annoyed with Orson's trademarks, and think the picture is garbage, doesn't mean that it is. Many people, including myself think this movie is quite engaging. A thriller and a farce all in one. As a whole, it's better than most of the crap coming out today. And enjoying it doesn't make one pretentious. A quote from the movie defines Orson's approach. "He who follows his own nature, keeps his nature in the end."
" Cristal, Beluga, Wolfgang Puck ... It's a fu*k house. "
A quote from the movie defines Orson's approach. "He who follows his own nature, keeps his nature in the end."
Completely as an aside from the film, though it includes the film a little ... I HATE this as a philosophy. Most of the world turns on people disavowing or being ignorant of their own 'nature'. Those who claim to know theirs or others' nature often mean so in a negative sense. In the film it fits with a very cynical heart that for some reason made me quite angry. Hence the hate.
Don't you just love these ass--les who insist that because they think a film is crap, anyone who actually likes it is being pretentious. The OP should get over himself.
lastmidnite2 replied: "Don't you just love these ass--les who insist that because they think a film is crap, anyone who actually likes it is being pretentious"
Yes! And there are plenty of them on these boards. Perhaps it is they who are pretentious!
But we in it shall be remembered; We few, we happy few, we Band of Brothers. (member since 2005)
Posters may not realize that when Orson Welles went out of town, his film was edited amd cut by almost one hour without his permission. That's a good chunk of time to ruin a film.
At the time, movie fans also didn't like that Rita Hayworth's hair style was changed to a short blonde hairdo as they were used to her long beautiful red flowing hair a la Gilda.
I wrote: " Those who claim to know theirs or others' nature often mean so in a negative sense."
A reply:
by IEatWords ยป 16 minutes ago (Thu Jun 4 2015 01:15:54) IMDb member since February 2002 You're following your own nature by spreading redundant hate. I think there's more than enough of that going on in the world
If it wasn't for that spectacular climax, I'd probably agree with some of the things the OP said (not including that last sentence). But at any rate, I think this is an uneven, yet rather fascinating - and visually pleasing- film noir.
Yes, another well regarded noir I can't say I care about. The plot is a mess, the characters weird without being interesting or likable, Welles' accent is distracting, acting in general is rather bad, there is no atmosphere to speak about and there is zero chemistry between Welles and Hayworth.
Some interesting visuals save it from being an outright bad movie.