The Most Over-rated British Film

[RobG]

Originally Posted by stevie boy The one film that I do feel is terribly overrated is A Clockwork Orange.

I think ACO was definitely a victim of its notoriety, for those of us who werent around to see it when it was released and were intrigued enough to hunt down a dodgy vhs copy from the NME small ads in the late 80s it was likely to be an anti-climax because it had been built up so much in our heads beforehand. I liked the film because I got pretty much what I expected, but a lot of my friends were very disappointed. I know it got nominated for several awards upon release but I think nowadays its more famous for being infamous, as opposed to being famous for its qualities as a film.

[dylan]

Originally Posted by kezzy A friend of mine recently rented a cinema for his 50th birthday and showed his favourite film which was... Brief Encounter

That's my choice as the most over-rated British film. Did Coward and Lean really think that 30s/40s extramarital affairs were really like that?

D.

[Marky B]

Originally Posted by kezzy Another one that springs to mind is Rex Harrison's "Dr Dolitttle" (1967), winner of 2 Oscars, and nominated for 7 more including Best Picture! Surely most people would now recognise that as a classic bit of over-rating?

Sir Rannulph Fiennes didn't care much for it either.
Ta Ta
Marky B

[penfold]

If....if only it wasn't so dated, pretentious, featured the world's oldest schoolchildren, ran out of colour film stock, then it might have lived up to the interminable hype Lindsay Anderson's film critic mates gave it....

[TimR]

Originally Posted by Joenoir ..........The Red Shoes (1948) The first time Martin Scorsese saw Michael Powell's Shoes, he was blown away by its visual audacity—and I won't argue that point. But weighed down by heavy-handed direction and blatant melodrama—check out Anton Walbrook's portrayal of a devious ballet company director, and the interminable titular dance sequence—The Red Shoes feels more monotonous than magical. Although it helped pave the way for later greats such as The Band Wagon (which is far more successful in blending music, dance, and story), The Red Shoes doesn't belong in its class. —J.M. REBUTTAL: Granted, a triangle involving a ballerina, her pissy composer husband, and her passion for the daaahnce isn't for everyone—and, Scorsese aside, probably not for anyone who can grow a beard. That said, Victoria Page's struggle to choose between love and a career is still touching and pertinent. And Moira Shearer's pas de deux with a newspaper kicks ass compared with Gene Kelly's showy hoofing with that mouse Jerry in Anchors Aweigh. —R.C. I make no comment on this particular film, because I've yet to see it, but are there any other films that members feel are over-rated?

This seems a bit harsh. I did not especially like or enjoy The Red Shoes, but I respect and admire it a great deal as film making, and I would certainly not refer to Michael Powell's direction as "heavy handed": strange term for Powell.

I would also not use the word "monotonous" to describe it. It is never boring.

I do think The Red Shoes is for a very specialized audience. I found the story and the tone alien to my way of thinking and my way of seeing the world. I also think there is a wide streak of misogyny in the story (although certainly NOT in Powell and Pressburger!). The choice that the story line hangs on doesn't seem a real choice at all.

Why can't she manage to have a career and a marriage, or at least give it a try? Why does she go back to that hypnotist/impresario/villain? Why not find another manager? Why does she have to die by jumping off a bridge AND falling under a train? Why both? One is more than enough. How does she manage to remain conscious and still look very good (bloody, but pretty) AFTER the train ran over her?

I know that those who love The Red Shoes (and oh, how they love it) would never ask those questions. But I was thinking those things through the whole second part of the film.

During the first part, I was fascinated by the extreme intensity of emotion - almost hysteria - that saturates the film. Surely there is irony here: it is one of the most successful films to come out of Britain - and it is one of the most over-emotional films I have ever seen. What happened to the stiff upper lip? No place for it in the ballet, I guess!

Why do those ballet big-shots get away with that haughty, arrogant, snooty behavior and their childish tantrums? I kept waiting for someone (maybe Esmond Knight ) to tell at least one of them to shut up.

But the color is dazzling - incomparable. Moira Shearer is dazzling. The opening up of the screen during the ballet is dazzling. It is definitely worth seeing. It's just very different.

Also, I think the film has historical importance because it was a tremendous success in the US and even now has a large following - so it does lead to other Powell and Pressburger films for Americans.

[TimR]

Originally Posted by stevie boy do not agree about the Red Shoes, but I am sure Mr. Crook will be on soon. The one film that I do feel is terribly overrated is A Clockwork Orange.

Agreed. It was one of the great successes of the 70s - with both critics and audiences. I just thought it was ferociously brutal and pretentious.

[TimR]

Originally Posted by kezzy ...Another one that springs to mind is Rex Harrison's "Dr Dolitttle" (1967), winner of 2 Oscars, and nominated for 7 more including Best Picture! Surely most people would now recognise that as a classic bit of over-rating?

Well, I would not call that a case of over-rating. The movie was a bomb when it came out and received brutal reviews.

But apparently the 20th Century Fox folks stuffed the Academy voters with enough prime rib and martinis and passed out enough free cigars to help them support it - and also stressed that it was a big old-fashioned musical in a year of the New Hollywood.

It was one of my first films as small boy, and it was the first time I saw the English countryside on the big screen in color. I still remember it very clearly, sitting in a huge New York theatre, dazzled by the color, including the brilliant green and lots of rain. I was hooked.

So even the worst films can have redeeming qualities.

[TimR]

Originally Posted by Marky B Sir Rannulph Fiennes didn't care much for it either. Ta Ta Marky B

Is he the one who tried blow up the set?

The making of that film was one weird mishap after another.

[Marky B]

Originally Posted by TimR Is he the one who tried blow up the set?

Yep. At Castle Combe.
Ta Ta
Marky B

[Marky B]

Originally Posted by penfold If....if only it wasn't so dated, pretentious, featured the world's oldest schoolchildren, ran out of colour film stock, then it might have lived up to the interminable hype Lindsay Anderson's film critic mates gave it....

I totally agree,Penfold.
Ta Ta
Marky B

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by TimR This seems a bit harsh. I did not especially like or enjoy The Red Shoes, but I respect and admire it a great deal as film making, and I would certainly not refer to Michael Powell's direction as "heavy handed": strange term for Powell. I would also not use the word "monotonous" to describe it. It is never boring. I do think The Red Shoes is for a very specialized audience. I found the story and the tone alien to my way of thinking and my way of seeing the world. I also think there is a wide streak of misogyny in the story (although certainly NOT in Powell and Pressburger!). The choice that the story line hangs on doesn't seem a real choice at all. Why can't she manage to have a career and a marriage, or at least give it a try? Why does she go back to that hypnotist/impresario/villain? Why not find another manager? Why does she have to die by jumping off a bridge AND falling under a train? Why both? One is more than enough. How does she manage to remain conscious and still look very good (bloody, but pretty) AFTER the train ran over her? I know that those who love The Red Shoes (and oh, how they love it) would never ask those questions. But I was thinking those things through the whole second part of the film. During the first part, I was fascinated by the extreme intensity of emotion - almost hysteria - that saturates the film. Surely there is irony here: it is one of the most successful films to come out of Britain - and it is one of the most over-emotional films I have ever seen. What happened to the stiff upper lip? No place for it in the ballet, I guess! Why do those ballet big-shots get away with that haughty, arrogant, snooty behavior and their childish tantrums? I kept waiting for someone (maybe Esmond Knight ) to tell at least one of them to shut up. But the color is dazzling - incomparable. Moira Shearer is dazzling. The opening up of the screen during the ballet is dazzling. It is definitely worth seeing. It's just very different. Also, I think the film has historical importance because it was a tremendous success in the US and even now has a large following - so it does lead to other Powell and Pressburger films for Americans.

Never hesitate to ask questions Tim. And never hesitate to point out what you didn't like about or found puzzling in a film, even a much loved one

The answers and comments I give here are only my own opinion. Everyone in the Powell and Pressburger Group has their own opinion - they can speak for themselves and there are a few of them in this forum as well.

It's not compulsory to like all or any films, even Powell & Pressburger films. There are some in the P&P group that don't like some of the films. That's quite all right and even quite good if they can explain what it is they don't like about the ones they don't like. The Red Shoes is an intense emotional ride, it's about passion. It's meant to be that way to show the extreme emotions and commitment of artists like ballet dancers. They do give up a lot and go through a lot for their art. Much more so in the old days than nowadays. Nowadays someone like Darcey Bussell, the recently retired principal ballerina at the Royal ballet can take time off to get married and have children and can do other work like photo shoots for magazines and even appear in TV shows that gently mock her. Back in the 1940s they wouldn't have done any of that.

And back then people were much more snobbish about the ballet. If you didn't do it exactly like the old Russians did then you weren't considered to be any good. Most of those old attitudes have vanished over the years. But to be one of the best dancers in the world still needs an incredible amount of practise and devotion and that's some of what they wanted to show in the film.

And if you want to be the best then you will want to work with the best people. That's why actors queue up to work with directors like Scorsese. In the world of The Red Shoes, the Ballet Lermontov was the best in the world. Vicky knew that she could dance with other companies but that if she wanted to take part in he best possible performance then it had to be with Lermontov and that he would get the best out of her. He was cruel, he is called "a monster" and accused of having "no heart" in the film - and that's by people that like him

We also have to consider how difficult it was for women to have their own careers in the 1940s. They could have a job to earn a bit of money, but to have a career and to be hugely successful in it was very difficult and very rare. A lot of women had to make that choice between career or family. Many still do.

As for the train, the balcony she fell / jumped from, (did she fall or did she jump? It's still debated. Did the red shoes drive her to it or did she do it herself?) that wasn't very high and the fall probably wouldn't have killed her - so they had to have the train run her over as well. It is a bloody end. But in the fairy tale of The Red Shoes the girl has her feet cut off by a local woodsman (or an executioner in some versions)! He cuts her feet off with an axe! So maybe Vicky got off lightly

In fact I wouldn't say that it's a film for a very specialised audience. You don't have to be a fully fledged balletomane to like it. I like a nice bit of dancing but I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any means. But I like the film because of the intensity, commitment and passion it shows.

And as for the stiff upper lip, that's a calumny put about by the French, along with sang froid. The British are really quite passionate quite often. They just don't usually make a big fuss about it

In fact I see that the term "stiff upper lip" was first used by an American, in a publication called the Massachusetts Spy for 14 June 1815. When it's used by the British it's usually in a joking or self-mocking way like "Stiff Upper Lip Jeeves" by P.G. Wodehouse and is gently mocked in the "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" song at the end of Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Steve

[stevie boy]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook Never hesitate to ask questions Tim. And never hesitate to point out what you didn't like about or found puzzling in a film, even a much loved one The answers and comments I give here are only my own opinion. Everyone in the Powell and Pressburger Group has their own opinion - they can speak for themselves and there are a few of them in this forum as well. It's not compulsory to like all or any films, even Powell & Pressburger films. There are some in the P&P group that don't like some of the films. That's quite all right and even quite good if they can explain what it is they don't like about the ones they don't like. The Red Shoes is an intense emotional ride, it's about passion. It's meant to be that way to show the extreme emotions and commitment of artists like ballet dancers. They do give up a lot and go through a lot for their art. Much more so in the old days than nowadays. Nowadays someone like Darcey Bussell, the recently retired principal ballerina at the Royal ballet can take time off to get married and have children and can do other work like photo shoots for magazines and even appear in TV shows that gently mock her. Back in the 1940s they wouldn't have done any of that. And back then people were much more snobbish about the ballet. If you didn't do it exactly like the old Russians did then you weren't considered to be any good. Most of those old attitudes have vanished over the years. But to be one of the best dancers in the world still needs an incredible amount of practise and devotion and that's some of what they wanted to show in the film. And if you want to be the best then you will want to work with the best people. That's why actors queue up to work with directors like Scorsese. In the world of The Red Shoes, the Ballet Lermontov was the best in the world. Vicky knew that she could dance with other companies but that if she wanted to take part in he best possible performance then it had to be with Lermontov and that he would get the best out of her. He was cruel, he is called "a monster" and accused of having "no heart" in the film - and that's by people that like him We also have to consider how difficult it was for women to have their own careers in the 1940s. They could have a job to earn a bit of money, but to have a career and to be hugely successful in it was very difficult and very rare. A lot of women had to make that choice between career or family. Many still do. As for the train, the balcony she fell / jumped from, (did she fall or did she jump? It's still debated. Did the red shoes drive her to it or did she do it herself?) that wasn't very high and the fall probably wouldn't have killed her - so they had to have the train run her over as well. It is a bloody end. But in the fairy tale of The Red Shoes the girl has her feet cut off by a local woodsman (or an executioner in some versions)! He cuts her feet off with an axe! So maybe Vicky got off lightly In fact I wouldn't say that it's a film for a very specialised audience. You don't have to be a fully fledged balletomane to like it. I like a nice bit of dancing but I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any means. But I like the film because of the intensity, commitment and passion it shows. And as for the stiff upper lip, that's a calumny put about by the French, along with sang froid. The British are really quite passionate quite often. They just don't usually make a big fuss about it In fact I see that the term "stiff upper lip" was first used by an American, in a publication called the Massachusetts Spy for 14 June 1815. When it's used by the British it's usually in a joking or self-mocking way like "Stiff Upper Lip Jeeves" by P.G. Wodehouse and is gently mocked in the "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" song at the end of Monty Python's Life of Brian. Steve

As we are led into this thread by The Red Shoes I think it is right to talk about P & P. All of their films have things worth watching in them and yes some such as AMOLAD & ACT are rightly regarded as Classics. As Steve has pointed out previously some of their lesser films are still of a higher standard than most Directors best. If personal preferences come into it then I would put AMOLAD first, followed by ACT,IKWIG and The Small Dark Room. Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes would be further down the list that does not mean that any of those films is overated, in fact the work of P&P is underated(except for the scholars who frequent this board). As I have said earlier my opinion of A Clockwork Orange is that it is overated and as for Kubrick he is a Director that I do not particularly care for with the exception of the Killing which I think is his best film. All films are a matter of personal choice and opinions and that is what makes the medium so fascinating. The word classic is another over used word, The Third Man & AMOLAD are classics, Kind Hearts and Coronets & This Happy Breed also fall in that category but that does not mean that their Directors are fallable. In fact David Lean,like,Kubrick was imo overated. Greatness occurs over a number of years with a substantial body of work to back it up. IMO P & P did not make overated films and the person spouting off about the Red Shoes should go back to his DVD player and watch and study films and his pencil should be taken off him, bloody idiot.

[kezzy]

The fascination of this thread, for me, has been not over the choices of film but over the discussion as to the meaning of 'over-rated'. It's a word that is in very common use (particularly among film aficionados) and yet it clearly means very different things to different people. In fact, as a useful adjective, I think it's a bit over-rated.

Coming back to the films though, I think some are both under-rated AND over-rated. How can this be? Well, it depends on the audience. It may be fair to say that much of Powell's and Pressburger's work is under-rated (indeed unknown) by the general populace. But this could lead to over-rating by we happy few who have discovered their less-well-known works.

But comparisons are odious. We all know that everyone has a different opinion, and yet we love to rate. We flock to Channel 4's latest Top 100, and we tut at their ratings (how could 'Grease' be the greatest musical??!!). It's down to our human instinct to socialize.

I recently found a 19th Century book, a History of World Literature, in a pub in Cumbria. The author was phenomenally knowledgeable. He seemed to have read quite literally everything in the world. But his analysis consisted almost entirely of rating. Eg: "'Timon of Athens' is not as great a work as 'Cymbeline', yet it is marginally better than 'Titus Andronicus'". To which I had to say, "What does it matter?" For me, analysis of the individual works is more illuminating.

After saying all of which, I think 'The Birds' is over-rated.

[Dave Rattigan]

I find that P&P is something that just clicks one day and you "get" it. Perhaps like British cinema in general. I certainly never considered myself a British film fan in particular up until a couple years ago, and something clicked, and I felt instantly at home with British films. Same with P&P. I'd tried a few of their films, and could just never get into them. Trying to remember which one suddenly grabbed me. Might have been A Canterbury Tale. I'm sure I announced it proudly on these forums!

I guess I echo other people's thoughts on Kubrick. My ex used to say he found Kubrick's films "easier to admire than to love". I certainly find that with his later stuff, mid-'60s onwards. Not so much his earlier work, eg The Killing, Paths of Glory.

The Cohen Brothers are another that leave me cold. Watched Fargo the other night - now that is very highly rated - but as much as I found it easy to admire the technique etc, it just didn't resonate with me at all.

PS. Just for the record, "overrated" says to me merely "popular" as much as it says"critically succesful".

[Dave Rattigan]

Originally Posted by kezzy After saying all of which, I think 'The Birds' is over-rated.

I've never shared that opinion, though it's a common one.

The only Hitchcock film that leaves me cold (apart from the obvious clangers like Topaz and Family Plot) is Strangers on a Train. It's hailed as one of his greatest, but I find it hard to enjoy.