MovieChat Forums > Bang the Drum Slowly (1978) Discussion > Dull or what?

Dull or what?

posted 16 years ago by alg11297
21 replies | jump to latest

Most folks don't realize this film was originially a live TV broadcast on Playhouse 90 with Paul Newman.

This film was incredible dull. All the scenes seem to be non-related. Half the plot is Vincent Gardenia trying to figure out what exactly Moriarity did with Dinero in the off season. The lies go on and on till he gets a private detective to figure it out. The off camera aside usually say "After that the club did pretty well" "After that we couldn't win a game".

Maybe because it was 1973 but it looked like a really bad made for TV movie.

[–] kairingler 16 years ago

I'll have to admit you are right about the dull part,, but hey this is about a man that has Cancer,, how exciting can you make it,, i thought that it was a very potent story for it's time,, this kinda movie, you have to go into it , knowing that their ain't gonna be no car chases, bullets flying or stuff like that.
are you going to bark all day little doggie,, or are you going to bite

[–] tvlover1961 15 years ago

A lot of movies from the '70s had that feel I think (I grew up then). I just watched this for the first time over the weekend. I do remember a lot of "cancer" movies coming out during the '70s. I don't know if cancer was a bad word before then or what--but I remember many TV movies and some feature length films dealing with the subject. Anyway, the movie itself was ok, not worth watching again. I watched it because I had always wanted to--that's it. It was kind of fun to see these two guys in the early stages of their film careers.

[–] twiggy232 15 years ago

erm this film is ridiculously bad.

i watched the first half, and was falling asleep so had to stop.

decided to watch the second half the next day in case it got better or had a good ending, but no....

It is definitely the most boring film i have ever seen, and therefore almost the worst ive ever seen too.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] twiggy232 15 years ago

just thought id post back to edit my previous post.

i have just seen an even more boring film/documentary: "Of time and the city"

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] efs2 14 years ago

>>> Your comments are ridiculously bad,and I fell asleep reading what you wrote.

Immature, foolish post.

lol

That "immature, foolish post" was a criticism of the post one above it that cricized the movie with those same terms. But I understand. Reading two posts so that you could understand the context would have been twice as hard.

Also, to the original poster, this movie was never a live TV production. It was always a motion picture released in 1973.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

[–] willjohn 12 years ago

In 1956 the book was made into an episode of "The American Steel Hour" TV series with Paul Newman as Henry Wiggens and Albert Salmi as Bruce Pierson.

[–] sbourque-1 14 years ago

I was beginning to think everyone actually liked this movie, so thank you for the sanity of your post. With the exception of Moriarty's performance, I really didn't find much to like in this movie. Is Gardenia supposed to be funny or something? Someone actually said this movie ages better than Bull Durham. That is so absurd I don't know where to begin.

This was a competent TV movie at best. I am just glad it was fairly short. It actually made me appreciate Major League, and that's saying something.

[–] netshopper-2 14 years ago

The worst thing about the film was the unrealistic way it portrayed a person suffering from a malignancy.

[–] kirk-44 11 years ago

It is a good movies for its day, but it butchers the novels's great story.

[–] Jane_Doe01 13 years ago

"Sanity"? Get over yourself, dick.

[–] dragonslayer_ 13 years ago

It's good to see that I'm not the only one who thought this film was boring and too slow.

[–] cogs 11 years ago

Yeh, I agree with most of what you said. I've been meaning to see this film for a long time knowing only the stars involved and the basic plot. This film is weak, poorly structured and badly directed. As you said, moriarty is good in the central role.

"But tonight we should have fun, not dwell on Scott Baio."

[–] SnoozeAlarm 11 years ago

I agree with the OP. A dreadful, unpleasant movie. I put most of the blame on the absolutely awful script.

I cried because I had no shoes until I met a man with no sole. ~ Ancient Disco Proverb

[–] ts1234 9 years ago

Actually, it was originally a novel.

[–] rtw416 9 years ago

Im sorry you had to actually listen to the dialouge....all this negative talk sounds like someone who needs a car chase,bullets,blood,t&a wrapped in one huge CGI effect.
This is when you had to pay attention and listen...Everyone on this thread seems to be the kind that "WATCH" movies

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rtw416 9 years ago

I agree Otiss

[–] Thirdover4 9 years ago

Many people disagree with your assessment. Actually the film is based on a book, not the television adaptation, but you probably didn't know that. I bet there are a lot of things you don't know.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]