MovieChat Forums > The Americanization of Emily (1964) Discussion > Without Question....

Without Question....

posted 14 years ago by gbennett5
6 replies | jump to latest

...The most tedious film I have sat through in ages. Loquacious, corny,
unlikeable characters, scenes that go on forever. Terrible from the
first minute to the last. I am a lover of classic film, foreign films,
indie films, musicals, you name it. But this dud could pass for a
sleeping pill. I cannot believe how boring this movie was. Equally
irritating was the 1944 setting while our dear, precious Julie boasted
1964 hair, clothes, shoes and earrings. Don't have a lot of respect for
productions that don't even attempt to make the era they're setting their
story in BELIEVABLE. Ridiculous.

[–] vpilutis 13 years ago

GEE!

See some stars here
http://www.vbphoto.biz/

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] out-of-towner 12 years ago

"People make these lovely speeches that no one alive would make"

My thoughts exactly. The movie was believable for the first 20 minutes or so, until the characters began to bombard each other with long monologues of their philosophies on war and peace. I just don't think real people would talk like that. James Garner especially had trouble with these monologues. It seemed as if he were reading his lines from cue cards.

[–] moewadle 11 years ago

Well, it is all a matter of taste and so, if you did not like it you did not like. However, I thought it was an excellent film that had a very strong message to convey...part of the message was about the arrogant and self-serving bureacracy behind the scenes that exists in the military. Anyway, there was so much social-comment in the film that was very insightful. I liked that and maybe not your cup-of-tea. As far as the 1964 hair, make-up, etc in a 1944 film I am not so worried or caring about that as the costuming was not the main thrust here. I would say the 1964 styles were intentional. In some movies I would call it a glaring error in costuming but not here. Just my two-cents worth..but maybe what I am leading up to...is I am thinking, gbennett5, that you could not see the forest for the trees.

[–] gbennett5 10 years ago

YOU'RE the one who cannot see the forest for the trees. Why on earth
would deliberately costuming somebody in the wrong era be a plus??
The film is awful besides.

[–] liscarkat (16469) 3 years ago

Deliberately giving all the women anachronistic hairdos and clothes is either ignorance, laziness, or a foolish attempt to make the movie seem more "relevant" to 1964 audiences by giving it a contemporary look. Any one or combination of those reasons was a mistake.