MovieChat Forums > Handsome Harry (2010) Discussion > Why ranked low by the top 1000?

Why ranked low by the top 1000?

posted 13 years ago by rgcustomer
1 reply | jump to latest

This is a good movie. I gave it a 7. I can see reasons people might give it 6 or 8. But looking at the distribution, more people seem to rate it higher, with 10 being most popular. The people who like this movie really like it.

But then take a look at the 45 top 1000 voters. They give it merely 4.8! I'm starting to suspect that they are counting TV episodes and video games to qualify among the top 1000, which really shouldn't count when evaluating a film.

Will one of these top 1000 folks explain why this film is so bad that it deserves less than 6?

[–] jm10701 12 years ago

I'm not in the top 1000 voters, but since after six months none of them has answered your question I'll take a shot at explaining why this movie might be rated less than 6. But I am at the opposite end of the spectrum from the top 1000 as you characterized them - I never watch TV or play video games, so I can't speak for those who do; I ONLY watch and rate movies.

I gave this movie a 4, and the main reason is that it seems like a made-for-TV Hollywood-studio movie, whether that's what it is or not. The cinematography and the acting are mostly good, but the screenplay is very melodramatic, very predictable, and lacks any subtlety at all; and the director just lets the screenplay carry the movie.

It makes for a mediocre viewing experience, because everything is spelled out, leaving nothing for the audience to do but sit back, be spoon-fed the story, and respond as directed by the emotional cues that pepper this movie heavily. We are prompted when to get angry or disgusted, when to cheer for the good guy, when to get tears in our eyes, etc; so we don't have to react spontaneously to anything: we are told at every point how we should react to what we see.

This kind of prescribed, emotionally manipulative experience is what TV audiences expect and require, but serious movie fans - particularly fans of non-Hollywood movies - are used to a more challenging experience than simply sitting back and being prompted how to respond emotionally to everything that happens.

When Campbell Scott as David finally appeared at the end of the movie, I thought at first that he was going to lift the movie by himself out of its mediocrity, because his performance and his dialog were so much stronger than anyone else's - especially than Jamey Sheridan's wooden Harry - but that didn't happen. It sank back down to Sheridan's level instead, which is a shame.

That does not make this a bad movie, but it does make it mediocre, on par with a good TV movie, slightly below the average of what is possible in a movie. That's why it got a 4 from me.