Incredibly dull


Despite its bold subject matter, this film was killed by its utterly bland, lethargic direction and technique, in my opinion.

The camera just sat there the whole time in standard point-and-shoot shots, without a single interesting angle or technqiue to add atmosphere.

Likewise, the editing was bland and functional; some quick cutting would've greatly enhanced some of the more dramatic scenes, yet the film's technique remains rudimentary, flat, and boring.

To makes matters worse, the film includes tons of unnecessary procedural footage, like people going from Point A to Point B, which slows the pacing to an exhaustingly sluggish crawl.

The end result is a truly torpor-inducing yawnfest that stretches half and hour's worth of plot into a horribly lifeless and padded 2 hours.

Tackling a touchy issue doesn't make a film good by default.
Grossly overrated, in my personal opinion.






Nobody is entitled to an opinion. Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.

reply

Aside from repeating yourself in several different ways, you basically didn't like the pacing of the movie? How long it actually took to get a particular scene or subject you wanted see or be heard referenced, instead of watching Streep and co. as their respective characters going about their daily lives, whilst dealing with a cover up at their job and personal crsis?

Okay.

You do know "Overrated" means its highly praised and, to my knowledge, constantly discussed and referenced? This movie is anything but "Overrated". If anything its "Underrated". Its never brought up unless someone has seen it and/or watched Erin Brockovich, North Country, and Norma Rae, starring Sally Field. At least, that's how I see it.

"We only said good-bye with words, I died a hundred times. You go back to her and I go back to..."

reply

Their daily lives were nowhere near interesting enough to be worth 1.5 hours of cruise control, I felt. Showing it was a good idea, but 20 minutes would have been sufficient.

And I say overrated because of it's relatively high rating on this site, from critics, and its oscar nominations. (The acting noms were deserved, but editing, director and screenplay? All 3 were mediocre)








Nobody is entitled to an opinion. Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.

reply

This is the kind of film that would be seen as dull by people today. I loved it. I felt it moved along perfectly and the location along with the people in it felt very real, so I felt I had been transported to that place and was able to get into it.

Films like this though about real people and real issues are always dissmissed as dull by people today because they are looking for the latest plot twist, or gimmick. I find films about people, real character stories fascinating, so I think the opposite of what you do about this film.

"They're all gonna laugh at you!"
"Because of my dirty pillows,ma?"

reply

"This is the kind of film that would be seen as dull by people today"
--------------------------
It's not just people today. I saw it when first released, and agree. One reviewer cited the same thing: " Mike Nichols' painfully slow direction." It's not the contents of the film but the technique. This film gets not more than 3 stars by most critics.

reply

I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps the most brilliant thing about this film (besides the Oscar-worthy acting and amazing direction) is that it simply breathes. It takes its time and yet somehow manages to captivate and keep your attention the entire time. These are the best kinds of movies, in my opinion.

Ah, well. Each to his own, I guess. :)

"I'm not interested in money. I just want to be wonderful."~Marilyn Monroe

reply

I liked the pace of the film very much, the opening scene of the car on the road with the music setting the geography, the ride out to Texas also setting the scale the ...."home" of karen, the pace allowed the characters to come to the fore and made the story very real and human and drives the film to realise the tragedy of the story, without the time to observe the characters being in their everyday lives wouldn't of allowed us to know or like them.

A very human film, strong and upsetting.

reply

I would agree in spirit with the OP, though I would have to disagree with his "film school" dissection of it. The film wasn't boring because of any errors on the part of the director, but because it spent so much time on bland details, bland dialogue, and attempts at "authentic" characterizations. I understand that the personal details are to make us care about the characters, however this movie goes way too far. As for the dialogue, I'd rate the cringe inducing "King of the Krug" monologue from the Uwe Boll opus In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Seige Tale higher than half of what was said in this.

5/10

"No man is just a number"

reply

This movie wasn't filmed for the ADD crowd. It was character driven.

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

reply

"This movie wasn't filmed for the ADD crowd".
-------------------
It's not a question of ADD.

reply

The film is aimed at adults, who were willing and able to "concentrate" for more than 5 minutes. I feel that the film could have done with some tighter editing, however there is not much that I would remove. I feel there is a bit too much character exposition in the quieter scenes, especially between Karen and Drew. Nicols was probably experimenting with his style and veteran film editor, Sam O'Steen, cut the film.

I first saw the film on vhs in the 80's and was bored to death. Wasn't appreciative of the drama and due to all the oscar® noms it got, was expecting more fireworks and a showy presentation. Revisited about a decade later and got caught up in the drama, observations, nuances and characters. If the film is 'under-rated', like one poster has commented, that is likely the fault of Nicols, due to his painstaking and slow direction. I never find it boring though.

reply

Do you think Diane Scarwid was necessary to establish Cher's character? Or shots of them flying inside the airplane?

For example, aside from character development, notice how one film will show an actor going from car>> doorstep, while another will show them exiting car, walking across the yard, then knocking at said door. In those cases (not applicable to Silkwood) it's logical to think that was to lengthen a film.

it's funny how they made fun of Craig T Nelson as being creepy, when I think he's better looking than Russell

reply

Do you think Diane Scarwid was necessary to establish Cher's character?......Or shots of them flying inside the airplane?
______________

I liked that Dolly had partner and why shouldn't she, Karen had Drew. As for Scarwid, I find her to be quite an awful actress, so maybe it wasn't necessary to have her cast; but for the small role she played, her presence was negligible.

I liked the plane scenes and they gave us a glimpse of Karen's naivety. It also established some uncertainty, Karen had about Dolly and what was discussed in the meeting. I can't exactly recall what at this stage; but there was some interesting exposition here, that I found relevant. Cher was subtle and subdued in this scene.




it's funny how they made fun of Craig T Nelson as being creepy, when I think he's better looking than Russell
______________

The creepiness was more about his sleazy character, than his looks. I find Craig T Nelson to be attractive and he oozes sex appeal. I also found Russell to be good looking too, although more boyish and not so rugged as Nelson

reply

I liked that Dolly had partner and why shouldn't she, Karen had Drew.
----------------------------------
Of curse she should. I meant in terms of the film being about 'Silkwood". We could have had subplots with Drew cheating, or playing cards with his buddies also to show a certain something also. But necessary?

reply

We could have had subplots with Drew cheating.....
____________

The film did show us relevant subplots, that gave us character development and that was the main point of the films style. The pace of the direction and and\or editing of them, could have been picked up a tad though. This is really just a minor quibble, as I find the film far from dull....unlike the OP. How about Drew cheating on Karen with Winston, now that would have livened things up a bit. Dolly wouldn't have been the "ONLY GAY" in town then.

reply

I don't get what happens to some of these directors after their initial great success. Nicols also made Day of the Dolphin, which received mostly poor reviews, though everyone is entitled to a misfire. I just noticed he only directed 22 films.

reply

Nicols also made Day of the Dolphin, which received mostly poor reviews, though everyone is entitled to a misfire.
_________
Poor reviews, don't mean a bad film. I can't comment on DOLPHIN, as I haven't seen. Nichols made a fine comeback in the 80's, starting with SILKWOOD-83' and has averaged a total of 4.5 films, over the last five decades. He was on a roll in the 80's and I enjoyed all his 5 films over this decade......I include POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE-90', here. WORKING GIRL-88', was a big smash and he made an even bigger smash with the blah BIRDCAGE, in 96'. I would say that Nichols has had a decent directing career.

reply

,,I suppose critics we not ready for talking dolphins.
Something was up,though; Silkwood was his 1st film after an 8 yr absence.

reply

'this movie wasn't filmed for the ADD crowd. It was character driven'.
------------------------
The ADD crowd is not the problem. Like we needed a shot of Cher sitting on the car bumper intercut between Streep's visit to see her children. We needed the three driving up to the plant to announce their names, "Dolly Peliker" (which was supposed to be cute of Cher, or something) Character driven/ editing== 2 different things.

reply

Karen Silkwood died in a single vehicle accident on her way to meet a reporter with supposedly damaging information regarding safety procedures at the plant. The film pads her story with dreary personal background and characters of no particular interest. The China Syndrome is so much better; it has all the freedom of intelligent fiction as opposed to the limited factual information of Silkwood; a film in search of a purpose. Overrated, inconclusive, and not very interesting.

reply

It really is the ADD crowd who have trouble enjoying or appreciating films like this, that are slowly paced.

I am young, but I've never been like people my age, who want things immediately. They need action for a story to be interesting and they need that action to be constant. Now THAT is what's boring and annoying.

If you don't enjoy this, it's probably got a lot to do with your attention span. I found the film riveting and moving, because I completely got to know the characters and their lives. It was almost like being a fly on the wall. It makes the finale all the more harrowing. 5/5.

reply

OP is absolutely correct.

I hadn't seen it since the 80s, but a friend hadn't ever seen it, so I agreed to watch it.

OMFG the editing was so bad it's simply amazing that it was given 4 stars by Ebert, etc.

There were so many absolutely boring scenes with Cher and her girlfriend, unnecessary drama with Kurt Russell, etc.

We wanted to see a film about Karen and the safety issues at the plant, not a film that was about 2/3 boring drama between her and her roommates. Seriously.

If they had given us 30 minutes more footage at the plant, and 30 less of the awkward scenes with Cher, etc - it could have been a great film.

And no, I'm not lacking attention span - this film was truly paced terribly.

reply