Medium Cool-Underrated?
-
kenny-164 — 9 years ago(July 27, 2016 08:17 AM)
I have a hard time rating this film, but do think the current IMDb rating is too low. So in that I agree with the OP.
The film deserves credit in several respects. First count me among those who admire its differences from a standard film, and related way in which it took chances. The editing was part of this, and on first viewing you are challenged by the film's sequencing, yet soon see how well it all fits together despite its non-standard approach. Its uniqueness is also of course tied to the way it incorporates not only "real" footage but its mix of trained and untrained actors. In that respect it seems very much influenced, in a good way, by French new wave films, especially Jean Luc Godard.
I also thought the cast was great, especially Robert Forster, Vera Bloom and Marianna Hill. And the kid playing the son was great as an untrained actor. A small part like the young black fellow who is shown directly facing the camera (from John's perspective) was awesomely played. And perhaps best of all was how the gritty and of the moment portrayal of the times in which it was set seem to hold up so well today.
But there were some issues.
A small one I found personally jarring was the otherwise well played scene in the dance club. I take it the filmmakers had a relationship with the Mothers of Invention, who contributed several other pieces to the film. But was the choice of the song about "where plastic hippies meet" was either a mistake or what seemed to me like an intended ironic comment that was inappropriate.
The ending I thought worked in and of itself, but I am not sure how it ties into any point about the overall film itself. On one hand the randomness of it makes its own point. But films that are about stories have already chosen to focus on a narrative that is about one or more people has already by definition limited itself to a way of looking at the world that is NOT random. This did not seem to me to be about randomness per se, or even how characters searching for meaning might hit a dead end as it were before they continued their search. I suppose one could see the end as an open one, and be left to ponder what might happen to the characters after the end. But what does that have to do with the main themes and subject of the film? I am not sure.
In the end I gave it a 9, though, which is very good to excellent. But to be clear that was more in spite of the concerns I had than to say they were not enough to take it down in rating it. In other words if it were not for the film's getting credit for being creative and inventive for its time, I probably would have lowered it to an 8. -
lukejbarnett — 4 years ago(July 03, 2021 10:55 PM)
it's underrated bc it hasn't been talked about as a great film anywhere near enough. it is a powerful film and it has a lot to say about philosophy, gender roles, race issues.
very few films have as much artistic and political ambition and bravery as this film.
but unfortunately it often feels like you're watching the news and so its boring. and if i want to watch the news then i will watch the news i'd much rather watch a movie than watch the news and this movie often feels like a news story on tv which is wrong. a movie should be a movie.
lukejbarnett