MovieChat Forums > The Color Purple (1986) Discussion > A really bad movie

A really bad movie

posted 14 years ago by meisterjaan
51 replies | jump to latest

Just to equalize the scales here..

What was good in this movie:
*Spielberg's handicraft skills
*Some true moments. I liked most the scene where Harpo and his ex-wife were dancing in the joint and his ex keep telling "be nice now, be nice now" and then he goes "naww..alright". This was good.

What was bad:
*The lead actress.. or the way Spielberg had made her act. I didn't believe her. It seemed she had just been told to do a sad face for most of the time.
*The unreasonable misery. Okay, I aknowledge many people have had and still have the kind of lives like Celie, but in this movie as a hole, I didn't understand the cause of all this. Okay, Albert beat Celie, but why.
*Yes, the absencse of the WHY was the biggest flaw of the movie. Celie told Shug that Albert beat her for not being Shug, but these are only words which doesn't work for me.

This movie was mostly the display of violence but I've had enough of violence. After watching this movie, I start to more and more agree with Aristoteles who has said that a noble drama shouldn't display violence but only the causes and consequences of the violence.

For users who vague wheter to watch this movie or not and who read my post and try to figure out which taste I have, then my favorite movies dealing with Deep Purple kind of subjects are "White Ribbon" and "A Serious Man"

[–] kremicoco 14 years ago

Before you criticize a wonderful movie like The Color Purple, please learn how to spell, properly structure a sentence and use correct grammar; then maybe we can take you seriously. :)

[–] cshep79406 14 years ago

I totally agree with Kremicoco. Further, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but why bother to post if you hated the movie so?

[–] sweiland75 14 years ago

The OP's opinion is not invalid, just because they dislike the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GZIDnMzZQ Why does Canada need a queen?

[–] somerelief2-859-146886 14 years ago

"The OP's opinion is not invalid, just because they dislike the movie."

Not invalid, but utterly incomprehensible.

[–] scottsteaux63-735-780576 11 years ago

<<"The OP's opinion is not invalid, just because they dislike the movie.">>

Totally correct. I confess that I found myself wondering if we saw the same film, as TCP is one of my all time faves, but there are a lot of movies out there that are almost universally regarded as masterpieces but which I detest: TITANIC, PULP FICTION, and practically everything Stanley Kubrick ever made except for DR STRANGELOVE and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE among them. And you would not believe the abuse I've taken for not agreeing with the general consensus.

There is an old Spanish proverb: "Sobre gustos no hay nada escrito" which translates to "Regarding tastes there is nothing written." In other words, to each his own.

Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
><

[–] stanevans22 9 years ago

I have to agree this is one of the strangest films I've ever seen. I think people here are just rating it based on emotion or perhaps liberal bias because of the issues addressed. If someone brings an informed perspective they get touchy and say, why did you bother posting? I'm posting because I find all the "masterpiece" talk to be silly and mostly having to do with nostalgia, seeing this when you are young and letting your memories float along without any real analysis of the film. Spielberg was the wrong director. This is a tale of victimhood and survival and it's directed like it's the Wizard of Oz with pretty green fields, big sunflowers and cinematic flourishes (a notice for Shug's show flying magically onto the screen door, a bloody red handprint laid out so pretty on a rock). The story begs for an intimate, independent style approach. The performances are indeed wonderful. But some scenes are played for laughs in a very strange way. Pots fall and are caught perfectly. Harpo falls through the roof. It's just too much Mack Sennett. With a story this bleak and painful, there can't help but be effecting scenes but that is in regardless of Spielberg's shiny, happy face sheen, completely inappropriate and out of sync with the source material.

[–] Swissangel4616 8 years ago

don't take this guy to serious about critize "The Color Purple". Check in his profile the movies he rated with 8 and more stars. What do you think got Pacific Rim?
LOL, it says everything about

[–] ariad22 14 years ago

*Sigh* Everyone is entitled to an opinion but, I have to say this is one of the best dramas in the history of American film. Up there with Schindler's list, Joy Luck Club and other greats.
Whoopi did a fabulous job in this film despite the Celie character being out of her element as she's more of a comedy actress.
Yes! Celie was sad throughout the film, she gave up her children against her will whom were born out of incest from her father raping her. She was separated from her dear sister whom she loved and was the only person in life that truly cared for her growing up. Her father used to beat her, so naturally she found a husband that would do the same and she suffered from low self-esteem because of people calling her ugly and stupid all the time. I'm not sure I'd be smiling and care-free either if I were in Celie's shoes. Maybe you should read the book then revisit this film.
Why Albert beat Celie is irrelevant to understanding and absorbing the movie; a man should never strike a woman. If you were watching the movie you should have noted that he beat her to "discipline" her or out of frustration and because he's a coward and its his way of keeping her mentally broken so he can dominate her.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moviegeek1 13 years ago

Do you have the same criticisms of the book? You do realize that this movie is based on a Pulitzer Prize winning novel, right?

After watching this movie, I start to more and more agree with Aristoteles who has said that a noble drama shouldn't display violence but only the causes and consequences of the violence.

Well, that's very enlightened of you, but what does this recent self-revelation have to do with this movie? Life is full of violence and movies have gotten a whole lot more violent than this one. You must not go to the cimena much anymore.

Sister, when I've raised hell, you'll know it!

[–] ctina1973 13 years ago

"*Yes, the absencse of the WHY was the biggest flaw of the movie. Celie told Shug that Albert beat her for not being Shug, but these are only words which doesn't work for me. "

He beat her for the same reasons anyone beats their spouse, because he was miserable. He beat her because that was what he was raised to do and he was horribly repressed by his own father. He needed a wife to cook and clean and raise his kids. He wanted to marry Shug but he couldn't have her, he wanted Nettie because she was pretty but the step-father wouldn't let her go so instead he got Celie, the "lesser" sister, his last choice. He had no feelings for Celie and she was all he could control in his own life so she bore the brunt of all his frustrations.

The violence was senseless, but that was exactly the point as most violence is senseless. All of their lives were somewhat miserable and very few folks, black or white, really had the tools or insight to really break out of their mindsets. They really only made any progress with personal growth as they got older and wiser and found the confidence to make major changes (like Celie finding the letters and learning her sister and kids were okay and that there was a great big world out there she didn't know about.)

The only thing about your post that I slightly agree with was about Whoopi's performance and only because her pouty lip was kind of exaggerated. I still found it to be an incredible performance and every time I hear her cry "Cee-lie!" at the end and hear the joy in her voice I bawl like a baby.

[–] BigApplePi 9 years ago

"*Yes, the absencse of the WHY was the biggest flaw of the movie. Celie told Shug that Albert beat her for not being Shug, but these are only words which doesn't work for me."
What I appreciate is that Celie wouldn't know why. She just took a guess. If someone abuses you, do you know why? The character not knowing why is not the same as US not knowing why.

[–] meisterjaan 13 years ago

Thank you for your replies.

First, I must excuse for my bad English, it's not my native language.

I can now see why some people like it. They like it, because they think this movie was worth making so they see everything from a different angle.

I don't know how it was it the '85, but at least in my contemporary culture context, I see the movie as pointless. I look at the movie and think how to make it more suitable for ME and what I didn't like, I named flaws.

But maybe there are some people somewhere, for whom this movie is beneficial..

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 13 years ago

Movies are usually pointless!
Sometimes they're not meant to be educational, or tell you anything.

Often they just tell a story.

If you're not entertained then watch something else.

[–] jacobthecheeseburger 12 years ago

what did u mean by pointless?

[–] EmElleCee 8 years ago

Movies are meant to entertain. Yes, a lot can be emotional. I didn't need to know why Mister beat Celie I just knew how it made her feel. I love this movie. I have no critiques of it.

[–] media_HO-HOlie 13 years ago

i agree op.

"I need more sex, OK? Before I die I wanna taste everyone in the world."
-Angelina HOlie

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KCohere 13 years ago

Ive read the book a few times and I wouldnt say its that different. Its pretty faithful to the original story. Yes, some thing were softened liked the lesbian aspect but I wouldnt say much else was. Sunny and optimistic? The movie was very grim up until the end when Celie starts to take her power back and Albert starts to understand what a monster he was a make things up to her. Didnt that happen in the book? I wholly disagree that it was a bad movie that didnt discover oscars. I would have liked to see Goldberg win for playing Celie because I think this was her best performance.

[–] connected88 13 years ago

Agree completely with Mark_Esposito. The novel is among my favourites, but I feel as though the film failed to capture the essence of the story. I couldn't connect to the characters on the screen in the way that Alice Walker achieved so effortlessly through her writing. It was as if each person had become a caricature of themselves, stripped of their depth and intrigue.

I really hope this film gets a remake worthy of the novel.

[–] in_dis_guise 13 years ago

*The lead actress.. or the way Spielberg had made her act. I didn't believe her. It seemed she had just been told to do a sad face for most of the time.

Celie had been beaten down her whole life. She was in a hopeless situation. It'd be hard not to look sad most of the time.

*The unreasonable misery. Okay, I aknowledge many people have had and still have the kind of lives like Celie, but in this movie as a hole, I didn't understand the cause of all this. Okay, Albert beat Celie, but why.

Times were hard for people all over during the depression and people back then had a different mindset in general. Albert beat Celie because back then it was 'normal' to beat your wife if she didn't behave the way he wanted. He learned it from his father and passed it on to his son when he advised him to beat Sophia.

*Yes, the absencse of the WHY was the biggest flaw of the movie. Celie told Shug that Albert beat her for not being Shug, but these are only words which doesn't work for me.

Did you want to hear it from Albert himself? Albert would probably say he beat Celie because she was disobedient or back talked him - but the truth of it was that Celie was right. Albert was beating on her because she wasn't the woman he really wanted and never would be. He was taking his frustrations out on her.

[–] YourAgent 13 years ago

The problem is that you are far too unintelligent to understand or fully enjoy/appreciate this film. That is not a slight or insult. Not everyone is intelligent enough to comprehend every work, and from your number 3, you reveal that you're just not very bright which is fine.

By the way, Aristotle never said that.

I met Cinderella once... she's actually kind of a bitch.