Really Bad
There is not much more to say about this film. If you could give it a minus vote I would.
shareI agree.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Gothic (1987) Discussion > Really Bad
And your opinion is based upon what? I don't want to discuss taste, that's a dead end. But just claiming something is "really bad", is shallow.
I love it. I love it's intellect and mood and the way one get's sucked into a seedy disturbing nightmare. For me it's an 8/10.
But hey, that's a matter of opinion!Join the car crash set
[deleted]
FWIW, I've seen this movie a few times and loved it every time! Good cast, great sense of mystery, hints of horror, things that go bump in the night, you know... :)
shareIf its such a bad film why did you waste your time to make a comment about it?
"Just my little tribute to Caligula Darli'g!"
From what I remember when I saw it about 12 years ago, I thought it was somewhat odd but rather excellent.
shareThe movie was inspired, sure... but it wasn't in my top 100 horror films... I liked the camera work and the lighting techniques, but they were almost just like Argento's in his three mothers series... only they weren't as good.
This movie was interesting, but unimpressive... 5.2/10
I'll swallow your soul!
Liberals suck...
The naysayers have not answered Bride's question yet...
"She will remember your heart when men are fairy tales in storybooks written by rabbits"
Like with all great movies, "Gothic" improves with repeated viewings. The story also becomces much more coherent and moving, and without surrending to cinamatic conventions. The final scene, when Mary Shelley describes the idea of Frankenstein to her friends, moves me to tears every time I look at it. Thomas Dolby's score is also one of the best ever produced in my opinion.
share[deleted]
Agreed on Thomas Dolby's score, though Ken doesn't care for it and wanted someone else, and it's ripped in several places from Bernard Hermann's score to "North By Northwest." I still love it, it works very well and was stunning in the theater in Oct./Nov. of 1986. I'd love to get my hands on a Cd of it.
shareI know, I know: "Top Gun" was the best film of that year (1986, when I saw "Gothic" twice, so you know how I feel)and all of all time. You're a car dealer, right?
shareI just watched this movie last night with some friends, and I found it ludicrous. I don't want to have to justify myself, because people who like this film are going to like it no matter what I say. Personally, I thought it was very bad. Interesting effects and angles, but that's Ken Russell for you.
shareI just finished watching this film again and decided to do some research about the actors... I just can't leave this alone without commenting. Twenty years have passed since I last saw it, and I thought... hmm.. I've matured quite a bit, maybe I was harsh with my initial assessment.
No. It's a load of pretentious dreck.
There are some great actors in here (not Julian Sands, who couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag) and the premise is fascinating. But, to me, it's just a string of coked up theatrics set to an overly enthusiastic soundtrack.
Ken Russell must have been experiencing some pharmacological side effects during filming of this one. Since cocaine was so popular in the '80's that's what I'm going with. "Give me MORE! I'm not feeling it! GREAT JOB, Julian! You got it! Everybody, watch what Julian is doing!" (Snfffffffff!) "YEAHHH!!"
I LOVE 'Altered States', so I can't throw that baby out with the bathwater. Good acid, I guess. 'Demons', I couldn't stand for the same reasons as 'Gothic', and 'Lair of the White Worm' was more of the same...
There was some interesting concepts in here, but the overacting (euphemistically called "theatrical" by some nodding critics) was sooooo painful to watch in places, the intended eerieness metamorphosed into twitchy weirdness for weirdness' sake. I couldn't wait for it to end. So much potential for a story with all the complex characters. I think Russell took on too much, trying to elevate himself to Byron and Shelley. In my mind, didn't work at all.
Bad sound quality in places, but otherwise technically quite good.
4 out of 10 stars.
[deleted]
I agree with you. Altered States was much better and coherent. Ken Russell demonstrates once again that his visual style is quite rich but extravagant. The actors overact to the point that we don`t believe they are real people. Their actions and speeches seem highly forced and contrived. A lot of the scenes and images seem to have been generated at random. I guess the lesson to be learned is that the mind and imagination can be your worst enemy. Watching this film was not a pleasant experience.
shareThe actors overact to the point that we don`t believe they are real people. Their actions and speeches seem highly forced and contrived. A lot of the scenes and images seem to have been generated at random.
I wholly agree. The premise is great, the first act is interesting and the short epilogue is effective. Unfortunately, the hour in between is meandering, hedonistic, outrageously overdone and utterly tedious. I can handle the unsavory elements (and expected them) as long as the story is compelling, but that’s not the case. It’s basically a string of drugged-up theatrics and perversions in an attractively gothic setting.
Speaking of attractive, one of the consolations is the jaw-dropping Natasha Richardson in her prime. She was Liam Neeson’s wife from 1994 until her death in 2009 from a skiing accident.
A decent example of a gothic flick set in the 1800s is “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992). Meanwhile “Marie Antoinette” (2006) is a really good movie that treads similar terrain as "Gothic" and is great in some ways. “Gothic” is trash by comparison and fittingly bombed at the box office. Sometimes Ken Russell’s experimental projects work, like “Altered States” (1980), but not this.
share
[deleted]
I couldn't agree more. I was watching this as research for a theatre project based on Frankenstein, and this movie is pure crap and a total waste of talent. All Natasha Richardson has to do in it is shriek, scream or crouch in fear; Julian Sands does a nice job of chewing scenery, while Timothy Spall is practicing for his role as Peter Pettigrew. Gabriel Byrne growls his way through it. I got absolutely nothing out of it. Fortunately, I watched in two parts, because I had appointments in between. I have liked a lot of Ken Russell's work, but this is one of his worst!
shareIf I could give your comment a middle finger, AND a thumbsdown, then I most certainly would. 😁
share