Good film means you don't know the story. If you watch the film, then subsequent viewings deliver reduced
entertainment, you learn something, or perhaps both. But the first viewing should at least provide mystery
at the outset, and eventually some message (s) when its over.
This film doesn't deliver either: there's no mystery and there's a very thin message. It's not horrible, but I can't recommend it either.
Here's my breakdown:
STORY: For a 1940's era film about a boxer this is mediocre, poor at worst.
When a film has to recycle scenes to provide the viewer with answers to mystery it (supposedly) created, then it signals a lazy director, writer, or both.
The worst part of this story is not its plot (which is painfully simplistic), it's the horrid piecemeal approach to story writing (and perhaps a half-baked director). I kept asking myself what the purpose of a prior scene was in relation to the film as a whole, and the prior scene in particular. That's a bad sign when I have to pause and ask "Where am I?" (Yeah, you might be a turd and suggest I'm high. But being high makes for poor film reviews, so no, I'm not.)
Point is ... this should have been a 20-30 minute docu-drama on boxing and ... what? I have no idea.
Note: The story gets a major "thumbs up" for including a black actor taking on a (somewhat) meaningful role.
ACTING: The acting here is adequate, but wow ... there was (practically) no character development, no context setting, and the acting is as predictable as the sun setting. Everyone, including Garfield, contributed nothing to the world of acting here.
I love classics, and especially because it relied almost entirely on acting skill. But this (and may like it) are no better than contemporary tripe where actors don't act anymore - they just nod their heads and act like themselves.
I don't like to be so harsh, but I just dislike mediocre film.
ENTERTAINMENT: Low
TEMPO: OK, but the choppy, meandering structure was just awful
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Not great, but love the era of American history it portrays
MUSIC / SOUND: (Today I'm adding this category. Yes, this should have been added before, but I've just been tucking it in other sections.) When a film runs music the whole time - it's going to be a mediocre film. This, I've found, is accurate about 99% of the time.
Guess what? Yup, the music just kept on coming ...
DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Rossen was a very capable director, but he was a writer first. Equally important, this was only his 2nd (out of 10) films, and frankly, he should have tightened it up even if the writing was poor.
Writers: As suspected, the problem here was the writing. This was Polonsky's 2nd film, and shortly after he wrote for TV instead.
My experience is that writers who don't write feature-length stories well shift to TV, which just underscores that that's where they should have began, not ended.
Is it a good film? No, but it's not a complete waste
Should you watch this once? No. But if you have absolutely nothing else to do, and you just love boxing, then ... maybe.
Rating: 5.0.
This film doesn't deliver either: there's no mystery and there's a very thin message. It's not horrible, but I can't recommend it either.
Here's my breakdown:
STORY: For a 1940's era film about a boxer this is mediocre, poor at worst.
When a film has to recycle scenes to provide the viewer with answers to mystery it (supposedly) created, then it signals a lazy director, writer, or both.
The worst part of this story is not its plot (which is painfully simplistic), it's the horrid piecemeal approach to story writing (and perhaps a half-baked director). I kept asking myself what the purpose of a prior scene was in relation to the film as a whole, and the prior scene in particular. That's a bad sign when I have to pause and ask "Where am I?" (Yeah, you might be a turd and suggest I'm high. But being high makes for poor film reviews, so no, I'm not.)
Point is ... this should have been a 20-30 minute docu-drama on boxing and ... what? I have no idea.
Note: The story gets a major "thumbs up" for including a black actor taking on a (somewhat) meaningful role.
ACTING: The acting here is adequate, but wow ... there was (practically) no character development, no context setting, and the acting is as predictable as the sun setting. Everyone, including Garfield, contributed nothing to the world of acting here.
I love classics, and especially because it relied almost entirely on acting skill. But this (and may like it) are no better than contemporary tripe where actors don't act anymore - they just nod their heads and act like themselves.
I don't like to be so harsh, but I just dislike mediocre film.
ENTERTAINMENT: Low
TEMPO: OK, but the choppy, meandering structure was just awful
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Not great, but love the era of American history it portrays
MUSIC / SOUND: (Today I'm adding this category. Yes, this should have been added before, but I've just been tucking it in other sections.) When a film runs music the whole time - it's going to be a mediocre film. This, I've found, is accurate about 99% of the time.
Guess what? Yup, the music just kept on coming ...
DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Rossen was a very capable director, but he was a writer first. Equally important, this was only his 2nd (out of 10) films, and frankly, he should have tightened it up even if the writing was poor.
Writers: As suspected, the problem here was the writing. This was Polonsky's 2nd film, and shortly after he wrote for TV instead.
My experience is that writers who don't write feature-length stories well shift to TV, which just underscores that that's where they should have began, not ended.
Is it a good film? No, but it's not a complete waste
Should you watch this once? No. But if you have absolutely nothing else to do, and you just love boxing, then ... maybe.
Rating: 5.0.