Starship Troopers is awful is you watch it like it’s serious sci-fi. It’s a great satire though.
That movie fell so far behind the production schedule they HAD TO USE Lara’s Theme over and over again just to fill the time. Watching it now more than 50 years later, it’s easy to see where things were rushed through.
In The Third Man, Wells’ character is in the business of stealing penicillin from the Allied occupying armies in Vienna and selling it on the black market to the locals. Which would make him sort of a Robin Hood kind of guy, rather than a villain, so the movie has him diluting the drugs to the point that they’re ineffective. That way, we can see how evil he is, selling worthless medicine to the poor sick children of Vienna. Of course, if you were going to do that anyway, why go to the trouble of stealing medicine from the army in the first place?
You have more of it if it’s diluted. You make more money.
Obviously, you can’t do this once the dilution is discovered.
I think the point is, if you’re going to sell vaccines that don’t work, why bother stealing a real vaccine and diluting it until it doesn’t do anything, when you can just sell sugar water as vaccine and skip the whole “stealing the vaccine” part at the beginning.
Exactly that. And of course once it’s not going to work, you’re anyway going to get no repeat customers. That’s why if you’re selling heroin, you don’t cut it so much that nobody gets high from it.
It’s been a while since I saw The Third Man but perhaps Lime started off selling undiluted penicillin and then later started to dilute it?
Illegally obtaining Army penicillin and diluting it means it will look just like legit Army penicillin, coming with all the trappings one would expect from the real deal. With word out about diluted penicillin, the appearance of legitimacy would be a major selling point.
Also, it is not “ineffective” as a vaccine; it does treat meningitis, but it also produces horrific – though never shown - side effects. Given the deprivation and desperation prevalent in that time and place, the gang is counting on locals being open to buying and trying what appears to be legit penicillin in order to save their suffering children.
[quote=“Akaj, post:188, topic:952285, full:true”]
Yeah I had relatives that were convinced it was real until I pointed out all the talk shows the “stars” were making the rounds of .
what didn’t help was the sci-fi channel had pretty much a 2-hour "investigative " infomercial for it in a " did it really happened, are they alive " type of bs running off and on for like 3 weeks … Someone said Blair witch showed sci-fi that faux ghost shows made more money than the UFO stuff they were running and that’s what started all the ghost and spirit crap that they od’d on until Comcast/universal turned them into just another network
The plot is… not good. Kane could have been a great man, so we’re told. He wasn’t, because reasons. Does it matter, what didn’t happen because he wasn’t a great man? The film never makes that clear.
Kane doesn’t get elected Governor because Big Jim Whoever reveals his affair with floozy Susan, whom he is attracted to in a meet cute for unexplained reasons. Then his first wife and son die, off screen, and we are shown no reaction by Kane. This is a terrible attention to plot and character, though I’m assured by CK fans that no, we don’t actually need to see Kane’s reaction to the death of his only child or even find out what it was. These people are wrong, and they’ll be wrong again if they bring it up again. And it’s only fitting that the film’s tin ear towards real life is exemplified by the voters actually caring about Kane’s affair, which I’m sure would totally happen in the world of 2021.
If you are going to rate movies based on the criteria of what you like and don’t like personally then that’s fine. To objectively critique a movie it has to be looked at in the context of it’s time. Before CK movies were not filmed that way. Afterwards all films were filmed that way. By today’s standards the acting feels strange and it feels slow. Yes in context with its time I think it’s the best movie ever made. That doesn’t mean it’s my favorite movie or one that I sit down watch for enjoyment.
But it’s fair to say that films exist to provide forward technological progress for other films. There are other films that moved tech progress forward like The Jazz Singer or Becky Sharp. Those aren’t reasons why we need to revisit the films. I don’t think Kane is important today if the only reason is its technological innovations. That can come from anywhere, test films, experiments, really who cares. Kane needs to stand on its own merits.
Agreed. Anyone who is interested in CK should track down the DVD with the Roger Ebert commentary track. It’s very enlightening, at least it was for me.
It’s easy to forget sometimes filmmaking is as much a technological endeavor as it is an artistic one. Better camera and film technology, sound, the introduction of color, CGI. For better or worse these all changed how movies were made and what they could do. There’s a reason films aren’t simply taped plays. CK was extremely experimental for it’s time. Not taking that into account does the film a disservice.
And again that’s not even taking account the account the story or acting. Those things are very subjective.
Not entirely, and anyway, that’s what the thread is about.
Why don’t we all take a time machine back to see what Edison was doing? Because it really doesn’t matter. Tech is tech. I don’t think whatever went into making Kane matters at this point. Maybe it matters for a film nerd, but not a general viewer. That stuff isn’t necessary to the enjoyment of a movie or lack thereof.
The other part is all of the Hearst crap, which I actually take points off for at this point, since the story told is far away from who Hearst actually was.
Dropo: If you’re going to make more doses then you would need proportionately more trappings. So either he is selling in plain brown wrappers or he’s stolen more packages than drug doses. The movie doesn’t go into any such details (IIRC) because a) it’s a movie focused on atmosphere and Lime’s character, not plot and b) probably Wells never gave such issues a thought.
The point about ineffectiveness is made by the movie: Lime is a bad guy because he sells non-working drugs. Which are not vaccines to begin with, btw, and if you dilute an antibiotic enough of course it is ineffective.
At the end of the day, the movie’s atmospherics and Cotton and Wells’ performances make it the iconic movie that it is – but the plot is sloppily put together to make a McGuffin, and I’m surprised that people aren’t more bothered by that.
Acting and story is all about style and execution. How can that not be subjective? What makes a story “good or bad” is completely in the eye of the beholder and acting styles change constantly based on the tone of the film and project. Acting in the 30’s and 40’s was still largely influenced by stage acting which meant “acting for the backrow” more naturalistic styles didnt really develop until the 60s and moreso 70s when there was more an effort to act toward the camera.
And anything that is labeled as “Iconic” has to be subjective almost by definition. The OP started with “They Live” which is the very definition of a cult film. Star Wars and Avatar are not iconic because of their storytelling which are both simplistic on purpose. They’re remembered because of how they broke new ground in technological aspects of filmmaking. Set and costume design and model work in Star Wars and CGI and 3d in Avatar.
A film can be “Iconic” for many reasons. Does that make a specific movie worth revisiting? I guess the answer is “it depends”. If your only looking for entertainment, I would recommend sticking to things made within your lifetime. If your interested in movies as a cultural touchstone or why a given movie is revered by a significant number of people you really need to understand the context the movie was made in if not the intent of the filmmaker.
I’m really so out of the loop, but…is there actually ‘NEW’ rock being made? And how does classic rock squelch any of this new rock of which you speak? (I listen to the oldies station on the radio in the car, if that’s what you mean. I like it, that’s ‘my’ music. I’m old and boring myself!). Should I be searching for something newer? If so, what? where? and why? there are few concerts this year thanks to the plague, and what there were supposed to be, were the tattered remnants of rock of old - Hall and Oates, Foreigner, Joan Jett… I guess it depends on what your definition of ‘rock’ is. as I said, I’m outta da loop.
You know, I think that might actually be the point. Kane is based on William Randolph Hearst, and I think he isn’t supposed to come off as sympathetic.
Not that I disagree with its placement on the list. I’ve seen the film only once, and have no desire to see it again. I found it boring, more than anything else. I recognise that it was a revolution in cinematic technique, the first use of things that are just standard these days. I recognise that it must have looked amazing at the time. It’s still a boring story. And WRH is to me an obscure figure from history. Maybe contemporary audiences would have got the hate. I don’t.
Sure – a couple of examples of rock bands formed after the early '90s, which are still actively recording, are Foo Fighters and Greta Van Fleet. They get pretty much no play on stations which have a Classic Rock format, as they don’t fit the format – they, and their music are simply too new. Most such stations play neither songs nor artists from later than the very early '90s.
Similarly, Tom Petty (with and without the Heartbreakers) kept recording after the early '90s, and though his older stuff is a classic rock staple, those stations rarely, if ever, play his newer stuff.
Kane is iconic. I will agree with that. It’s remembered. I’ve watched other films from that time, and many are better, more resonant. The Third Man and Touch Of Evil, for movies Welles was associated with. I wouldn’t call it awful. The newsreel part is great. But then you’ve pretty much got the whole story there anyway. But it’s a good subject for this thread, a significant movie historically that doesn’t hold up as a watchable film.