subject pretty much sums it up...
i thught the story was flat, owens acting was wooden, the direction was trying so hard to be noir but in the end it seemed stilted, banal and frankly it was completely plain.
nothing special at all. and it's beyond me why everyone seems to be raving about it!?
someone PLEASE explain to me the appeal. cause i don't see it.
CM
Character portrayal & development
shareEven that was boring. The movie was a waste of my time. The ending wasn't shocking or anything. Was expecting a bit more dramatic ending.
I love me some Owen but even he boring in this movie.
----Nikki
http://visitorqueue.wordpress.com
Yeah, it does take a little emotional development to appreciate.
Maybe see it again in 10 years, tell us what you think?
Quite not sure what you if you are referring to me not being mature enough (emotionally) to appreciate the movie, but trust me, I am. This movie nothing for me. It could have been written a whole lot better. Good story, terrible execution
----Nikki
http://visitorqueue.wordpress.com
Didn't mean to suggest you're "not mature enough"; understood instead that there is no end to emotional development and further that the quality in this movie relies on certain aspects of that development.
It's probably more your culture that suggests the notion that you are either 'mature or not'; this is a false dichotomy, instead we constantly evolve.
Again, suggest seeing it in a few years and telling us what you think. If not interesting, then don't. It doesn't matter to me either way; only to say there is goodness in this film if you have the eyes to see it.
I always take second look at movies because people always open my eyes to things I didn't notice before.
I'm very outside the box when it comes to movies. Hense my live of house of yes, welcome to the dollhouse and jawbreakers
----Nikki
http://visitorqueue.wordpress.com
the whole thing was clunky badly acted, dated and pretty embarrasing frankly.
shareFinally saw this recently and have to agree with some of the other comments, that this film was severely lacking.
Clive Owen is a fairly banal presence at the best of times but here he is at his worst.
I thought the whole film came across pretty cheap looking and yes, I know it was a limited budget film but for me that is no excuse for badly judged creative decisions as regards photography and direction.
A pretty underwhelming experience all in all and I'm now quite surprised at the fairly good reception it seemed to get when it was originally released.
I thought the whole film came across pretty cheap looking and yes, I know it was a limited budget film but for me that is no excuse for badly judged creative decisions as regards photography and direction.
You are an immature idiot, who obviously has had zero life experience and probably loads of experience living vicariously through Tarantino movies. Why do you waste your time spewing negative *beep* about this film - it must have had some effect on you?
Have you ever made a film - a real film? Cheap looking? Film schools are full of fools like you that will never never get in the game.
I agree. Was expecting something more but in the end felt I had wasted my time.
Boring.
Unquestionably one of the most - unjustly - pretentious things I've ever had the FORTUNE to read - you gave me quite a giggle at your expense. I can only imagine how insufferable you must be in real life.
sharei never used to care much for the brussels sprout when i was younger, now i quite enjoy them.
_________
H is pronounced Aitch NOT Haitch !
Well, your question is two years old, and you will probably never read this, but I will take a stab. Since I am used to people thinking the movies I like are boring, where nothing happens, the first thing I will state is the obvious.
1. Nothing tastes exactly alike to two different people.
Most of the world finds movies based on familiar comic book characters exciting, especially if there is constant movement, explosions and noise. They like cooly delivered snappy one-liners, spoken in the face of certain death. I won't place any kind of value judgement. I will just say that I found these extremely boring and I find Croupier extremely compelling. I am not right and others are not wrong. We just like different things.
2. This film is exciting to me, because it asks existential questions.
So, what I like in a movie is when a movie asks you to examine your beliefs in a challenging way. This movie asks some of the core questions of existence:
Is the acceptance of the world, with all it's warts "selling out" or is it just realism?
What kind of unforeseen consequences arrive from the most innocent actions?
Are the strictures of society "moral", or are they a rigged game to keep the top on top?
If two people see the same thing and come to totally different conclusions, is either "right" or "wrong"?
Cartoon movies don't ask these questions, so they bore me.
3. I like this movie, because, mostly it follows it's own internal logic.
In the average horror movie, for example, the 16 year old girl hears a noise in a room where 8 of her friends have died a horrible death. She sees smoke curling out from under the door and an ethereal light. Does she run away? No, she takes that great anti-ghoul device, the flashlight, and checks it out, solely for the purpose that she can die in an even more gruesome way than her previous 8 friends.
This does not happen in Croupier. People do things in ways in which you can say "I see how they came to that conclusion for that action". This is such a rare occurrence in a movie, that this, alone, makes it worth watching for me.
But, mostly, the reason I like this movie is because it touches on a theme I find very interesting, which is that any action or event can be viewed in multiple ways, and the viewer, with his or her own life experiences, creates the event in their own unique way.
Well, whoever Bloopville is I'd probably get on with her or him. I agree completely with everything you said which is good as it saves me the trouble of presenting my own ideas. Nice!
CROUPIER, along with Donald Cammell's PERFORMANCE, is one of my favourite films and I have seen it a number of times with no diminution whatever in its pleasurable effect - in fact seeing the events unfold, ineveitably, has become a delight in itself.
I can sort of understand that people might not like CROUPIER, or find things lacking in it, that's OK, a case could be made. But to characterise it as "one of the worst movies" is quite shocking in a world dominated by Hollywood production-line material (titles could be cited...but I would guess you all know them) aimed at an ever-narrowing demographic. Which I do not think includes me.
This whole topic is a fake review/comment designed to stop people from watching this film. It's slander pure and simple and should be removed.
Saying a film is one of the worst films ever and could be written better: Which parts of the writing were bad? Why were they bad? How could they have been improved?
Clive Owen's acting is flawless in this film. This is the film that made him known in the industry and now he's a world famous star because of this performance.
Everyone raves about it because it's flawless from top to bottom.
You do see the appeal, you're lying as slander against an independent film. Stop it.