MovieChat Forums > The Cotton Club (1984) Discussion > Does Not Deserve The Negativity. It's A ...

Does Not Deserve The Negativity. It's A Great Film


I just saw the film today and went into it expecting it be to a crapfest, and best case scenario just ok. How wrong I was.

Let me get the bad out of the way first. It is easily visible that a good chunk was cut out, and that chunk might have changed the minds of a few viewers. However, even with the edits, I still saw a very well made film.

I honestly thought it flowed nicely and wasn't scratching my head as to what was going on and why.

The film had amazing performances. Especially from James Remar, Bob Hoskins, and Gregory Hines. I normally hate Richard Gere, but I actually enjoyed his performance here which is nothing short of a miracle. Diane Lane, Julian Beck, Fred Gwynne, and Lonette McKee weren't slumming it either.

It was an entertaining, well-filmed, and well acted film. If I can sit down for two hours and come out feeling that I watched something that not entertained me, but was also an enriching experience then I'm happy. Sure the film could have more potenial with added footage, but this could apply to a lot of films.

If what we got was something good, I can live with it.

As it stands this is a great film, and I wish it had gotten a better shake.

reply

It's always been one of my favorite Coppola films. And only Coppola could juggle such a gargantuan production with ease. Most directors would've been crushed by the burden. It's a shame, we'll probably never see a director's cut since there is so much bad blood left over from the production. This is the one Coppola film that feels incomplete.

reply

I also did not expect mush but was pleasantly surprised. I think if this movie had been made by some other director of lesser stature, then it would have been hailed as a great achievement. But Coppola had set his own bar so high in the seventies, that anything less than Godfather was seen as a disappointment. I think The Cotton Club is better than Chicago (2002), a rather similar movie, and yet Chicago got an Oscar for best picture.

reply

Certainly a wonderful spectacle that proceeds with engaging momentum, has excellent production design and is dripping with atmosphere and period ambience. It has its problems, mainly concerning narrative structure and sometimes dialogue, but it's still quite a fabulous, nostalgic piece of old school entertainment.



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

reply

Totally agree. Can't call it a great film, but the good stuff is pretty damn good. Look forward to watching it for a
4th time.

If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat.

reply

Especially considering how amazingly tortured the filmmaking process was, with tens of scripts, Coppola and producer Robert Evans at each other's throats, etc., it is really something that it turned out as well as it did!

I think it is very good, and has lots of great tap dancing and jazz moments. And, I liked how the African-American performers were highlighted, even with the gangster activity going on.

With their spending so much money on it, though, it would be great if they had some wide establishing shots, though. Everything is shot in towards the buildings, so you don't get a feeling of where they are in the city. Makes it feel close to being shot on a lot, instead of on location.

reply

[deleted]

Oh, good heavens! That is getting a bit over sensitive.

reply

[deleted]