MovieChat Forums > Out of Africa (1985) Discussion > Truly..the worst film ever

Truly..the worst film ever

posted 18 years ago by jim154
180 replies | jump to latest

"The Worst Film Ever." This is quite a common refrain on IMDB. It took me 20 years to come around to expressing my views about this film. "The Worst Film Ever." I saw this in the discussion board about the movie "Sideways." I am so very sorry, but "Sideways" doesn't even hold a candle to this god awful movie, if that's what you want to call this absolute waste of celluloid.This movie was just down right boring. I paid more attention to the happenings going on in the theatre then on the screen. My brother was so bored with this picture he fell asleep in the theatre. I tried to wake him a few times, but he just fell right back to sleep. His snoring became so loud that some of the other theatre patrons complained. They called the theatre usher to tell my brother to either wake up or just leave the theatre altogether. When it came out on VHS in 1986, my mother rented a copy from the neighborhood video store. I warned her about this movie. I told her that she would be disappointed. She loved Robert Redford and wouldn't listen to word I had to say about this film. Sure enough..she became so disappointed with this movie - she pulled the plug on this movie before it was even half way over. The movie was just that bad.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Harold_Robbins 16 years ago

Oh no, not by a long shot. It has flaws - it's episodic and slowly-paced, but cinematography, music and performances (yes, even Redford's) more than compensate. I watched it yesterday and loved it all over again.

"Stone-cold sober I find myself absolutely fascinating!"---Katharine Hepburn

[–] A_Fistful_of_Pennies 14 years ago

No Best Picture winner is the worst movie ever. They don't all deserve to be called the Best Picture of their respective years, but there's no way any of them can be considered to be the absolute "worst".

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amazingann 14 years ago

I saw Out of Africa when it came out and I was 24. I was disappointed at the time and wrote the film off as a Hollywood romance because it seemed such a different beast from Dinesan's book Out of Africa. (A common lament about films made from books I know.) The book is so multi-faceted, a lyrical rumination on life in a country so different and yet so fully engaging. It is such a writerly book (my writer aunt used to reread it every year). The book is not a romance, I cannot even remember if Dinesan mentions Finch-Hatten. The film is so straight-forward and plotted, while Dinesan's stories are intricate Gordian knots that double back on themselves with amazement and poignancy. Most of what happens in the movie does not happen in the book, and most of what happens in the book does not happen in the movie.

I just watched Out of Africa again at age 48 and was more forgiving. Maybe because it has been longer since I've read the book, so could take the movie more as an independent creation on its own merits, which are many. And watching the film led me to pick up Judith Thurman's classic biography of Dinesan, which I'm about 50 pages into. It strikes me that *this* is the book, perhaps, that was made into the film, or at least the chapters about Dinesan's African sojourn. Dinesan was a fascinating character and fully deserving of a film, and this is a beautifully made one and Streep and Brandauer especially are nuanced and sublime. But it's not even a film about a writer, especially, although her writing and storytelling are included as one of many sidelights.

And of course if you were going to make a film about Dinesan's African years, you'd have to call it Out of Africa. It's just that this isn't really Out of Africa. That would be a very hard film to make, but an amazing one I think.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ringfire211 13 years ago

It's a good thing A VIEW TO A KILL came out that same year (also scored by John Barry). There's nothing like this movie to make you want to bolt out the door and immerse yourself in the excitement of a Bond movie! Heck, I'll take Roger Moore pushing 60 with a 30-year old Tanya Roberts over another sappy Meryl Streep romance any old day! And anything that has a Christopher Walken/Grace Jones combo is just pure win!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_44MTHVlAw4

Connery, Moore, and Brosnan! Accept NO substitutes!

[–] Vesikko 13 years ago

It is just a question of different tastes and people's gross unability and unwillingnes to respect each other opinions and preferences.

THIS does not aply to ME as I've seen for example View To Kill and it is very so-so Bond movie, would not call it bad thought. Roger Moore is too old for the role, Tanya R. is in the movie just because there needs to be a Bond-girl (and of course blonde because last one was brunette). There is that useless overlong car chase through San Francisco. The finale is dumb, what does Zorin try to accomplish by kidnapping Tanya? etc. etc. For example Octopussy and For Your Eyes Only are far superior Roger Moore's Bond movies.

OUT OF AFRICA is one the most memorable movies I've seen in my life. It is pointless to explain why to the folks like in this thread, don't feel like banging my head against a wall, which would be more productive activity.

I saw OOA first time maybe 1989. I do own VHS and DVD and I have not watch either in maybe 3 years but I still remember the movie very well and will watch it again and enjoy because *I* like it.

[–] chuckleberryfinn21 13 years ago

Worst post ever.