nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,683
- Reaction Score
- 34,712
Here is a controversial one: Arthur
I really hate Liza Minelli. I think she is a terrible actress that mugs for the camera, and I think she is hideously ugly, which matters in this movie. Her character was really unlikable and kind of nasty and self-centered. So why is it believable that the heir to a fortune would give it all up for her, which is the central point to the whole plot. The Susan character in the original is actually very sympathetic, and seems like a victim to Minelli's gold-digging and Arthur's general recklessness. It actually isn't clear at all why he leaves Susan, other than he just happens to like Minelli better, which makes Arthur seem like a real jerk.
Another issue with the original is that Dudley Moore is way too old. He was 45 during filming. I think the character is a bad 70's sketch comedy portrayal of a drunk guy, and there is no depth or self-realization of what a loser he is. I can't believe he got nominated for an Oscar for that train wreck of a performance.
Finally, John Gielgud is just a jerk in the movie. His dripping sarcasm could be perceived as annoyance not just with the character, but with the whole stupid movie.
I won't get into the sequel too much. I thought it was an adequate, amusing movie. My issue is more with the original, which I think is one of the more overrated movies of all time.
I really hate Liza Minelli. I think she is a terrible actress that mugs for the camera, and I think she is hideously ugly, which matters in this movie. Her character was really unlikable and kind of nasty and self-centered. So why is it believable that the heir to a fortune would give it all up for her, which is the central point to the whole plot. The Susan character in the original is actually very sympathetic, and seems like a victim to Minelli's gold-digging and Arthur's general recklessness. It actually isn't clear at all why he leaves Susan, other than he just happens to like Minelli better, which makes Arthur seem like a real jerk.
Another issue with the original is that Dudley Moore is way too old. He was 45 during filming. I think the character is a bad 70's sketch comedy portrayal of a drunk guy, and there is no depth or self-realization of what a loser he is. I can't believe he got nominated for an Oscar for that train wreck of a performance.
Finally, John Gielgud is just a jerk in the movie. His dripping sarcasm could be perceived as annoyance not just with the character, but with the whole stupid movie.
I won't get into the sequel too much. I thought it was an adequate, amusing movie. My issue is more with the original, which I think is one of the more overrated movies of all time.
