MovieChat Forums > Ulee's Gold (1997) Discussion > What's so great about it?

What's so great about it?

posted 12 years ago by gtrz
4 replies | jump to latest

I watched Ulee's Gold last night after seeing that the DishNetwork rating was 4 1/2 out of 5 stars and the IMDb rating is 7.1.

After having now watched the film, I am left wondering why people think it is so good.
15 minutes into the film I could have sworn I was watching something on the Lifetime channel.
The acting is really subpar by most of the cast. I am very surprised that Peter Fonda was nominated for best actor. The way I see it, his performance was very emotionless and detached. I didn't see anything special at all about his role.
I kept thinking that the movie must get better and it never did. I thought it must have a really great ending....and it didn't.

Take out a few swear words and this movie is indistinguishable from the typical offerings of Lifetime or the Hallmark channels --> average to below average acting (I must point out the especially bad acting by the two "bad guys"), predictable story ... basically just a way to waste a couple of hours.

7.1 out of 10?? 4 1/2 out of 5?? Am I missing something?

[–] gadance 12 years ago

I know exactly how you feel. I just finished this movie and it is nothing special. All these years hearing about this movie and now........big let down. It was slow as hell and nothing much happened. It was almost like watching it in real time.

[–] AccidntlTourist 11 years ago

I like this movie, but I agree with most of your points.

I do, however, think the two bad guys were actually well played - to me - they both successfully injected a visceral meanness; a low-key, smoldering menace that kept tension where it needed to be.

"7.1 out of 10?? 4 1/2 out of 5?? Am I missing something? "

I gave it a 7 because of my sentimental attachment to Peter Fonda and I suspect that's why others did as well. But, at the same time, I thought Fonda was pretty much the worst actor on set. I don't blame viewers who don't care for Fonda's performance here; guess you could say he is "an acquired taste". For those who can overlook his acting shortfalls - I believe he brings a certain chemistry that, imo, makes up for it.

I just re-watched this movie for a second time (couple years apart) - and I still think there is a calm grace to this film that overcomes it's many shortfalls.

I used to pick movies apart and practically trash them when they didn't meet "my high standard", but now I realize that even some of the lowest rated films actually contain special value, "golden qualities" and this is one of those movies - for me; a PF fan.

[–] yatzo376 9 years ago

agreed. Nice post.

Fonda's performance was that of a depressed, emotionally detached person.

He nailed it perfectly.

[–] Wuchak (8161) 3 years ago

I like the movie’s mundane realism and that it has the confidence to take its time to tell its story. The argument that it plays like a Lifetime movie or Hallmark flick presupposes that all theatrical movies HAVE to include constant unrealistic thrills and action, which obviously isn’t the case, particularly when it comes to a drama. Imagine how eye-rolling it would be if, say, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest” threw in an explosion or action sequence every ten minutes. "Ulee's Gold" is a Southern Gothic drama, not a superhero or James Bond flick.

It's cut from the same cloth as “Ode to Billy Joe” (1976), “The Man in the Moon” (1991), “Sling Blade” (1996), “The Apostle” (1997) “Undertow” (2004), “Back Roads” (2018) and “The Devil All the Time” (2020). While it’s not as relentlessly downbeat & sordid as the last two, it certainly presents some of the most harrowing challenges of life in the modern world of which most viewers can relate. I definitely could.