milo and ottis, the story of a curious cat and a pug nosed pup, has more message boards than this one. Despite the unquestionable greatness of Milo and Ottis, I still think it's amazing that more people write about that than this master piece.
shareIt has often puzzled me that this film is not more critically acclaimed. But I guess the comments attributed to Eric-62, and by switzr1, have something to do with that.
I regard myself as quite open-minded when it comes to politics, but I take it as read that the McCarthy/HUAC thing was very bad news. Unfortunately it seems not everyone agrees - I recently read something by the otherwise-liberal Joe Queenan who mentioned that the targets of HUAC were "batting for Stalin". I guess some Americans still just don't get it. The witch-hunts of HUAC were an unnacceptable breach of civil liberties, whatever one's personal politics, and should be abhorred by all, without reservation.
Anyway, back to the movie: for me, it's the best work Woody Allen has ever been associated with. I love the humour, the social commentary, the portrayal of the period, yes, even the sentiment. I just love it. One of my all-time favourites.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
academical - Movies that push a (supposed) political point aren't going to succeed if they don't explicate what lies behind the "wrong," in this case an "unacceptable breach of civil liberties."
I am in agreement with GeekyNerd. It's a weak movie because it avoids the very politics that led to blacklisting (i.e., why people were involved with/against socialistic movements). Instead it tries to meld a soft political melodrama with romantic comedy. But the romantic angle is insulting in a sexist way to the character of Andrea Marcovicci (Florence), and is in addition a replay of almost every Woody Allen romance out there. The "bad guys," particularly Hennessey, are written and played as zealous fools. The Woody Allen character, Howard Prince, as well as the Zero Mostel character, are both "characters" and never really come off as real people, except for Howard Prince at the Committee hearing and thereafter. Where and when did his sudden conversion take place? Why does he suddenly stop being a skirt-chaser and schmo and take a side? Why? Because instead of thinking about the causes, we are supposed to be moved only by the personal hurt and suffering caused by the blacklisting. Once again, sentiment and emotion substitute for political backbone--a time-worn Hollywood tradition. How could the very same blacklisted artists who made this movie let it turn out this way?
This movie slights a great conflict that took place in our society, and which to a certain extent, still pokes its head out in our political discourse. I take no sides here about "the red scare." Excessive and harmful actions were taken by people (rightly) concerned about our country's ultimate saftely. To make one side righteous without reason and the other side bumbling idiots serves no one's purpose because it displays effect without cause. And in a larger sense, it is unhelpful to the historical process to look back on any period in a less than honest and intellectually complete way.
7/10
You make some interesting points, but I also think you are knowingly ignorant of the movie's schtick, that avoiding the politics is something many want to do but it's unavoidable, we all get pulled in at some point. So the movie doesn't deal with real communism, I think it would have necessarily weakened it if it had become about that in any real way. No one is as interested in the ineffectual communists as they are the horrible repurcussions that hurt the country.
share"No one is as interested in the ineffectual communists as they are the horrible repurcussions that hurt the country." How did ineffectual communists hurt the country if they were in your own words, "ineffectual"? Their greatest effect apparently was to provide you with a showcase to mangle the English language.
Senator Joseph McCarthy as his title suggests was a SENATOR. He was NEVER a member of The House. He had nothing to do with HUAC's blacklisting of "The Hollywood Ten".
shareYes, but McCarthy, through his level of public exhibitionism, came to embody an entire movement that trashed civil liberties, killed due process, and employed tactics reminiscent of the Soviet state they claimed to prevent the US from becoming.
sharewhy are you comparing this to Milo and Otis? That is my fave movie. There is a reason you know. It's because NOT EVERYONE is a fan of Woody Allen. All his movies are great. People would rather watch animals or like Transformers 2.
shareWhen there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
"Milo and Otis" is a great film. This is a great film. "The Dark Night" is not a great film and barely a good one, and its board probably received more posts today than "The Front and "Milo and Otis" did this year.
It's not about the quality of film -- it's about the users of the Internet in general and these boards in particular.