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

[–] oldmotem 15 years ago

Well, this movie was depicting life in the dull bordertowns. In the dull 1950s. With such dull characters. And with a dull storyline. No wonder it flopped. And they edited it, too. But they put all the dullness back in for the TCM showing.

OH WELLLLLLLL...es.....

For some reason, I was thinking of CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF as a comparison movie. Doesn't anyone consider TOUCH less dull???

"It was the COTTON BOWL, sister woman."

reply

[–] TheWritaven3 15 years ago

To repeat previously said statements:

You don't have to be a cameraman or a film producer to appreciate the beauty and the difficulty of masterful camera work.

This film wasn't slow at all to me, boredom is relative and therefore shouldn't be used to judge films. Nor should you say that people that like this movie aren't being honest.

"It is so quiet out here, it is the quietest place in the world."

reply

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

If I have a complaint concerning the films pace, it is that the first half of it was too FAST and fluid, not allowing for a breather at any point. When one talky scene ends, the other one´s already on its way and sometimes even arrives before the previous one has drifted out... in short, for my taste, the first half was just too talky and the pacing felt a bit off due to that. The second half´s considerably better though and overall it´s a very good film no doubt. Just not quite the perfect masterpiece it´s often made out to be.

reply

[–] edewberry 15 years ago

Not only does it feature great cinematography, lighting, and music, it features a great and nuanced performance by Welles, which, for me, a young guy in his 20s with an intrinsically limited appreciation for old cinema (it's hard to appreciate originality when you're far more familiar with its imitations) sets this apart from the usual "film classics" that end up on top 100 lists and such. If I had any problem with this film, it's with the stark contrast in Welles' and Heston's acting styles, but even that works to an extent, as Welles' character is intended to be far more complex than Heston's hero protagonist. Even in 1958, an time of moral absolutes, Welles delivers a character who is a terrible, awful person yet still generates sympathy within the viewer. We take this for granted now, but a sympathetic villain was a pretty bold move for 1958.

reply

[–] dep1353 15 years ago

....Still, Welles gave Heston one of the more memorable lines;

...."A policeman's job is only easy in a police state. That's the whole point, Captain."

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 15 years ago

Touch of Evil is an obsolete movie. The only people who watch it are hard-core film buffs and film students. (I am the former.) People's fascination with it is akin to "The Emperor's New Clothes." Telling a group of film students that you don't like Touch of Evil is like walking into a Jewish temple and calling Schindler's List a silly romp. There are some great classic films; some great Welles movies; and great examples of film noir. However, Touch of Evil is none of those. Unfortunately, admitting that is unpopular among movie snobs.

reply

[–] ElFantomas 15 years ago

I agree with the OP. Cinematography aside, this movie was extremely boring and acted horribly. I'll give props to Welles himself though......good performance. A masterpiece should have excellent acting, script, etc.; not just good cinematography alone.

reply

[–] Engage_With_Zorp 15 years ago

Oh, look at you, stating your opinion as the "honest fact" that all people who love this movie "really know in their hearts" again. And you even managed to insult everyone who likes it as a "movie snob" at the same time! How cute.

Truth is, it's ONLY your opinion, nothing more. Stop treating it as anything more and maybe you'll stop getting responses like drproteusmd's. I bet you didn't like his/her post; it was basically yours with the opposite viewpoint.

Truth is (and this really isn't an opinion), movies are extremely subjective. I happen to have been riveted by this film, and while I can appreciate the great technicals, at the end of the day I thought it was a great story with a great script and some really fascinating characters. No amount of "this is the way it REALLY is"-talk by you is going to change that.

Do you have valid points? Maybe. If someone shares the view of the movie you do, then certainly. But I disagree. And that's okay. You're not right, I'm not right; they're just opinions. So stop telling us "snobs" how deluded we are and how oh-so-very-enlightened you are. It's obnoxious and annoying.

This happens. This is something that happens.

reply

[–] cellery 15 years ago

Touch of Evil is an obsolete movie. The only people who watch it are hard-core film buffs and film students. (I am the former.) People's fascination with it is akin to "The Emperor's New Clothes." Telling a group of film students that you don't like Touch of Evil is like walking into a Jewish temple and calling Schindler's List a silly romp. There are some great classic films; some great Welles movies; and great examples of film noir. However, Touch of Evil is none of those. Unfortunately, admitting that is unpopular among movie snobs.

What bollox.

I'm neither a hard-core film buff nor a film student and I thought it was brilliant for all sorts of reasons.

You call touch of evil an obsolete movie and claim to be a film student? What's your main thesis on? The matrix? Starship Troopers? That must be some course you're doing.

reply

[–] stefpeto 15 years ago

Frankly i think that the only good thing about this movie is the camera work. Too bad it was wasted on such a stupid script.

reply

[–] onepotato2 15 years ago

Frankly i think that the only good thing about this movie is the camera work. Too bad it was wasted on such a stupid script.
by - stefanpetkov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to 8 out of 10 Welles movies. I still like much of his work even though his movies never quite assmemble into coherence (CK and MA excepted)
I'm not a fan of Touch of Evil

reply

[–] DukeTogo1300 15 years ago

I loved the script, the lighting/cinematography, and even many of the performances, but Wells' dialog style of having up to 4 people speak at the same time is hard to ignore. I have to assume it is a stylistic choice of his, maybe he thinks it sounds realistic or natural, because it also happens quite frequently in Citizen Kane and Mr. Arkadin (though with Arkadin there are more prevalent problems which I can't really pin on Wells). It is as if the actors are reciting lines in different rooms from each other, they don't end up playing off each other like they should.

The only other place I've seen this happen is in some of Chaplin's talkies, but that is to be expected with sound being so cutting edge at the time. It also wasn't so overwhelming with Chaplin where no more than two people were speaking at the same time. I know this may sound petty, but some things just bother people more than others. If Wells didn't have this one little quirk he would be just about unmatched. I still give this and Kane a 9/10, and I hesitate to rate Arkadin just because I don't think we will ever see how it was intended to look.

----------------
My favorites:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur7568922/lists

reply

[–] onepotato2 15 years ago

I love Welles and his camera-philia. Any five-minute sequence you pull out of about 7 of his movies is intoxicating. His problem comes when he has to devleop a whole movie; he clearly loses interest in the throughline.

I think Touch of Evil is awful. The juggling of the storylines is inept. I don't feel a moment of tension or involvement when I watch this, except the tension of staying awake. I can forgive him a lot for his gorgeous cinematography, but I can't forgive this awful, plodding script.

reply

[–] c7c7c7r 15 years ago

As are you.

reply

[–] peter_t_2k3 15 years ago

I liked the movie, but like a couple of people I did feel like it was slow.

I watched it in University today as a TV and Film Production student working on a short film noir in groups. The majority of the people seemed to love the start and the end but not the middle.

I found the end just amazing, the long shot was so cleverly filmed and directed. The music was also interesting throughout the film.

However, I found at parts, it seemed to drag on. I found Orson's character hard to understand from the accent, and found out after the showing, that I wasn't the only one.

You are reading by the way, my opinion. Everyone has a right to express their opinion, but like the original poster and a few others, do not act like your opinion is fact.

reply

[–] jerseyboynorth 15 years ago

I love the movie. I just purchased the 50th anniversary DVD with all three versions and I watched the restored version today.
In my opinion, it is one of the best films ever made; I liked it better than Citizen Kane. I can even get past Charleton Heston portraying a Mexican.

reply

[–] Rupert Pupkin 15 years ago

I'll be honest and say there isn't a single moment of this movie that bores me.

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 15 years ago

I must apologize for my last posting. What I meant to say is that there isn't a single moment of this movie that DOESN'T bore me. It's really an overrated waste of time. Thank God I have a mind of my own. Otherwise, I would be forced to like this embarrassing and dreadful movie like every film school lemming.

reply

[–] Rupert Pupkin 14 years ago

Hey, I just saw what you did here! Similar names with the extra underscore there...Ha! Hopefully this doesn't confuse people into thinking I use pretentious phrases like "I have a mind of my own" and "film school lemming."

Rupert (space bar) Pupkin

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

The only confused one here is you. I've had this username for 9 years.

And apparently you don't know the definition of pretentious. lol. Try using a dictionary before you post things. It gives you a lot more credibility.

reply

[–] Naughty-God 14 years ago

The only confused one here is you. I've had this username for 9 years.

What a lying POS you are, or maybe you're just poor at math? You've used a different handle before no more than three years ago. You should apologize to the other Rupert for acting so crass.

LOL

(¯`i´¯)´·¸.)‹^›

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Naughty-God 14 years ago

He is pretentious so be careful because not only hasn't he had his handle for the past 9 years, he also thinks he's superior because he calls people names. He's really nothing more than an immature old man.

It's sad

(¯`i´¯)´·¸.)‹^›

reply

[–] dizexpat 15 years ago

I enjoy movies with great scripts, unique stories, and interesting characters.

Touch of Evil is an excellent example of a movie which contains all three.

They Got Guns
We Got Guns
All God's Chillun' Got Guns!

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 15 years ago

lol

reply

[–] WHakan 15 years ago

OP:

I'm disappointed this comment came from a fan (as far as I can tell) of the excellent and terribly under-appreciated 'The King of Comedy'.

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 15 years ago

disappointed? lol

reply

[–] Bill_Bones 15 years ago

I recently found myself really enjoying Transformers 2. It featured a similar sound mix of over talking and exposition in the background. You can tell that in both films visuals came first.

Touch of Evil is a great movie. It's definately a grower and deserves another viewing. The second act does sag a bit though.

reply

[–] jimpemmas 15 years ago

I honestly recommend you to give it another watch. It's the best film-noir ever next to The third man and Sunset blvd.

My Vote History: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5479050

reply

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 14 years ago

The Third Man is indeed awesome, and Sunset Blvd is also very good. Touch of Evil, however, does not come close to these movies. I think the guy who compared this movie to Transformers 2 was a little closer.

reply