MovieChat Forums > Indiscreet (1958) Discussion > Does anyone else find this deadly dull?

Does anyone else find this deadly dull?

posted 16 years ago by preppy-3
29 replies | jump to latest

I want to make a few things clear: I love romantic movies ("Moonstruck" is probably my favorite); I love Cary Grant AND Ingrid Bergman and I have no problem with movies that are all talk...as long as the talk is INTERESTING! Literall nothing happens! Bergman and Grant meet and fall in love...and wander around London...and go out to eat...and talk endlessly about nothing even remotely interesting. It was only the effortless charisma of the two leads that kept me watching...but after 50 minutes I was bored silly and just fed up with it. I love old movies but I can see why this one is obscure!

[–] Flem_Snopes 16 years ago

I agree with you 100%. I find it hard to believe that Grant and Bergman on the screen could ever be boring, but this movie's the proof. I too kept hoping it would get interesting then gave up after almost an hour or wondering why I was still watching. I kept thinking they were setting up some plot twist, but none seemed forthcoming.

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

Thank you! I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. I gave up after an hour too. The movie was more than half over but STILL nothing was happening. This was an adaptation of a failed Broadway play. I think it's pretty obvious why the play bombed:)

[–] jdavis90268 15 years ago

I'm afraid I don't find it dull at all. I almost always laugh out loud during the last scenes, even though I've seen it MANY times. As a matter of fact, it's part of my movie library.

[–] dish55 15 years ago

I'm with on this one. I too love romantic movies, Bergman, Grant, and talk, talk, talk, but this one souffle that refuses to rise. Plus the movie has that fake "stage" look about it, and the constant piano underscoring only draws attention to the fact that nothing is happening. Added to this is the standard Hollywood bow to the censors where Bergman and Grant enter her apartment (as the piano reaches a noisy crescendo) and then we have two quick scenes of each of them in their own beds, followed by a breakfast scene that is clearly written and played as a "morning after" scene. BALONEY! I couldn't wait for it to end.

[–] stomaino 15 years ago

I had never watched this and took the opportunity when it was on TCM recently.

I've seen NOTORIOUS many times and love it. I am a big admirer of Stanley Donen. I've liked other movies Norman Krasna has scripted.

But you're right, this was a bore. I stuck with it until the end and it didn't get any better.

Sam Tomaino

[–] preppy-3 15 years ago

Thanks to everybody! I love Bergman and Grant but this movie was dull and pointless. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one:)

[–] Sproketer 15 years ago

It wasn't as dull and pointless to me as it was to others. This was mainly about what is unsaid; that being that Grant and Bergman fall in love with each other but know that it's probably not going to last. He's going to Mexico, and is married, and they both are spending the evening together, roaming London in some sadness knowing that it's ending. He decides later to stay with her, telling her that a desk job is what he wants, letting her know the relationship has a future. I love that scene because it seems a weight is lifted off their heads. I guess you have to be tuned into this movie as a love story and be sure to watch closely, because it's filled with very sly visual implications that aren't as blatant as they would be in movies made today where everything has to be placed on your lap to be understood.

[–] preppy-3 15 years ago

What's being unsaid is hard to listen for when what is being SAID is pointless and dull. BTW--I don't need things "placed into my lap" to be understood. I WAS expecting a love story but there was nothing romantic or funny or even remotely interesting in it. Also I think Grant and Bergman were good enough actors to convey what's being left unsaid--but they didn't convey anything here (I don't blame them I blame the script). For instance look at Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope". It's all talk but never boring for one second because of all the subtle looks and comments in the script. THAT'S an example of not pointing everythjing out to the audience and letting them think for themselves. There wasn't one moment like that in "Indiscreet".
And "sly visual implications"? From a director like Stanley Donen???? He wasn't a terrible director but I've never seen anybody say his movies had "sly" visuals...unless you call his "Singin' in the Rain" full of "sly" visuals. I'm glad u like it (you're obviously not alone) but the admiration for this film puzzles me. I've tried sitting through it three times and I STILL hate it!

[–] Balok-2 14 years ago

I wouldn't call it "dull and pointless" so much as as film that hasn't aged very well. Nowadays, the repercussions of having an affair, or rather, being caught having an affair, are much less significant than they would have been in 1958. So, IMO, I think that part of the problem is that it's just not so easy for us to identify with the characters.

Having said that, I have to disagree with the notion that Donen never had "sly visuals" or "sly visual implications." As an example, in Arabesque, in the scene in which Sophia Loren is trying on shoes, Donen very clearly films it in a way that indicates that she *might* not be wearing any underwear, and entices the viewer to wonder about it. In fact, that Sophia Loren might not be wearing any underwear is one of the main reasons to watch Arabesque in the first place, at least if you are a heterosexual male.

[–] HazelPennicott 11 years ago

Once liked this movie...but the last time I watched it, it seemed so very, very dull. Glad to see that there are others who agreed with me....

Hazel P

[–] rpartrid-2 10 years ago

well I agree it's dull dull dull - the lives of the rich and vacuous - hard to belief that five years later Stanley Donen (director of this boring trifle) would direct Cary Grant in Charade!

[–] mark-1589 14 years ago

YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!! After the way Ingrid and Cary sizzled on the screen a mere decade earlier in Notorious, I found this reteaming of the two screen legends to be a MAJOR disappointment. Apart from that, the film was just DULL!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Vixtastr43 12 years ago

I am in complete agreement with the OP: This film bored me.

I really like Bergman, and I love Grant, but this movie... I neither like nor dislike because, for the life of me, I can't remember a single thing about it. That's how much it interested me.

I was very disappointed. I'd been waiting to see it for ages. It was an enormous let down.

My movie Blog: http://britishfilmlover.blogspot.com/

[–] Errington_92 12 years ago

I will admit that I found the film to be slow in pace due to the fact that the narrative was becoming one dimensional with the prolonged blossoming of the protagonist's love. Yet once Anne found out Philip's lie then it created room for more lively action. Overall I would not describe Indiscreet as dull, maybe boring in its first half but it picked up later.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] orhugs 11 years ago

I find it interesting that out of the almost hundred things Cary was in he singled this out as one of his favorites. Yet, we see it as a bore. I would have been interested to hear why he loved this one so much.

"My feet are made of clay, made of clay don't you know. Goodnight little man."

[–] gvytui 11 years ago

It started to get a little boring midway through when it was 50 minutes of the two of them falling in love, but when Ingrid's character plots her "revenge", I found myself enjoying the last 1/3 of the film immensely.

I will also say that during some of the earlier, "duller" scenes, I found myself captivated by the beautiful cinematography of the film. It was no wonder that when I looked it up, the job was done by none other than Freddie Young, who won Academy Awards for his work on Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago and Ryan's Daughter.

As a man in my 20s, I can say this was an amusing film to watch all these years later.

[–] jessxjordan 10 years ago

I'm only young but I have literally seen this film about 200 times, I love it. I think you have to appreciate it for what it is; a light romantic comedy with a twist. If you watched past 50 minutes you would probably find it more interesting when the plot thickens