In one of the greatest years in film history, 1969, which had Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Easy Rider, Midnight Cowboy, The Wild Bunch and many others, Medium Cool seems rarely to be mentioned. I've seen it recently and I thought it was terrific and gutsy filmmaking. I'm wondering if you think this movie is underrated and why it's not talked about much?
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."
I totally agree that this film is vastly underrated. The cinematography is amazing, especially the last few scenes with the cuts between the trees and car windows.
I've noticed that the story takes on a very ambiguous tone - especially with black issues, violence in the media, and so forth. I think people tend to want things that are more clear cut, this film forces you to consider certain opposing points - leading to you to a possible ideal of what the filmmaker is trying to say.
"EEEVERYONE!!!"
- Gary Oldman in "Leon"
Yeah I totally agree that this is an under-rated movie I watched it and the documentary of the making of the film and it was so well made that it made me think about how the media still potrays stories in the same black and white context today.
Paramount wanted to stop this movie from being released dont know why suppose it was just the politics at the time great movie 4/5!
I totally agree that this film is vastly underrated. The cinematography is amazing, especially the last few scenes with the cuts between the trees and car windows.
I've noticed that the story takes on a very ambiguous tone - especially with black issues, violence in the media, and so forth. I think people tend to want things that are more clear cut, this film forces you to consider certain opposing points - leading to you to a possible ideal of what the filmmaker is trying to say.
[deleted]
"Yes, I agree that the cinematography is great, but the story just sort of floats, it doesn't go anywhere. To me it seemed that the movie was full of random scenes that didn’t contribute to the story very much.
By them selves, the scenes were good, but put them together and you have one boring movie."
The movie is experimental -- probably one of the first American films to use the kind of non-linear storytelling more associated with European filmmakers. Give it another chance -- maybe looking at it from that perspective will improve your opinion of the film.
jeffoneonone: "The movie is experimental -- probably one of the first American films to use the kind of non-linear storytelling more associated with European filmmakers. Give it another chance -- maybe looking at it from that perspective will improve your opinion of the film."
Definately. I saw it for the first time, yesterday (on the big screen) and it absolutely has this "Cinéma vérité" quality, even more than Cassavetes films. In fact I would say it's the most Godardian US film, I've ever seen. And I absolutely love those quirky characters created by the great Marianna Hill.
Medium Cool - an under apprediated film. It was this film along with others (but this was one of the first) that rearranged and explored how films could be made differently, giving more credit to the audience without explaining every little detail and letting the audience make their own conclusions. Combining real and fictional, it is a powerful film.
shareI'm not sure if I liked any of the characters. Maybe the colored cleaning lady at the hotel whom the soundguy acts sleazy towards.
I don't think its underrated, its just not a film for the majority; its important to those who care about the subject matter. It's still a well=made powerful film despite its detractions.
I saw it today at uni and I thought it went in the wrong direction - instead of spending time on the politics (which could have potentially been very interesting) it just carried on with the dull-as-hell love story.
As ppl have said, the editing kinda got a bit annoying aswell. Frustrating.
it's a nice little documentation of the time and it's nice looking. i think it's interesting more then it's a GREAT film really. it should probably get more attention but i wasn't blown away.
shareI loved this movie when it came out, and I still consider it one of my all-time favorites. Yeah, it's different from your standard cookie-cutter Hollywood garbage. That's a good thing, imho. While it seems to be free form and disconnected, in reality nothing in the story is disconnected from anything else in the story. And the fact that the riot scenes weren't staged but real make it unique. A powerful film for anyone who likes to actually think.
shareThis is probably one of the most OVER-rated films I've ever seen. I have no problem with slow films or challenging films, so long as there is some attempt to be comprehensible and pragmatic. Every time I see someone praising this film, they unfailingly have to bend over backwards to make excuses for the film's abysmal editing, horrendous logic gaps, and coy, self-indulgent direction. Roger Ebert praised the film for having the confidence in the audience's intelligence to skip B when going from point A to point C; that's fine, but this movie goes from about point A to point W, omitting everything in between. I'm sorry, I'm simply not THAT smart. And the actors are terribly directed, forced to give line readings that simply make no sense given the context. And I'm sorry... I know the convention riot footage is the centerpiece of the film, but stringing together some flimsy reason for the "heroine" to wonder around the riots googly-eyed for fifteen minutes simply to have a reason to shoehorn the footage into the film actually BELITTLES my intelligence.
And finally, inept films are common... but inept films convinced they're TELLING you something are uniquely obnoxious. This movie rubs your nose in its importance like you're a dog having your face shoved near the mess you made on the carpet while someone shouts "NO!" in order to make sure you never do it again.
I'd have to agree that it is overrated.
I seem to remember liking it the first time I saw it in the late 80s. My most recent viewing found it merely self-indulgent, with the '68 riot footage something of an out of context curiosity.
I think the only reason it retains cachet is the footage of Chicago '68. If the riot footage had been staged or from some insignificant event (drunken students, sports revelry, etc), I think this movie would just be considered an experimental curiosity best ignored except by film school die-hards.
Certainly the dull, almost incomprehensible narrative and occasionally headache inducing handheld footage isn't what people are watching it for.
i dunno about under-rated; it seems most who experience the film agree that it's pretty interesting. Perhaps just not as well known .. which is probably OK
share[deleted]
Yes indeed, I agree. this film is amazing and so underrated. paramount at first delayed the issuing of the movie cuz its controversial but now I think it has passed the time, at least literally. it should have like a 40 year collector's version or something in this year 2009, i think thatd be cool.
Sorry I like independent films with new ideas, this is disjointed, badly edited, and just not good.
Maybe for the time it was considered experimental, but that doesn't make it good.
Bump
saw it in class. I think it was an okay film looking back but it def had some flaws. The story didn't really go anywhere until near the end of the film and the editing and camera work could throw people off.
I didn't like the ending either.