Samuel Fuller

..and why not?
User avatar
echolalia
Posts: 4755
Joined: 21 Jul 2006, 02:23
Location: Way Out West

Samuel Fuller

Postby echolalia » 02 Feb 2007, 01:14

Image

White Dog: what do you think of that as a film?

Sneelock

Postby Sneelock » 02 Feb 2007, 01:30

well....
it pains me to say this but I'm not too crazy about it.
I'm a BIG Fuller fan and it took me a while to see it. it's well intentioned but it's heavy handed. now, it's not heavy handed the way his films usually are. an overripe melodrama is common for fuller. this one seems to pull it's punches to me, maybe because of the subject matter.

Winfield is quite good but, for me, it seems half baked. not a well thought out film. the film caused a lot of hubbub at the time and I think that was pretty silly - like calling Randy Newman prejudiced against midgets for recording "Short People"

I think Fuller was trying to do what he did with less of a budget, like some of Huston's later stuff. I don't think he pulled it off. I do think it's well intentioned, I don't think Fuller's craft was well displayed.

I'd rate it for Winfield and the dog. not Kristy MacNicholl, the other one.;)
oh, I guess they're both good. something goes wrong before it's over or it never really gets off the ground, I'm not sure which.
it's a good dramatic idea, I'm not sure if it's a good dramatic idea for a movie. not a sam fuller movie, anyway.

The Modernist

Postby The Modernist » 02 Feb 2007, 07:57

What Sneelock said. The conceit seemed overstretched, and it's message was too heavy-handed. Misconceived really, although not without interest.


Return to “Screenadelica”