MovieChat Forums > Ciao Manhattan (1974) Discussion > Why do people say that this is a bad mov...

Why do people say that this is a bad movie?


It's actually one of the most fascinating films I've ever seen, and not just because of Edie Sedgwick.

reply

It's considered bad because it's a bunch of nonsense. The story is all over the place. There's Susan Superstar (Edie) and her drama and then this subplot of drugs & aliens. The two things just don't make sense together. It's basically a bunch of drug induced paranoia. That being said, I think the movie is a hoot. The only real appeal is that it's Edie's final film and for once, Edie is seen in color and 'acting' in an audible film (most of Warhol's films were impossible to hear). If Edie were still living, I highly doubt the movie would've been re-released or even sought after. Sad but true.

"Stars don't shine in singular places"

reply

[deleted]

Yes, Ciao! Manhattan is a twisted masterpiece. The people who say it's a bad movie must be rednecks who can't understand symbolism (the UFO stuff for example) or can't tolerate a movie that is non-linear. Why is it a bad movie? No Stallone!! And no ones skull gets split open!

reply

I agree with DivingIntheBlue that if Edie Sedgwick was still alive, we would probably not be watching this movie on DVD release. I think this movie is unwatchable, despite my high hopes for some insights into Andy Warhol's Factory world and the mid to late 60s era. Edie Sedgwick is beautiful, but it's sad to see her drug-addled emaciated body. And sorry asgardsreil, I think she is too thin, and I'm not a redneck- the movie still sucks.

reply

I respect your opinion, i guess it is all a matter of personal taste. But I do find "ciao! Manhattan" to be a fascinating film experience, as well as an invaluable time capsule of a time gone by.

reply


I completely I agree. I can't for the life of me, understand peoples thinking. I do believe its only the simple minded lot of people, that can't understand it, and claim its bad...Its beautiful.

reply

So anybody who disagrees with your opinion of this movie, Glittering Cupcake,is a simpleton? How insane are you? So difference of opinion doesn't exsist in your world? This is a crap movie, spliced from two crap movies, with a crap story about a crappy period of time. It is a interesting time capsule, especially for diehard fans of Edie..

reply

Poorly done film. Bad script, bad acting. Boring, awkward, embarrassing. Throwing around words like 'symbolism' helps nothing; it's poorly done symbolism, at best. Those who love this film are the ones who don't understand it. They should be forced to watch it repeatedly.

reply

Those who love this film are the ones who don't understand it.


I've seen people say this about other movies, records, books, etc.

It makes no sense.

It's like saying, "If I don't understand what this has to offer, then nobody else is allowed to understand it, either! No one is allowed to have a cultural background that's different than mine, a background that would enable them to 'get' more of the references in the film than I do, and find more humor and profundity in them. My limitations must be everyone's!"

It makes no sense. And I'm not even some great fan of this film. I watched it on TCM last night, and, yeah, it was decadent and self-indulgent to the max, but it was also interesting, self-aware, self-critical, sometimes quite funny, and I liked some of the photography. But there was one thought I kept having-- especially during the scenes with the Texas kid and/or the caretaker who keeps brushing his own hair-- and it was this:

"In 1972 I was eleven years old. But if in that year I had been a vaguely 'countercultural' young adult, especially one from a family with money and good education, and I was disillusioned with the 'square' world (the "Establishment") where I was expected to pursue some boring career, and I was searching for something else, 'with no direction home, like a rolling stone'... then this film would probably hold a LOT more meaning for me."

So... For all of you out there who post messages, about some movie or another, that "All these people who like it, they're just crazy"... Here's a good rule of thumb:

If a lot of people love it, and you don't, then THEY probably know something that YOU don't know-- NOT the other way around. Be humble (honest) enough to acknowledge that you don't know everything. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're trying to put across this image online that you're smarter than everyone else, that you know (insert movie here) is worthless and everyone who enjoys it is just stupid... Well, you may as well give up that pose, because, in the end, nobody else really takes it seriously.

reply

[deleted]

I absolutely loved this film. I would have given it a solid 10 if it weren't for that horrid Texan actor and his stupid side story. I've been fascinated with Edie Sedgwick since seeing Factory Girl a few years ago, and this is the ultimate gift to Edie fans. She had more talent than Warhol for all I care; it was just never realized in time. This film would also be great to watch on acid, man.... a totally groovy and trippy experience even WITHOUT the intake of psychotropic drugs prior to viewing!

I've been waiting FOREVER to see this (since Netflix doesn't carry it) and it was actually much better than I ever anticipated. I wonder if Edie really was that far gone in the film, or it was just ingenious acting on her part... I guess we will never know.


When there is no more room on IMDB, the trolls shall wheel to 4chan.

reply

[deleted]

As a narrative film it is all over the place and not terribly entertaining. But as a cultural artifact, it is priceless. They had a screening of this film last night as a tribute to Edie on the anniversary of her death. It was the first time I had seen it on the big screen. The director David Weisman was there and the actor who played Geoffrey was there as well. They told some hilarious stories. For example, the actor who played Geoffrey got his part because he was working in real life as a "major domo" of sorts for the actress who they wanted to play Mummy. This casting was critical for them because they were not just filling Mummy's role, but the actress's estate was going to be the setting (she had many little cottages on her property, and I think the plan was to make Susan/Edie's little lair in one of them.

They never identified this actress, probably because they kept referring to her as crazy.

They had to scramble to recast when she dropped out at the last minute (they delivered a script to Jennifer Jones' house to try to tempt her) before they got the talented Isabel Jewell on board. But in the meantime, they kept Geoffrey on to play the role we all saw in the film.

But if I had no emotional interest in this movie, I would say that the Mr. Verdechio nonsense just muddied the water, and the whole subplot with Paul America in jail and the visit from Tom was pretty uninteresting too. What is interesting, though, is how they filmed that. Paul America was actually in jail in Michigan or something. They had been looking for him to film more material to graft into the movie, so they just went and filmed him in jail! He was in jail because he was living on his brother's farm at the time and there was a raid and they found marijuana growing on the farm : (

While the artistic output was uneven, the film stands, not just as a tribute to Edie, but to the passion and determination of the entire crew to get it finished. They had no money, and at the time Edie was considered a pathetic has been. That they all poured their hearts and souls into this project and brought it to completion is amazing and laudatory.

reply

This is certainly a movie where one HAS TO listen to the directors commentary to fully appreciate it. Yes, it was set out to simply be a profitable 'titty film' to compete with the likes of Russ Meyers and Roger Corman et al. And the rag tag group of newbies thought it would be easy to make a movie like that with little script, found talent, hip dialog, and trippy twists. Needless to say, it wasn't as easy as Meyers and Corman made it look. Funding, script writing, talent commitment was almost doomed from the get go. At best, it was promo film glorifying Edie and The Factory days. Years past, and Edie disappeared, and it was Weisman's determination to make some tangible movie out of it all. Had he not had the persistence to track Edie down, and had Edie declined to act in it, I think Paul would have sought out another actress. And THEN it would've been a completely *beep* titty movie indeed! Those in the know would say a small percentage of it derived from Edie's life, and Weisman should mail her 2% of the profits in the mail from the dollar or two this fiasco could've made. But the fact Edie was found, agreed to do the role, and I think rounded out the script much better by recounting/re-acting her past history is the ticket. And unlike Dorothy Stratton, it's as if Edie knew this film was to be her swan song, tits and all. Had she not died so quickly after filming, I think the movie would stand just as proudly to any Morrisey/Warhol output. But only by the fact it was sheer luck that it saved and/or immortalized The Factory concept, Weismans diligence, and Edie's commitment. Much like The Rolling Stones 'Satanic Majesty's Request' getting beaten out by 'Sgt. Pepper' - it still serves as a valiant effort that may have changed history if released first. Or may have killed the whole psychedelic trend right there and then? Good or bad, it is what it is, and only adds to the mysticism of Brian Jones demise and/or the bands longevity. Ciao! Manhattan is really no different - though it could've been without that luck.

reply