MovieChat Forums > Joe (1970) Discussion > Anybody else here think 'Joe' is mediocr...

Anybody else here think 'Joe' is mediocre?

posted 14 years ago by Oliver-50
8 replies | jump to latest

Aside from Peter Boyle's excellent performance, 'Joe' felt like a typical, messy, what's-wrong-with-the-world late 60's-early 70's movie. Poorly structured story, characters whose actions don't always seem genuine, and a muddled message about not understanding youth that never gels.

Milos Forman's 'Taking Off' in 1971 understood the age gap much better and didn't need a cop-out violent ending like 'Joe' does.

I know who I am! I'm the dude playing a dude disguised as another dude!

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

It´s certainly not an outstanding cinematic achievement; it´s kinda crude looking piece mostly populated by borderline caricatures. The acting is often unconvincingly stilted as is a lot of the dialogue; the opening 20 or so minutes with that Russo with his awful delivery as the main man were the worst stretch. Also, the scenes of violence are badly directed. But Boyle is indeed very good and it´s certainly an interesting film - and not only as an artifact of its time - that has an authentic feel to it. One can sense from it that the 70s had arrived - at least in spirit.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] shepardjessica-1 14 years ago

3.5 stars out of 4

[–] sf12169 14 years ago

I wouldn't say 'mediocre'. Your description of the film as 'authentic' is a good one. Best part of the film is the middle with the relationship between Joe and Compton developing. I also found Joe's home life to be interesting as well. Interesting also that Compton's wife seemed to be a bit 'big for her britches' with the attitude she had towards her husband at times - especially considering this was in 1970! Joe's wife, OTOH, seemed to be more representative of how women were back then. The ending, however, sucked. The film just petered out... almost felt like I was watching a different film by that point.

"You give me back my ball... I'll give you yours" - Viggo Mortensen in Renny Harlin's 'Prison'

[–] hurricane_greg86-596-716877 13 years ago

I would call it a film of its times.It was called the Midnight Cowboy of that year but it does not hold the way Cowboy does.Cowboy is universal for any decade but Joe is more of time capsule piece of a time and a place in American society

[–] activista 10 years ago

@af12169

Excuse me? The movie showed two entirely different women---Joe's wife came off like a timid,possibly abused wife,who was just going along to get along,since he was such as a**hole---she wasn't representative or even typical of how women were back then. Keep in mind this was the beginning of the '70's, not the 1950's----the women's liberation movement was in full swing, as well as the civil rights; movement, the gay movement and everything else. That's why I find movies from this era so fascinating and flat-out fun to watch, because of all the changes society was going through then. To say that ALL women were the same way based on one character in what was basically stereotypical and biased/anti-everything that wasn't white,traditional, and middle-class is pretty silly. Especially since I grew up in that era myself and I knew some women who weren't like that at all. And Compton's wife wasn't "too big for her britches", she was simply telling him that she was sick and damn tired of going through all this BS with her daughter's drug addiction,plain and simple.

[–] shepardjessica-1 10 years ago

JOE is a great film. Perfectly in the times of 1970 ( the silent majority and the lost youth). Gunville - USA, please.

[–] coldnaps 9 years ago

Absolutely not a masterpiece, but far from mediocre. It's a cult film in many ways

[–] El_Raheem 8 years ago

Goof film, but it's almost like a few separate movies broken up into different sections. When the movie starts it has a very different feel from where it ends.