UNDERRATED?


I saw this movie twice. The first tie i liked it a lot, but my girlfriend dindnt (she said it was too static).
Now, some years after, i saw it again on TV and I LOVED IT. It was GREAT.
Then i came to IMDB and it only has a 6.
I really think it should come closer to a 7.5-7.7 (in IMDB's rating sistem), because it shows you a lot of the unseen face of the mass-media, and how it can help or destroy people only for ratings...
It also makes u think twice when u see some news like 'this is how the friends decribe X' :D:D
I just can't understand why it has such a bad rating..
Does anyone have an opposite opininon to mine an can show me i'm wrong, and this movie doesn't diserve a higher ranking?
It has the rating of BABE, for heaven's sake! :)

reply

I can share with you the reason I only gave it a 6 myself.

I couldn't identify with or even like any of the characters in this movie. I could sympathize somewhat with Baily's (Travolta) situation, but I found his "poor me" attitude annoying. And it was irritating to me how Brackett appeared both selfish (in wanting to "move the line" to get the stories) and selfless (let's save this man's life). And Laurie, I felt that I could just slap her. The only character I cared for at all was Cliff. I understand that these unlikable characters were integral to the story. I guess maybe the film did it's job too well. Maybe it was just too uncomfortable being exposed to the ugly reality of our nation's media.

reply

Well the two opposing sides of Brackett you refer to are him before and after a large change. We see the innate humanity in him in his "infamous fiasco"--sort of like Laurie's original attitude in saving Cliff.
Then we see him return from this unethical precipice (and saying that the "moving the line" is wrong--in fact he talks about exactly that conversation) to where he was before, albeit with greater media savvy under his belt.
It's just awfully subtle the way he changes, which I personally find more impressive because you apparently couldn't tell the difference.
Erm, that comes off wrong.
I think the fact that you couldn't tell is impressive with regard to Hoffman's performance. Perhaps a little too subtle for some, but that makes it that much more interesting to me. He CHANGES, and that's why the "conflict" between the two ideas you mention, because they aren't the "same person" if you will.

reply

People expect too much out of this movie.

This movie has one of the greatest endings ever, and by far one of the greatest ending lines ever. "You killed him!" etc. -- awesome.

reply

was anyone else reminded by Falling Down when they saw this?

I actually saw this on TV and advised my old High School media teacher to take a look... now he uses it as part of the curriculum... You can certainly see why, can't you?

reply

This is a wonderful film. I think it shows the selfishness of the average human being for other people's problems.

reply

Saw it last night. Not that it matters or anything, just my need to correct people is forcing me to let you know it was actually "We killed him". Subtle difference.

--------------------
It`s called direct action
and it comes to us highly recommended

reply

I saw it today the first time, and am totally agreed with you. In my eyes, it deserves a 7.0, minimum. Nice script, great actors.

reply

I saw it yesterday and I think it had potential but was far too wooden. Hoffman's character is too "all over the place." He chews out his assitant for helping the security guard but then in 24 hours she's a heartless woman and he cares about people over stories. Baily obviously had some serious social and decision making issues but he is supposedly ex-air force? This guy didn't have any clue how to handle a firearm or any sort of difficult situation. The interaction between baily&his wife made them seem like they just met. They needed to do more in character development and background and have the museum holdup about 30 minutes in. Neither the audience nor any of the actors had a feel of who these people were. Even the museum manager went from caring for the kids to wondering if she could make a few bucks off the fiasco in a split second. Lastly, no-one releases the names of any victims before notifying the family so cliff's family wouldn't have heard their dad was shot on TV.

reply

UNLIKE OTHERS HERE I'M WARNING OF POSSIBLE SPOILERS ***** COME ON GUYS, YOU ARE ALL FRIGG'N TALKING ABOUT THE ENDING HERE; BE CONSIDERATE...! GEEZ...


Yeah, I think you nailed it pretty much. I was trying to figure out the same thing as to why it left me kind of so-so at the end. Sure, the whole POINT I guess was how self-serving the media is, okay, okay, we get it. So, I feel the crux of the matter is that CINEMATICALLY you have all this momentum built up really casting Travolta's character in a sympathetic light and then you see all the manipulation where even Hoffman's character ALMOST succumbs to the temptation, so was it REALLY necessary then to go and hit us all over the head with the OBVIOUS 'Oh let's end it so everyone KNOWS how horrible the media is by having him die' and then the rather ANTIclimactic last few moments with Dustin Hoffman wandering around.

To me personally it started to become, again CINEMATICALLY, disingenuous at the point Larry King is interviewing him and Travolta's character begins to change. With all that has been beautifully built up to that point, it just doesn't come across as real. And then by the end we see it basically has been used as a plot device to get us to the 2 dimensional OBVIOUS ending.

Rather, in my lowly and wretched opinion, Costa Gravas (and more so the script, really) had already nicely driven the point home, mainly with the powering in of Alan Alda's character and as I mentioned before the effect on Hoffman's character. BUT, at that exact point the audience is all nicely convinced of the main idea here... ...sooooooo then, we are now waiting for Hoffman somehow by (and here's the point) ***DOING THE RIGHT THING*** will then resolve the situation and overcome the evil media power people and then (here is the 2nd MORE IMPORTANT point) BLOODY USE that then to EXPOSE what has been going on.

You see...???

Now, which direction would have ultimately been more powerful, moving, uplifting (WHILE still clearly making it's point) and MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more satisfying??? USING the situation not only to redeem Hoffman's and Travolta's character, but ALSO to then rub it in the faces of Alda's character, the media, the people in general what REALLY happened...??? OR just do as they did and let the guy kill himself and have Hoffman wandering around saying quite anticlamactically 'We killed him'? Like 'DUH'...

Just my take on it strictly from a movie making point of view...

ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!

____L@th3

reply

Watch Dog Day Afternoon. Then, watch Network. Both Lumet classics. That will explain why a rating of 6 for Mad City is an overrating.

reply

The movie was so incredibly good mainly just because of its message. It didn't do well because, after all, why would you want something to sell when it's anti... you (some aspects of the media).

It was beautiful showing how human and carnal people can be. 99% of the people involved with the media were always just trying get in on the action and come out on top. The assistent lady started to suck up to the big guys so she could be the big star one day. Hoffman's character was fluctuating between helping Sam and standing in the lime light.

It's beautiful because no one realized the danger they created. "We killed him!" was the pinnacle of it all. Innocent people under extreme pressure can crack. You can say it was his fault for lighting the dynamite, yes, but why was it necessary? It's not always a good thing, but his pride was assaulted and he couldn't be a 'normal' human being ever again. He'd lost his first impression with America. It was the media's fault.

Die media die. For the most part.

reply

by - vehetaus on Wed Sep 7 2005 12:22:27
"Watch Dog Day Afternoon. Then, watch Network. Both Lumet classics. That will explain why a rating of 6 for Mad City is an overrating."

I could not agree more. HUGELY derivative film. Also, these kids being held hostage are the most well behaved children I've ever seen in my life.

reply

Plot was wonderful, and the script supported perfectly with some extreamly effective writting. And then we have our threee fantastic actors, Travolta, Alda and Hoffman.

And they were all let down by the directing - this is a great movie - but it could have been sooooo much more.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

hey if anybody owns 'mad city' can u plz goto tha very end of tha credits,and tell me tha title of tha song playing through tha credits,..aswell as who it is performed by.it would be greatly appreciated.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Very Very true. Both of those movies are far superior to this film (my opinion). I think that this film would have been better if it encopmased only a few hours of a hostage situation. As a viwer, I felt like I was being left out during large chunks of time where in a real life situation their would be constant stress and pressure within a very short amount of time. I don't know, it's just what I think might have made it a better flick.

reply

I would have to give this movie at least a 7 just because the message of the movie. It reminds us that we need to think about how even the news wants a lot of ratings and they will do whatever they need to do to get ratings. Whether it means lying or making up an entire story they aren't always telling the truth.

reply

sure it is. it well deserves a 9.5 , it's a masterpiece, Costa-GAVRAS IS A genius. Do you know if there are scenes that were cut out from the movie?? At IMDB they say the length of this movie is 115 mins whereas my dvd only shows 110 mins. What happened?? Is there a director's Cut version of this movie?? please answer me back if you know, thanks.

reply

[deleted]

I agree, Im watching Primary Colours right now and it reminded me of this film, just because of Travolta. Mad City is really overrated, insanely so it is a great film, teh acting is great and the message is great to.

reply

I don't know whether or not the film is overrated or not. I saw it for the first time last weekend and was able to see it twice. It held my attention. The sceenplay was a little preachy for my tastes,but the direction as steady and I enjoyed the performances of Dustin Hoffman and Alan Alda. John Travolta was a little over the top IMO but I have seen better hostage dramas. I thought JOHN Q was better than this, but Dustin Hoffman makes the film worth sitting through.

reply

great movie...travolta did fantastic job with his role

reply

The recent events regarding the self-confessed "killer" of JonBenet Ramsey reminded me of this movie. The media has dug the things in his past and put a sinister twist into things that he did or said. Using words "madman", "disturbing", "eerie" to describe what we would call normal if it was just regular photos, videos and comments of a regular person. Sure Karr is sick but I think he was unfairly portrayed by the media.

I liked this movie for it's relevancy even after being made almost ten years ago.

reply

[deleted]

The ending is great. I never expected it to be the outcome. Full of twists and surprises, this movie really deserves my 9 stars. Though probably Bailey's too much under confidence on himself is annoying, but I think the plot is almost perfect. The media's annoying perseverance on the stories are very realistic. I think that's why I hate to become someone with a public personality.

Anyway, as I said, the greatness of this film comes from its great ending, where Bailey, sadly, committed suicide. And the newscaster's last reply before the ending, "we killed him" is really touching.

Really love this movie.

reply

Yes the ending was great but it made me think. Was it a brave ending made by the writer/director or a cowardly ending ordered by the movie company who didn't want to have a happy ending and thereby gloryfing a "terrorist"?

reply

Well, that's a good point though very sad. I don't know what to say there. Let the writer alone answer that.

reply

YES! I don't know about WHY the ending, but as I've written in great detail above, I fully agree that the ending was just TOO obvious and superficial. Sure it was sad and thus moving to some degree, but I personally think it would have been far, FAR more powerful to have used all that built up sympathy and momentum then to USE what had transpired to EXPOSE clearly with no doubt what had been done. And THEN to show everyone's faces, the media moguls, the fickle people, the stupid Feds, everyone as it dawned on them what they had all done BUT WITH HOFFMAN'S CHARACTER IN A MUCH STRONGER POSITION AFTER GETTING TRAVOLTA'S CHARACTER OUT OF THERE then to make this blindingly clear.

MUCH more powerful and better ending in my humble opinion.

ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!

____L@th3

reply

drastically underrated. as an alumni of media schooling, i found this movie fascinating. a nice glimpse into the "world of spin".

reply

Agree that this film is under-rated... in my opinion, it is well written, acted (especially by Travolta who is heart-breaking)and deserves to be seen by a lot more people than seem to have seen it- have seen it several times and never tire of it.

reply

I just watched this movie for the first time. I think that the movie had a relevant message, and it was good enough to hold my attention to watch through the ending, even though it was fairly predictable. I think the flaw of the movie is that the writer's underestimated the viewer's ability to detect the subtext. There were so many lines throughout the movie that tried to make the media sound like monsters, but it was hard to imagine a real person ever making such blatantly heartless statements. I just feel they tried to hard to make the message clear, and it hurt a movie with some good potential.

reply

I watched it today! well it is 2009 now , 12 years aft the movie came out.

All I wanna say is I'm awe-struck. After hearing about the movie i just didn't expect too much.

Dustin Hoffman is the BEST EVER! I didn't mention the word "actor" in the previous sentence coz I dont think he acts at all, I mean he just LIVES the character , before the camera.

I am not a big fan of Travolta. But after watching this,I'm spell bound,He brings a lot of Credibility to the character.
Costa Gravas! This guy's some director.

After 12 years this movie is still relevant! Think about it. Well ratings in imdb have to undergo a revamp. We are a new generation of "unprejudiced" movie watchers and our tastes are different!

reply

Ahhhh, BRASSKEEPER, I must admit, I do believe that you stated it better than I did...

BEAUTIFULLY SAID...

And, basically, my point also. Too obvious; too predictable; too 2-dimensional. Particularly the direction that the story took leading to that ending... However, technically, the acting, direction, and dialog as a whole in and of itself was done well.

ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!

____L@th3

reply