I thought this was considered a good movie but...
Why is it so lowly ranked on IMDB?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000) Discussion > I thought this was considered a good mov...
I have a question of my own. It was ranked so low on IMDB because a lot of people thought it was a sleeper, i didn't personally. It was somewhat obvious in the end of the movie, but was Bagger Vance supposed to be an angel or what? Jack Lemmon played the young boy as an old man and he dies on the golf course, and Bagger was waving at him from a far. I always wondered if it was just the spirit of Bagger Vance leading him to Heaven, or if he was an angel the whole time. He obviously died before the boy's character if he was real, but i was just curious if anyone else thought this.
"Imagination is the Figment"
first of all I absolutley loved the movie and I don't know why people done like it. to answer you spideysense in the book he is an angel and that Is 100 percent clear by the way the book is absolutley wonderful its better then the movie. So its differnt in the movie its kind of up to you I think its just the way you interpret it. But if your going by the book yes he is an angel but its more up to you in the morning
share
I liked this movie also. I never read the book, but in the movie I saw him as an angel.
Forgive me for not remember the title, but there was another golf book "The Legend of..." on which "The Legend of Bagger Vance" was based.
In essence, gleaned from that other book, Bagger isn't an angel. He's Krishna speaking to Arjuna on the edge of the Battlefield of Kurukshetra as told in the Bhagavad (Baggervance) Gita. Arjuna is hesitant to go to war, so Krishna teaches him the meaning and value of doing ones duty and how to overcome trials and succeed in this earthly life. Bagger is doing the same for Junah, an ex-soldier whose wartime experiences have killed his spirit.
Modern socialism is when corporate jets land [at Reagan Airport] in DC. -JK Gilbraith, 1983
[deleted]
This movie is a re-telling of an ancient tale, the Bhagavad Gita. The hero in the tale is Prince Arjuna and his spiritual guide is Lord Krishna.
Arjuna is a war hero who falters on the battlefield because he questions the futility of it all. He turns to his guru for spiritual lessons. The real battle is with one's self and we get to see that through Matt Damon's character in Bagger Vance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita
[deleted]
it really is a wonder if yaul watch these movies you make stupid sayings about.
He didnt die.
he had a heart attack and laid down on the grass.
read the book
he got back up.
DUH
Just watched this for the first time and my sense throughout was that BAgger was an angel.
And I too believed that Jack Lemmon died and Bagger was "showing him the way".
Sometimes you have to have a little imagination. Just a shame this poster doesn't seem to have any.
Actually its considered that Bagger was supposed to represent either Jesus or even God. Hardy (Jack Lemmon) did die of a heart attack on the golf course.
He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?
<quote>it really is a wonder if yaul watch these movies you make stupid sayings about.
He didnt die.
he had a heart attack and laid down on the grass.
read the book
he got back up.
DUH
</quote>
Clearly someone who doesn't see "the field".
Perhaps because it was boring, pretentious and predictable? That's why I gave it 1/10.
edit: Oh yeah, almost forgot: and because it had Matt Damon!
Matt Damon is an amazing actor. And just beacause it's predictable doesn't mean it's bad. And just beacause you can't sit through a movie without explosions doesn't mean it's a 1/10.
shareWell Matt Damon amazes me, that's right, but not because of his work as an actor.
I don't watch many movies with lot of explosions, and if I do watch such films I don't usually like those. I rate action flicks boring as well. My favorite directors are Ingmar Bergman and Akira Kurosawa, and The Sky Above Berlin is one of the best films I've seen. Not many explosions there. Generally I love philosophical movies about people and their problems. I didn't love but liked some of Robert Redford's earlier films such as A River Runs Through It and Quiz Show.
Why Bagger Vance is predictable is because you can relate to characters too easily and guess where the story is taking you. Characters are uninteresting and quite shallow, sort of stereotypes. That's because the actors, namely Damon and Smith, are better suited for some action flick. So, you pretty much stay on your seat and wait for the end. While doing so you get bored to death.
Anyway, I re-checked my vote, and gave it 2/10.
Anyway, I re-checked my vote, and gave it 2/10.
So Will Smith (Nominated for 2 Oscars as an actor) and Matt Damon (Nominated for an Oscar, winner of a Golden Globe as an actor) are better suited for action flicks?
Characters are "uninteresting and quite shallow, sort of stereotypes" you say? I actually find an ex rising star golfer, war veteran, who has lost all his fate in everything including himself quite interesting. As I do with a mysterious stranger that hints at mysticism and a young boy who looks to heroes in a time of recession only to find out his at first despised father is one.
Not all movies can be Friday Night Lights with the unexpected downer of an ending, but most sports-related films are meant to be inspirational. It's not in the story, but in the way it's told. If it were up to you 80% of sports movies wouldn't be made (tell me, you knew how Miracle(2004) ended, did you enjoy it in the least? )
This was not in any way a masterpiece, but a fairly entertaining movie, though I felt Smith's role was smaller than intended. Anyway, any movie involving Charlize Theron or Will Smith can't be all bad, and this one isn't at all.
http://popculture4fun.com/ share
Both Damon and Smith are among the better 'stars' in Hollywood in my opinion. Smith was great in Ali and TPoH.
I liked this movie less over time, though, like someone else said. Robert Redford movies seem to had the same flow (thinking of The Natural and A River Runs Through It). I really like those two movies a lot, though. Hey....I guess he is too busy counting money to change his money-making formula right now.
I don't pay attention to Oscars. For me an Academy Award is not a sign of excellence. There are great films and film makers which didn't get Oscars or nominations, then there are bad or mediocre movies like Titanic and Hobbit flicks. You should decide for yourself which movie and actor YOU value, and not to trust any group of people.
An ex rising star golfer, war veteran, who has lost all his fate in everything including himself - now this is something I couldn't tell when I followed Matt Damon's performance. This is a part of the problem. Matt Damon's gifts as an actor are so limited, that you will know which tone of voice or expression he will use next.
Haven't seen Miracle but I get your point. But my grievance wasn't with the storyline but how the story was carried. Rythm, tempo this movie had made it boring. You can tell when there will be an emotional scene, a humorous scene etc.
I don't pay attention to Oscars. For me an Academy Award is not a sign of excellence. There are great films and film makers which didn't get Oscars or nominations, then there are bad or mediocre movies like Titanic and Hobbit flicks. You should decide for yourself which movie and actor YOU value, and not to trust any group of people.
An ex rising star golfer, war veteran, who has lost all his fate in everything including himself - now this is something I couldn't tell when I followed Matt Damon's performance. This is a part of the problem. Matt Damon's gifts as an actor are so limited, that you will know which tone of voice or expression he will use next.
Haven't seen Miracle but I get your point. But my grievance wasn't with the storyline but how the story was carried. Rythm, tempo this movie had made it boring. You can tell when there will be an emotional scene, a humorous scene etc.
The Oscars are the popularity awards for the talented. Sure, they may not be the fairest of the bunch, but any actor winning an Oscar has at least some talent to boot. And I'm sorry that you can't see that talent in Damon. I wonder, have you ever seen The Talented Mr. Ripley?
Most movies being made are quite easy to figure out from the start. It is not a particularly great accomplishment of this one. If you're an avid film viewer, or have any sense of a narrative perspective, you will many times figure out what's hidden, or what comes next. Don't tell me you couldn't see where Citizen Kane was headed? As I've said before, an element of surprise is not really the best asset for a movie. I could tell you what each scene in Kane was about emotionally, but they way it did what it intended, that is something different. And quite frankly Robert Redford does an ok job at that. And ok is fine for me. Any movie that passes my average mark is good enough to spend money on.
By the way, Titanic is a good movie no matter what people say. Just because the backlash from its enormous popularity made it a "good movie gone bad" doesn't mean it doesn't deserve about just every Oscar it got. And what Hobbit movie are you referring too? If it's The Lord of the Rings, then by all means excuse my astonishment. If that is not a good movie, I do not know what is.
I'm all for liking movies for your own reasons, but critically acclaimed movies are rarely devoid of excellence. Next you'll be telling me that No Country For Old Men isn't a good movie.
http://popculture4fun.com/ share
I'm not sure if I remember this anecdote correctly, but I heard a story a good story which fits here. Once Dalai Lama was asked if he believes in reincarnation. He said no. Interviewer continued: "But hundreds of millions of Indians do believe in it". Dalai Lama replied: "Well, this could as well be the best evidence against it". For me it's the same with Oscars. It's just a nice party where arbitrary group of filmmakers are awarded.
Yes, I've seen The Talented Mr. Ripley. While I liked the story, I remember Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow, two mediocre actors gave mediocre performances Paltrow is pretty, but incredibly shallow actor, which I believe is contrary to her person. Then there was a group of brilliant actors in supporting roles: Jude Law, Cate Blanchett and Philip Seymour Hoffman. But I didn't have a problem with casting in this special picture, as the whole cast supported the barbielike superficial reality the millionaire circles had just as they were. I thought perhaps Jude Law could have played Ripley better, but Damon then couldn't have played Dickie Greenleaf as well as Jude Law. If you would have wanted to make a really interesting actor's film, then perhaps Hoffman could have played Ripley.
I agree that an element of surprise is not really the best asset for a movie and agree about Citizen Kane, it is good and enjoyable film. You can watch it few times without paying much attention to the story, just to enjoy good camerawork, acting and that atmospheric lighting they knew how to do back then.
The element of surprise should be safely eliminated when you watch a movie for the second or the third time. If movie is strictly based on element of surprise, it can easily loose it's review value - like with Crying Game.
Kurosawa's Derzu Usala and Ran, some Bergman films like Cries and Whispers, Tarkovsky's Stalker are so rich movies, that you'll want see them again. Especially Bergman dealt with heavy questions and made problems his friend. He didn't avoid difficult solutions while making a movie, it's more like he went after them. When you think about modern painting and classic painting - there's only that much fine detailed 18th-19th century landscapes you can handle before wanting to see a painting by Picasso or Oskar Kokotscha.
In contrast to Bergman Robert Redford resorts to a very safe formula which will keep bigger audience in a gentle bliss for two hours. It's not interesting as it is. This is why Redford can take a very challenging, difficult subject like he did with The Last Castle, and turn it to childish poop. He should have more edge in his work.
There are critics who will say Love Guru is bad, 1/5 stars. Last night when I came back from work completely exhausted I watched it and it made me feel better with all it's cliches and bad jokes. It's a comedy I will soon forget but I will be eternally thankful to it for saving my day. Then there are critics who will say Saving Private Ryan is better than The Thin Red Line. How could it be? No, I don't trust critics at all.
Btw, Saving Private Ryan had one of the most painful moments I've ever experienced in cinema, it was when Matt Damon told that corny story to Tom Hanks. Now that was acting!
I have nothing to add. I find this film very enjoyable, but I know there are those who differ in opinion.
I want to thank you both for having an argument that made me see both sides, and that did not resort to personal attacks, but was extremely intelligent, from both sides.
Something you dont see on this site that often.
I like how you list movies that Robert Redford made 30+ years into his career as his early work.
shareIt was 'predictable' because you know the story. The characters seemed like 'stereotypes' because it's a very old and mythically resonant story. You state that the movie(and director Redford) are 'pretentious' and then you boast that YOUR favorite is Bergman. I submit that you weren't 'bored' because the characters were shallow.
shareI finally watched the film since it was something I wanted to see for a long time but I didn't like the film.
sharedunno but i loved the movie i actually thought Will Smith was nominated for an oscar for this role. but i checked imdb and got disapointed
=====================================
Let's Put a Smile on that FACE!