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.
shareAn industrial film with a missing center makes for a Killer of Time. NOTHING BUT A MAN(64) achieves what this film attempts.
shareI think the acting is marvellous. There are so many natural moments and exchanges between people in the film. I think we've got used to overacting in movies so it's easy to miss the sense of genuine intimacy in these performances. It reminded me of the first films of Truffaut and, as someone's mentioned, of Cassavettes. Burnett's in good company, whether or not his filmmaking is to everyone's taste. But then whose is?
shareI agree. This film is an absolute waste of time. Like following down an alley that leads to nowhere.
shareI'm afraid the OP is right. Although the two leads (husband and wife) are good, I just can't tolerate the total amateurs in the other roles (not including the kids here, for obvious reasons). And please save the "authentic" cr*p. Bad acting is bad acting.
shareEbert lists it in the "Great Movies" section of his website. NY Times lists it as one of 2007s Ten Best. Posters all over IMDb hail Burnet as "one of America's Greatest Living Filmmakers." WTF!! What am I not getting here?
This thing was a STUDENT FILM, people! I concede that the concept is interesting, and there were some snippets in it here and there that showed there might have been an interesting movie here, but the incredibly shoddy production values just killed it. Sure, it's a student film, so it's unreasonable to expect major-feature quality, but the lousy acting, the muddy sound and the cast of characters who were all but indistinguishable from one another were too much to forgive. Maybe if Burnet had asked one of the screenwriting students for a little help, the narrative might have been a bit more clear and flowed a bit more smoothly.
The original poster is right, folks. It's a shame so few of us have the nerve to point out the emperor's nakedness on this one...
"The original poster is right, folks. It's a shame so few of us have the nerve to point out the emperor's nakedness on this one..."
Or maybe some people genuinely liked or admired this movie (and obviously some didn't.)
It has nothing about nerve.
The original poster is right, folks. It's a shame so few of us have the nerve to point out the emperor's nakedness on this one...
it was anything BUT lousy acting.
the acting was so damn good you thought they weren't acting.
the movie rocked...but it's not for the masses and only those that can relate, well...can relate.
(sorry about the spelling!)
it was anything BUT lousy acting.
the acting was so damn good you thought the weren't acting.
the movie rocked...but it's not for the masses and only those that can realt, well...can relate.
Indeed. I think the problem is that people have come to expect acting to look like acting.
shareWhile a lot of the acting was quite good, I don't know that I'd classify is as "so damn good you thought they weren't acting." Let's face it, there were some pretty pathetic acting moments in this film. When Stan's friend is watching him work in the kitchen when two more guys show up, his delivery of lines about leaving so that they won't ask him for money is about as bad as it can get. The actress playing Stan's wife overdoes it on many occasions, even though I like the way that she holds herself in many scenes. This is not an unfair criticism either. As another poster pointed out, it's a student film, made without professional actors. To be able to find flaws in this movie should not at all be surprising. At the same time, Burnett does achieve some absolutely amazing moments and scenes throughout the movie.
This movie has to be seen for what it is, a mixture of brilliant moments and some really bad ones. It has a very loose plot which at first viewing can leave you with a lot of questions unanswered. However, I'd say that when that happens, it's more about the viewer's expectations going into the film than it is a valid criticism of the film itself.
Using an 'emperor's new clothes' analogy to describe something popular that you can't see the appeal of is such a cliche! Be more creative, please!
shareYou basically spoke my mind. If you don't believe me, just check the thread I tried to start on this film on the Oscar Buzz thread...
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/thread/112044931?d=112044931#11204 4931
I agree with everything said in the OP. This film sucks...
Million Dollar Baby Academy Award® Winner for Best Picture of 2004
For those defending the acting in this film...
The best acting in film is, of course, when you can't tell that it IS acting. In this film, the "actors" not only are obviously trying to act, but they don't even have enough experience to know their lines. It is obvious that many times they are trying to remember what their lines are while they're trying to say them. The acting is that bad.
Saying that you could just as easily claim Bogart was bad in CASABLANCA or Samuel L. Jackson was bad in PULP FICTION is ridiculous sophistry. Bad acting is bad acting. This movie has bad acting.
For those defending the acting in this film...
The best acting in film is, of course, when you can't tell that it IS acting. In this film, the "actors" not only are obviously trying to act, but they don't even have enough experience to know their lines. It is obvious that many times they are trying to remember what their lines are while they're trying to say them. The acting is that bad.
Saying that you could just as easily claim Bogart was bad in CASABLANCA or Samuel L. Jackson was bad in PULP FICTION is ridiculous sophistry. Bad acting is bad acting. This movie has bad acting.
Everything else you've said is simple opinion, which is fair enough, but I've had a lot of experience training people in the difference between actors playing characters finding things to say and non-actors struggling to say lines. The non-actors in Killer of Sheep wouldn't have had the first idea of how to play a character searching for ways to express his thoughts through words. I'm sure the director was just glad they got the lines out.
Just watch a Denzel Washington or Laurence Fishborne work his magic, and you'll see the clear difference between real actors and the non-actors in this movie. Unless your desperate defense of this movie won't allow you to be honest about it.
This kind of twisted acceptance of non-actors being "authentic" and the best kind of actor is an insult to every professional actor out there, black, white, man, woman, all of us. It's also politically correct nonsense.
Everything else you've said is simple opinion, which is fair enough, but I've had a lot of experience training people in the difference between actors playing characters finding things to say and non-actors struggling to say lines. The non-actors in Killer of Sheep wouldn't have had the first idea of how to play a character searching for ways to express his thoughts through words. I'm sure the director was just glad they got the lines out.
Just watch a Denzel Washington or Laurence Fishborne work his magic, and you'll see the clear difference between real actors and the non-actors in this movie. Unless your desperate defense of this movie won't allow you to be honest about it.
This kind of twisted acceptance of non-actors being "authentic" and the best kind of actor is an insult to every professional actor out there, black, white, man, woman, all of us. It's also politically correct nonsense.
"Non-actors have played a role in the cinema ever since the beginning, and they have played a role that professional actors could not play themselves precisely because of their training."
That's exactly the myth I'm so sick of, that somehow non-actors serve a function that actors can't serve. Certainly a few directors over the last century have bought into it (and some haven't had a choice, although you'd be surprised how many wish they had), but obviously you have no idea how much harder that makes a filmmaker's job. An actor can be just as "real" as a non-actor, plus they're professionals who know how to hit their marks, memorize their lines, deliver in take after take (as opposed to non-actors, especially hated by editors who have to use the few takes that worked when the takes the non-actors screwed up might have been the better shots), and since it's their job they show up on time and ready to go. I know, I know, there are prima donna actors out there, but again you obviously don't have a clue how many non-actors quickly become prima donnas as well.
I don't really care what you think either, GameWithStones, but I'm not going to let this garbage fly without speaking up. And just to give you another news flash: the translation of acting from stage to film has been an ongoing process over those 113 years, and whereas theatrical acting was tolerated (and a real problem) on film maybe 75 years ago, the postwar era and the true introduction of film acting from Brando on brought a subtlety to acting on camera that has clearly changed the environment of acceptable and unacceptable acting in a movie over the last half century. In other words, being caught "acting" in film has not been tolerated (in any quality film) for far longer than back when KILLER OF SHEEP was made. And yeah, Poitier, Washington, Fishburne, Bassett, and any number of other actors could have been brilliant in these roles. I'm well aware that the filmmaker couldn't have afforded them, but the point is you get what you pay for.
I think the real world of the filmmaking process has a few words for you. Dude.
That's exactly the myth I'm so sick of, that somehow non-actors serve a function that actors can't serve. Certainly a few directors over the last century have bought into it (and some haven't had a choice, although you'd be surprised how many wish they had), but obviously you have no idea how much harder that makes a filmmaker's job.
An actor can be just as "real" as a non-actor, plus they're professionals who know how to hit their marks, memorize their lines, deliver in take after take (as opposed to non-actors, especially hated by editors who have to use the few takes that worked when the takes the non-actors screwed up might have been the better shots), and since it's their job they show up on time and ready to go.
I know, I know, there are prima donna actors out there, but again you obviously don't have a clue how many non-actors quickly become prima donnas as well.
I don't really care what you think either, GameWithStones, but I'm not going to let this garbage fly without speaking up. And just to give you another news flash: the translation of acting from stage to film has been an ongoing process over those 113 years, and whereas theatrical acting was tolerated (and a real problem) on film maybe 75 years ago, the postwar era and the true introduction of film acting from Brando on brought a subtlety to acting on camera that has clearly changed the environment of acceptable and unacceptable acting in a movie over the last half century.
In other words, being caught "acting" in film has not been tolerated (in any quality film) for far longer than back when KILLER OF SHEEP was made.
And yeah, Poitier, Washington, Fishburne, Bassett, and any number of other actors could have been brilliant in these roles. I'm well aware that the filmmaker couldn't have afforded them, but the point is you get what you pay for.
I think the real world of the filmmaking process has a few words for you. Dude.
Wow. You know, actually I thought I was being a little pompous in some of my statements, but compared to you I'm a model of humility. And what you don't know about actors...again, wow.
We're not going to change each other's opinion one bit, so there's no more point in this. But the picture you've developed of me is pretty hilarious, so it just lets me know you're actually deluded on at least two fronts. Communicating with you has been like communications I've had recently with a neocon, who called me a "pussy" for daring to question the war in Iraq.
The hype on this film deserves to be challenged. I'm just one of many making the challenge. And since I know your response to be full of misconceptions, I'm glad I spoke up.
And by the way, you're absolutely right that actors aren't God. What you don't seem to know is, neither are directors.
Wow. You know, actually I thought I was being a little pompous in some
of my statements, but compared to you I'm a model of humility. And what you
don't know about actors...again, wow.
We're not going to change each other's opinion one bit, so there's no more point in this. But the picture you've developed of me is pretty hilarious, so it just lets me know you're actually deluded on at least two fronts.
Communicating with you has been like communications I've had recently
with a neocon, who called me a "pussy" for daring to question the war in Iraq.
The hype on this film deserves to be challenged. I'm just one of many making the challenge. And since I know your response to be full of misconceptions, I'm glad I spoke up.
And by the way, you're absolutely right that actors aren't God. What you
don't seem to know is, neither are directors.
The whole "Why are you so thin-skinned?" bit from posters who then rant on and on in response to your posts is pretty hilarious. It's on the level of "I know you are but what am I?"
I'm satisfied with making my points. Stew over them all you like.
Good to see the rating on this movie is going down. If you wanna see a great movie that uses a neo realism style of direction see Nothing But A Man not this.
share"The best acting in film is, of course, when you can't tell that it IS acting." -- DD-931
This is so true, you'll have great actors like Kate Winslet reading this and screaming, "Amen!"
"Its obvious that the characters themselves are finding things to say; which is exactly how real people behave, especially poor, uneducated people, in moments of tension, and on a hot day." -- GameWithStones
I have to disagree. Ninety-five percent of the actors in "City of God" were non-actors portraying poor uneducated people in constant tension filled scenarios, and they had no problem maintaining solid performances. I mean, people are people, everywhere in the world. The characters in this film should be able to express themselves in some way but they didn't. It's not only bad acting, it is also bad writing and directing.
"This film is a deeper and richer experience than Casablanca or Pulp Fiction could have ever dreamed to be" -- GameWithStones
To each his own. I thought both films were great experiences, both in their own unique way. I didn't feel anything but drowsy while watching "Killer of Sheep." I can't remember a single thing about it. Very forgettable.
"The non-actors in Killer of Sheep wouldn't have had the first idea of how to play a character searching for ways to express his thoughts through words. I'm sure the director was just glad they got the lines out." -- DD-931
Funny. I thought the same thing. That's understandable if the director did think this way. When you're dealing with a limited budget, you just want to make the day.
"I don't see how Denzel Washington or Laurence Fishburne could have played a role in this film, so I'm not sure what your point is?" -- GameWithStones
I can. Laurence Fishburne as Socrates Fortlow in "Always Outnumbered" (1998). Here he was playing a poor, uneducated ex-con with tension all around him. Socrates could have easily been a character in "Killer of Sheep." Of course he would stick out as the only richly, fleshed out character in the whole film, but you know what I mean.
And what about Denzel in "Glory"? Wasn't his Pvt. Trip uneducated and poor enough to situate himself amongst the more modernized, post-Civil War, post-Slavery world of "Sheep"?
I KNOW both actors can play the characters in this film. In fact, they would've brought more to them, making the film watchable.
"Big name actors like that, in as small a film as this,
would have been completely out of place. Their personalities, their physical appearances, and most certainly their personas would not have fit the image that Burnett had of poor black America;" -- GameWithStones
This is true, to a degree. Before I said both Denzel and Laurence can play characters in this film. However, this can bring unwanted attention to their celebrity in such a low quality, gritty film. So, their performances will have to be Oscar caliber and the characters/story will have to undergo a major makeover for it to work with such big names. I mean, like Charlize Theron in "Monster." Fishburne and Washington will have to transform totally just to fit in, but it can be done and they'll do an excellent job. It's really about being unable to afford them. That's all.
"You haven’t made much of a challenge. You’ve criticized the film’s acting; which is merely a contradiction as most major critics who have praised the film have included the portrayals in their praises." -- GameWithStones
I'm not with any critic on this one. In my humble opinion, this film was unbearable. Forget the bad acting. Let's just start with story, the most important yet simple, often undervalued aspect of cinema. Can someone tell me the story of this picture? I want to know the character's journey, desires versus needs, the character dynamics, the underline theme, etc. In fact, tell me anything about character in this film. What do we know besides what is shown in the film that is relevant to the journey? Just answering these basic questions can be the start in a debate over whether this film is a masterpiece or not.
No Country For Old Men Academy Award® Winner for Best Picture of 2007
I'm not with any critic on this one. In my humble opinion, this film was unbearable. Forget the bad acting. Let's just start with story, the most important yet simple, often undervalued aspect of cinema. Can someone tell me the story of this picture? I want to know the character's journey, desires versus needs, the character dynamics, the underline theme, etc. In fact, tell me anything about character in this film. What do we know besides what is shown in the film that is relevant to the journey? Just answering these basic questions can be the start in a debate over whether this film is a masterpiece or not.
First, let me say that I don't think that this film is by any means a masterpiece. But I also don't think that it is as bad as some people want to make it out to be. In response to your request, this movie is about Stan and the community in which he lives. He is newer to the city and wants to live a simple decent life, earn an honest living, and take care of his family. His surroundings make this a struggle for him as he is looking for some simple joys in his everyday life. The tension of the film centers around Stan's inability to see past his struggles and connect with his wife, who wants very much to rekindle some lost desire that the two had for one another. While he is not connecting with his wife, he is however, connecting with his community in modest and simple ways. Again, his goal seems to be to achieve the joy of accomplishing something for one's self. This struggle is embodied in his attempt to buy an old motor for his car only to see it fall off the back of the truck as soon as they start to drive off with it. The block is busted, and it seems so are Stan's simple hopes. Somehow, eventually someone gets the car running towards the end of the movie. Stan takes the day off along with his wife and some of his friends to go out to the country for some horse races. Along the way, yet again, this simple diversion is ruined by a flat tire. When they get back home, Stan and his wife share a small but significant moment together. This, along with the arrival of a disabled woman with the joyous news of her pregnancy, and the final scene of Stan at work, smiling, give the movie a small sense of hope. Stan represents the best of the human spirit. Over and over again, he gets dumped on, but he doesn't give up, and he embraces the joy of that struggle, as small as it may be.
The transitions in this film are stunning and in terms of the language of cinema, not illustrated literature as cinema has become, it’s a pretty stunning and heartbreaking and beautiful film. Think of the context of animal, man, shown.
I still crack up when reading a script recently in which a "pro" writer wrote TRANSITION:
As if one, was thought of for a 110 page document, each moment between scenes is a transition, it was so unknowing and dumb, I sent him this movie, as the transition is what is the glue, the rhyme, the reason, the poetry along the spine of the movie that keeps it humming.
Again, in this movie: peerless.
“He is newer to the city and wants to live a simple decent life, earn an honest living, and take care of his family”
You mean he’s not an egotistical maniac?
The horror! This is what life is like. You get up. You work. You sleep. You love.
How "authentic" is it to have non-actors fumbling lines? If they have lines to memorize and deliver, then there is no room for "non-actors," unless they are naturally good at acting. I think Burnett lucked out with some of his cast here. Obviously, some of them did a great job, but others made it painfully obvious that they didn't know what they are doing. The concept of authenticity deteriorates as you move from documentary to manuscript. There is no arguing this. If you want non-actors to deliver an authentic moment, watch hidden-camera shows. That is authentic up until the non-actor is aware of the camera.
shareThank you. Thank you. Thank you.
sharethe stream of vignettes were derivative and without purpose
no trace of a plot
I am with you... The people who praise the movie seem to like the fact that it has no story. You tell the story with images instead of you know something actually happening. I think the irrelevance of this director's subsequent career speaks volumes.
shareI watched this movie for the first time the other night on TCM while I was in the hospital.Maybe my state of mind helped me enjoy it.I dont think of this film as "slice of life" or documentary in style.For me,this is Avant Garde filmaking,along the lines of Kenneth Anger or Maya Deren.Each scene is a poem,a small entity unto itself.Notice how so many scenes have a piece of music accompanying it,many of them wildly different in style and tone.There are a few connecting threads,like the scene where the women are so happy for the girl who is pregnant,then the next scene of the sheep being herded in for the slaughter.The cycle continues,and another life is brought into this hopeless situation.
If you treat it as film experiment,or series of poems,rather than as a conventional narrative,I think it opens it up a little.
It's not like this movie is popular to begin with. But yeah, it felt a little bellow average to me or maybe I like my movies with a plot.
share[deleted]