 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....OH.......................MY.....................................GOD!!!!!!!!!!
This film SUCKED DONKEY BALLS! That's an HOUR of MY LIFE that I will NEVER GET BACK!!!!! I just can't say enough bad things about this film! How the HELL it attained "classic" status totally baffles me!
The men were constantly grabbing each other and every time it looked like they were going to start making out! And one scene where the "protagonist" was having either visions or dreams.... he was actually PELVIC-THRUSTING. I'm not easily embarrassed, but that did it!
And don't tell me that the LONGER version is better. After it was over I turned to the friend I was with(We saw it in a theatre) and said(Actually BEGGED!), "PLEASE don't make me sit through the longer version!!!!"(The theatre was going to show the longer version after a 15 minute intermission).
Granted... the "transformation" scene was really cool, and there was one other SFX that was impressive...
but other than that.........................THIS MOVIE SUCKED DONKEY BALLS!!!!
IT SUCKED!
Whew! I REALLY needed to get that off my chest!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't this movie pioneer the fembot concept? Notable follow-ups:
MY LIVING DOLL (Julie Newmar)
THE TWILIGHT ZONE - "The Lonely"
STAR TREK - "Requiem for Methuselah"
THE BIONIC WOMAN - "Kill Oscar", "Fembots in Las Vegas"
MANN & MACHINE (Yancy Butler)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(We saw it in a theatre)
Hey, cool. So... did you like it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 19, 2016 - 5:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Ha, ha...really, Jim?
It seems to me you went into this expecting a more modern type of cinema, or perhaps something more "Hollywood", but you can't really do that with this type of film. You have to approach it on its terms, i.e. a brilliant piece of German expressionism, and a benchmark for all future science fiction films.
Personally, I think its iconic masterpiece status is well-deserved, but I'm not offended that you dislike it. Just because it's a historical milestone, doesn't mean one HAS to like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 19, 2016 - 8:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MikeP
(Member)
|
Ha, ha...really, Jim?
It seems to me you went into this expecting a more modern type of cinema, or perhaps something more "Hollywood", but you can't really do that with this type of film. You have to approach it on its terms, i.e. a brilliant piece of German expressionism, and a benchmark for all future science fiction films.
Personally, I think its iconic masterpiece status is well-deserved, but I'm not offended that you dislike it. Just because it's a historical milestone, doesn't mean one HAS to like it.
Yep, you DO need to take the movie on its own terms, a product of the time. Impressive, I guess even "visionary" for the time ( although f*ck I hate that term, "visionary" - these days they just throw it around to mean " marginally talented visual director who can't tell a story to save his life but knows lots of flashy tricks" ) .
All the insanely over the top melodrama is right in line with filmmaking in that era. The story is hokey, to be kind. Really it's surprising that no one has mounted a remake of this.
Back in the 80's the local library held a screening and I'm glad we went. A movie packed with wonderful visuals, a pioneering work and a milestone indeed, but it's not something I'd ever watch again.
But, ya know, the kids may find it groovy, with Beyonce being the gateway -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 19, 2016 - 9:25 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Ha, ha...really, Jim?
It seems to me you went into this expecting a more modern type of cinema, or perhaps something more "Hollywood", but you can't really do that with this type of film. You have to approach it on its terms, i.e. a brilliant piece of German expressionism, and a benchmark for all future science fiction films.
Personally, I think its iconic masterpiece status is well-deserved, but I'm not offended that you dislike it. Just because it's a historical milestone, doesn't mean one HAS to like it.
Poor Jim Cleveland went to this antique movie expecting modern entertainment. He should have known better.
I think most people today find films older than thirty or forty years a little hard to sit through. The conventions of storytelling and style of filmmaking have changed much, and not for the best.
However, for me too, METROPOLIS is a slog to sit through. I appreciate it and fully understand its significance in the history of world cinema, but like many silent movies, such as Universal's THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, I can't watch and enjoy them as entertainment. I can sit through them and not hate the experience, but it's like sitting through Shakespeare -- if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all, Rory....
I happen to think that Nosferatu is one of the best movies ever made! I mean, I actually busted out laughing during parts of Metropolis. And that beginning.... I was fully expecting the song "16 tons" to start playing! It actually reminded me a bit of part of Joe Vs. the Volcano... wonder if they drew "inspiration" from that opening?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's worth noting that no one in the U.S. ever saw the film that Lang intended "Metropolis" to be until very recently. Those that saw the shorter version, which the U.S. distributor created, actually saw a different story, because besides shortening it, they also changed the intertitles to make a different movie out of it.
My chief criticism of "Metropolis" has always been that the plot has never really measured up to the ambition of its visual design. It's not even really that much of a science fiction film (particularly in its chopped up version), but rather just another simplistic love story about a rich guy who falls for a poor girl.
This April 1927 review for the New York Times was written by someone named "H.G. Wells." Remember as you read it -- he too saw the shortened-for-the-U.S. version . . .
http://erkelzaar.tsudao.com/reviews/H.G.Wells_on_Metropolis%201927.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was a little confused that you wasted an hour of your life watching Metropolis. Even the speeded up version by Giorgio Moroder ran for 90 minutes while the early 80s reconstruction ran for about 120 minutes at 16 f/s. So you must have seen a really truncated version of Metropolis.
The newly restored version with a running time of approx. 2 1/2 hours with its magnificent Gottfried Huppertz score is absolutely stunning (especially when seen on a large screen with a live orchestra) and makes a lot more sense dramatically than the previous versions. What Lang achieved in production design, effects and visual storytelling was unheard of in 1927 and influenced many filmmakers of that time. That's why the film is heralded as a masterpiece.
That being said the film is not without flaws. The Thea von Harbou screenplay is sometimes overly simplistic and naive. But the thing that dates the film most is Lang's handling of the actors. Where Murnau was bringing subtlety to the performances (as in The Last Laugh) Lang still held on to the tradition of early silent cinema acting where bigger was better. So all the performances with their excessive gestures seem over the top to modern audiences. This is probably the reason you dislikes the movie.
This kind of acting hampered most of Lang's silent movies (like Die Nibelungen or Dr. Mabuse). It wasn't until the sound era that Lang pulled his actors back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
