Can we all just be honest about this movie? - Touch of Evil (1958) Discussion

[–] umma-ohz 17 years ago

So lets all be honest and forget what cinematography and music contribute to a film then?

If you only want a great script, unique story and interesting characters I recommend reading a book instead.

-----------
My Blog - http://umma-ohz.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 17 years ago

You missed my point. I think it's great when a movie has terrific cinematography and music. However, this alone does not make a film great. A movie cannot stand alone on it's camera angles and horn section.

reply

[–] umma-ohz 17 years ago

I understand what you are staying. But I also don't agree with your words on the content. Obviously it's all personal opinion and i'm the first to accept that, but I think Welles portrayed the character of Quinlan really well and the sadness and corruption really came across in the film. The film is up my street because I generally place atmosphere over pacing in what I enjoy in a film and I think the portrait he paints is quite tragic and compelling, just like Kane and various other Welles characters.

-----------
My Blog - http://umma-ohz.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 17 years ago

I see your point, and I too appreciate great performances as well as a good director of photography and composer. But you can't argue that great actors don't make terrible movies. If all you needed for a great movie was fine actors, a good score, and a talented director of photography, Hollywood would've figured out the formula long ago. The fact remains that if you cast Orson Welles, Laurence Olivier, and Katherine Hepburn in Home Alone 3, you're still going to have a terrible movie, despite the fact that all three primary actors would deliver great performances. I still stand by my point that there is no substitute for a good story.

reply

[–] dep1353 17 years ago

....You mention most of the elements of a film except for maybe the most important, direction.
Good direction can usually cover for a story that's not particularly good. Stories themselves
seem to work best on paper. In a film they're just part of the mix. I haven't read the source novel
"Badge of Evil" but I'll bet Welles really improved on it. As for his direction, simply stupendous.

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 17 years ago

Similar to my last point: great directors sometimes make terrible movies. I think Welles was likely the greatest director of his time (with the possible exceptions of John Huston and Alfred Hitchcock and possibly Frank Capra). So although Welles was a great director, I think Touch of Evil is an example where it was certainly style over substance. He was so caught up in the artistic value of what he was doing that he forgot to make the film entertaining. Touch of Evil is a good watch for film students and movie afficianodos, but to most moviegoers, it's simply slow, drawn out, and boring.

reply

[–] dep1353 17 years ago

....You may be right in that Welles didn't primarily make films for the average moviegoer. BUT....to the average cineaste, "Touch of Evil" is anything but slow, drawn out, and boring. As for style over substance, that's probably true for most of his work. So what's wrong with style? It's simply the way a story is told, and Welles was a great story teller ( and a great B.S. artist). I wonder how the drive-in audience reacted to the film when it first came out.

reply

[–] jgroub 11 years ago

"if you cast Orson Welles, Laurence Olivier, and Katherine Hepburn in Home Alone 3"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I would pay good money to see that movie. Is it Welles or Olivier in the Pesci part? :-)

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

Neither. I'd put Hepburn in the Joe Pesci character. Wait a second, Pesci wasn't in Home Alone 3! You tricked me.

Actually, I would cast Katherine Hepburn in the Octo-Mom movie, "Home Alone."

reply

[–] jgroub 11 years ago

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Nice!

Well, if she's an Octo-Mom, how alone could she be? Unless her name is really Mary, and then . . .

Oh, I see what you did there.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] thepooles-1 8 years ago

Agree- Welles' Quinlin was tragic and compelling.
Languishing in a putrid puddle in his last minutes of this life on eath suggests he thought poorly of his legacy. He perhaps felt beyond redemption or love and admiration from family and friends.

reply

[–] jmichael3387 8 years ago

I agree 100% with the original poster. This movie was so bad I turned it off after 40 minutes or so. So boring. Really bad characters. Bad plot. There was nothing of interest to me; not even close.

I'm not into camera angles and lighting. On pure entertainment value, this movie stinks.

I enjoyed 'Double Indemnity', 'Witness For The Prosectuion', 'Woman In The Window'....movies with a good story and good characters. 'Touch Of Evil' is crap.

reply

[–] jkerr8 16 years ago

Did you see the original theater realease or the restored version, which is truer to Welle's original intentions?

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

By your rationale, are you suggesting that all of Charlie Chaplin's silent masterpieces are crap because they rely so much more on the visuals than the dialogue??

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 10 years ago

No. Chaplin films are great.

reply

[–] Lyrical_Spoon 17 years ago

I disagree. I dont think one must be a film aficionado to appreciate this film, as it is anything but boring. It is one of my all time favorites, a great performance by Welles portaying one of the best characters in noir. That, and the ending is superb. How one can call this film boring is beyond me.

reply

[–] prezuiwf 17 years ago

I loved this movie when I first saw it, but I had also watched about 4 Sergio Leone films almost immediately prior to it so the pacing in this film was fast by comparison. Still, I believe the script was fine and the story was engaging, all direction/technical/lighting factors aside.

reply

[–] elmuhfuh 14 years ago

im sure the guy is saying it because its not in color or hd or has 2 hours of some giant cgi monster eating mexico.

reply

[–] To_My_Mother 16 years ago

I just got done watching it & I thought the script was amazing. I though it held its value very well. Normally when im watching a film 50 years old thats always one thing that gets in the way & I try not to let it ruin the rest of the directors vision. This is immediately one of my favorite classics.

Seen
10 Kubrick
7 Kurosawa
4 Kitchcock
4 Bergman
3 Welles
3 Leone
3 Kieslowski
2 Fellini

Really looking to beef up on most of these cats & some others of course.

reply

[–] elmuhfuh 14 years ago

why would you think the script was amazing? did you read it? welles didnt really follow the script so i think if you watched the film you couldnt have any idea of the scriptwriting or how amazing it might have been. seems like youre just into watching films because of who they were directed by, thats a shame. who keeps track of movies like your list? by the way, who is kitchcock?

reply

[–] kamakazi_5033 14 years ago

To the OP (I'm not sure if it's Rupert Pupkin with one space or two):

Just wondering if you could shine some light onto how you found ToE boring - it seems (at least to me) that the plot/dialogue comes heavy and fast and for a 112 minute movie (I'm going by the Director's Cut version) the film really covers a lot of ground really efficiently.

"I'm still here agnoid!" - Angus (TBS Version)

reply

[–] ClownCarMassacre 14 years ago

"why would you think the script was amazing? did you read it? welles didnt really follow the script so i think if you watched the film you couldnt have any idea of the scriptwriting or how amazing it might have been.
- Elmuh Fuh

They were referring to the dialogue, not the actual script. You can tell by context. But something tells me you were being purposely antagonizing.

reply

[–] mala_education 14 years ago

I just recently watched Touch of Evil and I loved it. I get what the OP means about the cinematography but I do think that cinematography can make a film great. Pretty much all of Welles' films are great because of his directing and use of lighting and angles. It adds to the suspense and makes the story flow a lot easier.

http://malaeducation.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] minerva-23 16 years ago

"Slow, meandering, and dull"???

I was completely caught up in this movie, I was actually on the edge of my chair through the whole thing. I even screamed once - I never scream. I can't imagine how anyone could be bored by a movie like this. Maybe it depends on the kinds of movies you usually watch - if you're used to thrillers or horror movies, you may find this comparatively slower, but I am used to older movies and so found it suspenseful and thrilling.

reply

[–] Vans338 16 years ago

I just finished watching it for only the second time just now. Honestly I didn't love it the first time but man, what I just experienced was fantastic. Admittedly, I may not have been in the right frame of mind the first time I saw it. The second time however... priceless.

"A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse"

reply

[–] trml1 16 years ago

Honesty should never be confused with opinion.

reply

[–] Gloede_The_Saint 16 years ago

LOOOOOOOOOOOL

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

reply

[–] fiiirfaithful 16 years ago

Slow? We must have watched a different film, then.

The pacing in Touch of Evil is one of it's main strengths, IMO.

reply

[–] drproteusmd 15 years ago

1) Opinions are opinions... usually. Not in this case though. I hate to tell you, you're wrong. This is a great movie. That's not my opinion though: it's a fact. You may not like it, but don't call your bad taste "honesty", because for us your words are an embarrassment.

2) The Third Man is not a Welles picture. He only acts in it. It was directed by Carol Reed. If you're going to crap on a great film like Touch of Evil, and pontificate about what constitutes a "good movie", then please have the respect to get your facts straight.

Nothing personal, but that's a really dumb post you wrote.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jgroub 11 years ago

"The Third Man is not a Welles picture. He only acts in it. It was directed by Carol Reed."

Yes, that is technically true. But surely you must be aware of the controversy that it was Welles directing the movie after all. It certainly has his touch.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Trax-3 7 years ago

"The Third Man is not a Welles picture. He only acts in it. It was directed by Carol Reed."

Yes, that is technically true. But surely you must be aware of the controversy that it was Welles directing the movie after all. It certainly has his touch.

Nonsense. That film is much better than anything else Welles ever did.
A work of a better director - Carol Reed.

Welles never made anything as good as The Third Man while Reed also made The Fallen Idol which I think is even better.

reply

[–] hansel714 15 years ago

Are you serious? One respected cop and a up-and-coming star cop backstabbing each other; issues of sexuality, race, drugs, nationality; hints of orgy, lesbianism, and rape; the murder case (a cop and thief story) as a mcguffin turns into a cop-and-cop story. And then there are another 2 murders. And all three murders are solved. That's not narrative enough for you?! What do you want? 300?

reply

[–] markie61 15 years ago

Are you the guy who votes for The Shawshank Redemption and Spaghetti Westerns and Star wars on the top 250. Do you own the Crimson tide box ? Father of the bride box? Go flame the comic book movie sites where you belong.You know or you don't. People like you have ruined this site for serious film comment. Don't get me going about The Third Man.

reply

[–] rodsta69 15 years ago

Sorry but if you don't think Star Wars belongs on the top 250 then you have no business flaming anyone about their movie choices.

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 15 years ago

Markie61Post,

What an ego you have. Shawshank and spaghetti westerns are the flippin' best...although Father of the Bride does suck a fat one.

But get off your pretentious high horse. I mentioned earlier that this movie is all style and no substance. You my friend lack both.

reply