Not that great...

Thank you for your reply, KRAAVITZ! I agree with what you said, most truly great films are not loved universally and i fully understand/respect Le Samourai for being one of those classics. (heck, my fav is 2001: A Space Odyssey, and most people detest that film :) I will certainly NOT write off Melville! I am going to check out those films that you mentioned too!

Achilles absent was Achilles still.
-Homer

"I love it for the scant dialogue, that it takes almost 18 minutes for the first words to be uttered,"

Actually, I just watched the movie again & I was curious about this, so I timed it, and it's just over 10 minutes before the first word is spoken -- that's when Jef gets to Jane's flat. After the brief exchange between Jef and Jane to set up the alibi, there's five minutes or so before another word is spoken. The lack of dialogue is one of the things I like about this movie too.

About the lack of character development .... it's deliberate, I think. We know very little about WHY these characters do what they do, or even WHO they are, except in the most sketchy way. But that is deliberate also, as is the fact that we never really do find out WHAT is really going on.

Most of the criticisms of the plot that I've read here are valid if you look at the movie from the point of view of realism. ("Would a real hitman do this? or that? why go to the gambling site, where the cops are likely to pick him up, instead of home? Etc.")

But I don't think that in this movie Melville ever intended to be "realistic." This is a very abstract movie.

I think it's a superb film. But you have accept the movie in context of what Melville was trying to do,

i think its definitely true that not all classic films appeal to all people. in fact, i think thats part of the beauty of cinema. but i was intrigued by your comment that some of the scenes were sloppy? just wondered which ones so i could have a look see, im always intrigued by how other people see things.

first time i watched this film i wasnt really paying attention, and could take it or leave it. but when i watched it the second time i really appreciated the stylistic craftsmanship of the film and would consider it a masterpiece of sorts... I couldve definitely killed that bird though!!

It's a difficult movie to like because the protagonist is not a likable person. He's very inscrutable and cold, not some really stylish assassin like most movies have these days. I liked this movie, but I also like The Count of Monte Cristo (the book, not any of the movies I've seen) and other stories that have that kind of distant, icy character. It's not bad to dislike this movie.

It just means you have awful taste!

I liked it.

It doesn't work at all when observed as realism, and it's nothing special as an abstraction - it's not universal at all, it's just another dream, perhaps of some importance to the one who dreamed it up and people like him, but otherwise, I wouldn't dare call it exsistentialism, it's rather "loserism". No questions are trully asked, no meaning trully found or made, it's just passive and sluggish falling apart with fake style without any true effort that could indicate an actual pulse.

I think I should watch it again. I've watched it for the first time yesterday, and was far from impressed. I though it was a cliché of the criminal life not well known at the time with little content and long stretch of silent to give the movie a good running time. Maybe I passed something great. I agree with people who compare it to 2001: Space Odyssey, I had to watch it twice to fully understand/apreciate it.

I liked that it was no dialogue, made it pretty fascinating. When Costello went home about half way through the film, and the guy was in his apartment = woaw awesome! 15 min without dialogue, and then BOOM!

Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=36795075

[deleted]