MovieChat Forums > Killer of Sheep (1978) Discussion > the emperor has no clothes

the emperor has no clothes


Maybe it’s just because it’s not PC to criticize this movie, but this was the worst piece of cinema I’ve seen in a very long time. The acting was terrible, no trace of a plot, the sound was very poor quality, the stream of vignettes were derivative and without purpose. A few beautiful shots, but that amounted to about a minute or two in a glacially paced movie.

reply

[deleted]

I liked its vignette quality and the photography was quite nice. Plot is overrated.

reply

WOW! You entirely missed the point of this movie.

___________
How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?

reply

That he missed the point of this movie is an understatement :)

Knew nothing about this movie and was captivated... Although I am artistically inclined and a fan of the poetry of film...

reply

[deleted]

"WOW! You entirely missed the point of this movie. "

When people have to hide behind this excuse, it's usually a good indicator that whatever they're defending is *beep*

reply

It seems that every great film on the imdb message boards there is always a poor creature that"doesn't get it" "or hates the film" because it's "too slow" or "has no plot" or is "too weird".

This seems true from fellini's 8/1/2 to bergman's greatest works and dozens of other time tested film classics.
indeed I do feel sorry for you and the fact that you are allowed to waste bandwidth decrying true art.

Oh well,the show will most certainly go on without you!

reply

[deleted]

Exactly... I'm surprised no one said:
"They just don't get it.. They are not as sophisticated as us to understand"

Beautiful cinematography is code for horrible screenplay.

reply

The only thing that stands out in this criticism is the claim that the stream of vignettes was 'derivative'. What exactly is derivative about it? The style in which the scenes are shot? The subjects that Burnett is interested in? The way it is all pieced together?

I love the film, but I can understand why you would have problems with the acting and consider the whole thing plotless. I cannot, however, understand how you could find anything about its technique derivative when it is so simply honest and devoid of stylistic pretenses, recycled visual and narrative devices, and heavy handed messages. What exactly do you find derivative, and from what do you consider it derived?

reply

I agree; this is the most overrated piece of cinema I have ever seen.

reply

I loved it. approach it like slice of life. a document of the specific time and place. for me it stylistically shares a lot with john cassavetes. stay away from him if you didn't like this.

by the way i felt the end scene with the dad in the slaughter house did give a sense of closure.

reply

[deleted]

I just watched the movie and I would have to agree on a few of the points.. I seriously had a ton of trouble understanding what these actors were saying.. I'm sure the extremely low budget had something to do with that or maybe it was just my version. Either way, I could not engage the film on many levels because I simply could not put anything together. I have no problem when films lack narrative and have very little plot so maybe if i could've understand what was said then I might've enjoyed it somewhat. I really wish I would've had subs to go along with it.

Anyone else have alot of trouble understand what these actors were saying?

reply

yeah, i too had trouble with understanding the dialogue...

the film was not engaging...i couldn't bring myself to finish watching it

reply

I t was poorly recorded, but so was the audio in some parts of Wes Anderson's debut film, "Bottle Rocket." I like the film for what it was, a slice of life without much pretension, but it felt stilted at times.


Jerry at the Movies
http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html

Films are not reality. Reality is not film. Film is only an approximation of reality.

reply

I dont give a rat's ass about plot or pacing. There are some really nice shots--like the kids throwing rocks at the passing train-- but you're right, the uniformly godawful acting is a huge distraction and the sound is so badly recorded that often you can only get one side of a conversation. If you can get past the technical defects it is at times original and evocative, though certainly not any kind of masterpiece.

reply

One man's trash, another man's treasure, I guess.

Authentic, moving and went where few films had gone before (or have so since, really) imho.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Can't say this is a "masterpiece," but it is one of my favorite films. Personally, I can relate to many of the "characters" and situations presented in the film. That's why I loved it. If you can't relate, then you'll most likely find reasons to not like the film (poor sound, non-actors, no plot). It's poetry in motion that captures a time and era better than any film of that era, particularly those made with all-black casts. The black-and-white imagery only adds to the film's poetic beauty. Personally, I haven't enjoyed any of Burnett's work I've seen since this...but he hit the mark on this one. I'd still hesitate to call this, or any film I've ever seen (whether Scorcese or Spielberg was directing) a "masterpiece," though. That's just the marketers trying to get as many of you to see it as possible.

reply

[deleted]