MovieChat Forums > Touch of Evil (1958) Discussion > Vastly Overrated

Vastly Overrated

posted 9 years ago by Eric266
11 replies | jump to latest

I've been hearing about how great this movie is for years. I finally got around to watching the "director's cut" last night. It was much ado about nothing.

I know Welles is a fabulous filmmaker and I really enjoyed Citizen Kane, but this film was a mess. The plot was confusing, the character's motivations and behaviors made no sense, and several of the characters were so one-dimensional I imagined they were the inspiration for Hayden Christensen to start acting.

I adore Charleton Heston, but his portrayal of a Mexican lawman was so ridiculous (and I am not talking about his lack of an accent), it ruined the movie for me. The part that really bothered me was him leaving his new bride all alone in a strange town while he chased leads on a case that wasn't even his case to solve. Likewise, an American lawman like Welles' character, even if he were honest, would not have allowed a Mexican officer anywhere near his case. And since Quinlan was corrupt, it made even less sense. The bombing case that drives the plot is underdeveloped and turns out to basically be a mcguffin.

Janet Leigh's Susan was almost unbearably stupid to the point of absurdity. No wonder she later dies in a shower at the hands of Norman Bates (Ha!). She almost willingly goes off with strange men who accost her on the street. Then allows herself to be dumped in a seedy motel in the middle of nowhere. She has to be the origin of the term "trophy wife".

Despite its flaws, some of the acting is outstanding. Orson Welles' creepy Quinlan is a villain worthy of Hollywood history. Welles fleshed out the character very well so you can almost see how he was corrupted over time by the death of his wife and the rigors of his drinking and smoking. Joseph Calleia's Menzies had an interesting arc as a loyal follower of Quinlan who begins to realize he has been backing the wrong horse. Mort Mills' portrayal of ADA Al Schwartz was a highlight for me as he provided balance between the two imposing forces of Quinlan and Vargas.

The locales were amazing. I understand Welles insisted on filming in an actual town rather than on sets. It shows as the buildings and streets give the movie a bit of character and depth that sets cannot.

My memory foam pillow says it can't remember my face. I can tell its lying.

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

Agreed. Good film, but not the best of Welles. I give it 6/10.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] StarWarsMoviesSuck 9 years ago

I give the two of you 1/10

Just shut up you annoying neckbeards

[–] Zoomorph 8 years ago

Do you also rate movies based on a single line of dialog or a trailer?

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Robbmonster 8 years ago

Your criticisms are interesting and thanks for sharing them.

However, most of your arguments seem to be based around things not 'making sense'. Why does everything have to make sense? Why does every action a character makes have to be sufficiently motivated? And why does it always have to be the right thing to do? If you think about it, most characters in most films are one-dimensional. Usually it's just the few top characters who have much dimension, the rest are just around to serve the needs of the writer and/or story.

But again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Much more refreshing than the usual one-line 'this movie sucked, even if there was an explosion' type stuff.

Oh, and I can't stand the word 'overrated' - it is so only in your own opinion. The consensus disagrees.

Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

[–] Eric266 8 years ago

Robb,

Thanks for the nice response. Its nice when people can disagree without resorting to insults and name calling.

I can understand how you think "overrated" is a bit if hyperbole, but in this movie, I think it was warranted. This movie makes all kinds of "Best Of" lists and the reason a movie is considered "Best" should be because of the time and effort it took to make it. Plot, character development and dialogue should be top notch. True, not every character in every movie does things that makes sense, but again, in a movie that is so revered as Touch of Evil, I would think it should matter.

For all the reason I mentioned, the movie just fell flat for me. It was still enjoyable and I can never get tired of watching Charlton Heston, but even he admits his characterization of Vargas was off the mark. I also felt Welles just kind of existed in the movie without really doing anything. I can admit that maybe, I just didn't "get it", but I watch a lot of old movies and I love them. In this day and age of CGI, gratuitous sex, and massive explosions (which I love as well), I sometimes prefer the character driven films of the 50s and 60s. Perhaps I judged this film too harshly against other films of its genre, but it just seemed to miss the mark for me.

Again, I appreciate your view and appreciate the mature discourse.

My memory foam pillow says it can't remember my face. I can tell its lying.

[–] bernardinu 8 years ago

I enjoyed it. looked completely like it was shot in a studio, had the film noir staples of great characters, long shadows, cool camera angles, Great cast. It doesn't have the sucker punch of the greatest films, but it's still fairly brilliant, for all that...

[–] peterduray-bito 8 years ago

This movie gets better every time I watch it. Not many I can say that about.

[–] vondiesel-1 7 years ago

I find that to be true for me as well, thought it was okay on 1st view, then good on 2nd view, then loved it on 3rd viewing onwards.
I've always made a point to rewatch films I didn't like again too, usually years later, never worked on Robocop 3 but everything else I had a better opinion of later. My tastes change with age, I never watch trailers, read reviews or have expectations anymore, it works for me.

[–] Wuchak (8081) 6 years ago

I fully agree with the evenhanded remarks of the OP: There ARE interesting technical things going on as far as camera angles, lighting and impressive long takes (e.g. the opening sequence). It also has a notable classic cast with Leigh thoroughly stunning, not to mention Joanna Moore, Marlene Dietrich, Joi Lansing and a cameo by Zsa Zsa Gabor on the female front.

Yet I otherwise found the picture talky, nigh surreal and noticeably hokey with an unengrossing story and dubious acting, e.g. the hooligan Mexicans and the eye-rolling Shakespearean lunatic “night man” (Dennis Weaver). Seriously, viewing this film is like entering Welles’ head on an acid trip.

That said, the film offers quite a bit to digest and I could see it playing better on additional viewings, which explains its cult status, but I’m not interested. There are far more fascinating and compelling B&W dramas with noteworthy casts from that general era, like “The Misfits” (1963).

I viewed the long reconstructed version, aka the “director’s cut,” which runs about 110 minutes while the original studio-butchered version runs 93 minutes. Interestingly, the film wasn’t shot anywhere near the border, let alone the Texas border, but in freakin’ Venice, Los Angeles.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Did you know about film noir beforehand? It's classic film noir, so if you know what it entails, then you may enjoy it more.

Basically, I think you are observant about the movie and if you look past the noirish characters, what they are like, great acting and artistic cinematography, then you will see the flaws.

The first time I saw it, I knew it was classic film noir. I read about the technique and movie beforehand during the mid-80s and was just getting introduced to the genre. I think I saw the 1976 release on VHS and enjoyed it, and gave it a 7. Really didn't think too much about it, but didn't think it was a 'B' movie either. It met my expectations from what I had read.

Many years later learning to appreciate film noir, and after neo noir was released, I found out about the Touch of Evil "director's cut" and that it was supposed to be a 'B' movie and that's how it was released in theaters. I suppose the studio didn't think it made sense or thought they could improve it, so they re-shot new scenes with a new director. I never saw this version, but hope it's on the 1998 DVD. Now, I have seen the 1998 "director's" cut version that you saw and read the notes on it. It was supposed to be a bad story and Heston thought he had the wherewithal to turn a 'B' movie into a great one. I think he got carried away as he let the actors re-write a lot the lines. Anyway, it sounded like they had a great time making the picture. The fact that he still was able to put together a mostly coherent movie with artistic film noir shooting despite it all deserves kudos. I suppose one has to overlook the somewhat convoluted story and the goofs in the movie to appreciate it for what it was and has become. I gave it an 8 out of 10 which is about right.