MovieChat Forums > Cool Hand Luke (1967) Discussion > Overrated

Overrated

posted 8 years ago by Badlands1
22 replies | jump to latest

The movie never really tells you much, and is full of revisions, in the book he drives through a store and steals goods, but filmmakers thought we wouldn't like him for that in the beginning so they changed it to parking meters, and made up the war hero part to make us feel sorry for him, we never really find out the whole story behind the pic with the nightclub girls, and especially why he's so anti-establishment, yet he's not violent, or insane, it's totally a hack-job script.. Not the best revision story IMO, just the new writers trying to change everything for Warner Bros viewers, just keep him a bad guy like the book.

[–] MpX23 8 years ago

you realise you posted this already.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061512/board/flat/248471390?d=251773704#251773704

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

Yes some people like you who read every single posting, in every single thread, for every single movie, this is for the people that don't have that free time, and just browse the thread topic bars. Thanks.

[–] MpX23 8 years ago

Lol. What an *beep* Someone sounds angry they got found out. I opened about 5 threads near the top of the messageboard after watching the film. You realise the postings were about 5 minutes apart? So eager to have your opinion heard.

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

Yes I "got found out" call the police, and thanks for investigating the times I posted them, great detective work... Soo do you have an actual opinion on a MOVIE?

[–] MpX23 8 years ago

Do I have an actual opinion on a MOVIE? Well, after some more "great detective work" (because it's so difficult to read time and subtract or count up), my assistant and I found more posts containing the same content (all near the top of the message board mind you) and after further "investigations" we have now been convinced. The movie never really tells you much, and is full of revisions, in the book he drives through a store and steals goods, but filmmakers thought we wouldn't like him for that in the beginning so they changed it to parking meters, and made up the war hero part to make us feel sorry for him, we never really find out the whole story behind the pic with the nightclub girls, and especially why he's so anti-establishment, yet he's not violent, or insane, it's totally a hack-job script.. Not the best revision story IMO, just the new writers trying to change everything for Warner Bros viewers, just keep him a bad guy like the book.

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

Thanks for that. ....Soo any opinions on the MOVIE? Or you just troll IMDB to attack users character?

[–] MpX23 8 years ago

Says the person who started with the accusations and erroneous assumptions. Okay. Have a nice day.

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

Uh I started with an opinion on a M O V I E .

You responded like a crybaby that I couldn't post something twice, and again you could not even comment on this movie, I guess I've proved you wrong with CHL since you cannot offer any intelligence here, bye...

[–] MpX23 8 years ago

Twice? 😉 Like a crybaby? Man you are easily offended. Were you mollycoddled as a child Mr Conceited? Insulting other peoples intelligence when you have the comprehension skills of an infant. I didn't say you began the thread with it in the first post, I said you started the attack on character. I was just wondering if you realised you had continued to post the same thing over and over again. If there were proper mods on here it would have been locked. And this paragraph you are so proud of received replies in the other thread. It also isn't full of as much intelligence as you think it is and isn't worthy of being repeated over and over again. You read a book! Congratulations!

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

Soo MpX23.. Care to counter my "intelligence" with an O P I N I O N ON THE
M O V I E ?

[–] mrbluto-2 8 years ago

You may be the dumbest person I have ever seen on IMDB, I have read thousands of reviews of CHL and you are the only hater.

[–] MpX23 8 years ago

No need to call someone dumb for their opinion.

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

No need to call someone dumb for their opinion.

Thanks, but I'm still waiting on SOMEBODY to actually comment on this MOVIE.. Six replies in so far oh boy.

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

..Umm ok thanks for that insult keyboard warrior... Care to actually offer an opinion on this MOVIE, since you've dedicated your life to "thousands" of reviews?

[–] Coconut_Kaasa 8 years ago

The aspect with that picture is one of the best parts of the movie. The truth should be left for the viewer and the prisoners to decide for themselves. Plenty of anti-establishmenters aren't violent or insane, so I don't see where you're trying to go there. Many of them are in fact very successful people.

Anyway, those are my two cents. I can't comment on any script changes since I barely know of the books existence. I like the fact that the movie doesn't give us much background. It's that reasoning that makes people help appreciate John Carpenter's Halloween while criticizing Rob Zombie's. Considering how well it worked for most viewers, those aren't things that need to be known.

My car is fast, my teeth is shiny, I tell all the girls they can kiss my heinie!

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

Thank the heavens! the seventh reply was finally about the MOVIE! Great points there, but my beef is the truth is never revealed, I was hoping there was some horrific war story we would hear or family history, but we're left with he's a great guy, but he throws his life away for nothing, being anti-establishment, yet he's a war hero so he must have had some discipline.. Then after hearing in the book, he was never a war hero, and was generally a negative character, robbing mom and pop stores, the movie falls short, and doesn't leave the viewer with much to understand.
Also he was supposed to die on film but WB thought it was too much so left it ambiguous.. I never like films destroying original books stories, especially if they can't do it well.
I saw this film as a kid and loved it, but as an adult I see right through it.

[–] justwrite3 8 years ago

Honestly, you don't come across as all that interested in discussing the film, because if you were, there are plenty of other threads that discuss the film in detail.

I haven't bothered responding until now because, as MpX23 pointed out, you spammed the board with the same post something like five times. That's not going to generate much good will.

As for that repeated comment, the book and the film are two different entities. Most adapted films deviate from the books they were based on, and in better films, usually for good reason. Based on your characterization of the book, I'll put Cool Hand Luke in that category because the film definitely works better with Luke as a more sympathetic character than he was apparently portrayed in the book. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't understand why you object to it.

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

Well you did a lot of crying there, why is IMDB full of crybabies these days?

Actually all I did was discuss the film.

Ok so all you had to add was you liked Luke because "he was sympathetic"
That still doesn't leave us with why did he throw his life away, since he was such a great disciplined war hero... That's where you should understand the difference between a great original story, and the hack job the film writers did here.

So please go cry to the MANY other threads of people that saw right through this mess of a film, unless you actually want to talk in intelligent detail.

[–] justwrite3 8 years ago

Well you did a lot of crying there, why is IMDB full of crybabies these days?

Not at all. I just gave you my honest assessment. Feel free to quote anything from my prior post that qualifies as "crying."

Actually all I did was discuss the film.

I wish. Everything you've said about the film is in relation to the book. Forget the book. Discuss the film on its own merits as a standalone work.

So please go cry to the MANY other threads of people that saw right through this mess of a film, unless you actually want to talk in intelligent detail.

You apparently haven't read the other threads because the vast majority of people who have posted here like the film. Not everyone does, and that's fine -- people have differing opinions about films.

I'm more than happy to discuss the film in intelligent detail, as long as the discussion is civil. Are you? Because your repeated complaints about "crying" aren't going down that path. Not everyone on the internet is looking for an insult war. I post here because I enjoy civil discussions about films and TV shows, and if you want to participate in that, I'm game. It's a small town, not much to do in the evening.

[–] Badlands1 8 years ago

I gave lot's of details about the movie, please re-read my OP, I would trust you could see the books story worked. Then they re-did the story into this, which in my opinion did not work, because of the rated G changes they made to a rated R story.
So I'm saying the film is a mess, and doesn't answer anything; Luke a great disciplined war hero, that throws his life away, for no answered reason.. Please comment on that?

No, I never said every other post was negative, but there is other negative reviews...

[–] caribeno 7 years ago

I just saw this film tonight, Jan. 3, 1017, virtually a year after your post. I had tried to see it a couple of times before but I wasn't engaged in the story. I enjoy good prison films. While the acting from everyone was competent, neither the script nor the acting (with the possible exceptions of Strother Martin, Morgan Greenwood, and George Kennedy, who displayed what I thought was the best acting in the film)anything above adequate. To this day, I get more chills from watching "I Was A Fugitive From A Chain Gang" made 35 years before "Cool Hand Luke" than "Cool Hand Luke" itself. The characters and plot development in the previous film were more engaging, more harrowing, the performances by Paul Muni and Helen Vinson more affecting than anything in "Cool Hand Luke". This film seemed episodic, almost offhand. While I like Paul Newman as an actor, some of his performances seem wooden rather than inspired. One can play a loner yet register powerful emotions in a subtle, complex way that registers to a camera and an audience. Newman doesn't do this in this film. His performance totally disengages me. For 1967, "Cool Hand Luke" might've been edgy, even groundbreaking for a prison film but it seems very dated and overly restrained from what a chain gang experience could've been in reality.

[–] Badlands1 7 years ago

Great review Caribeno, I haven't seen IWAFFACG, I'll have to check it out. I agree this prison movie seems very restrained, and not engaging. The only reason why I can think people like it is because it moved them as a kid, when if they saw it now it might not?