I'm usually a big fan of old movies, and I generally like screwball comedies like The Marx Brothers but this was just annoying from start to finish. I actually have a headache after watching it all the way through.
Did anyone else feel this way?
[deleted]
Katherine Hepburn annoying? Over the top? Whiny? Absolutely, times 1000! Cary was okay as befuddled; Ruggles cracks me up, and Fitzgerald was good as always. But was there every, in the entire history of cinema, an actress more over-rated, more obnoxious in every way, less attractive to either sex, literally unbearable in almost every scene in which she appeared, regardless of the movie, than Katherine Hepburn? I believe the answer to be self-evident, and I offer Bringing Up Baby as prime evidence.
"Was there ever, in the entire history of cinema, an actress more overrated, more obnoxious in every way, less attractive to either sex, literally unbearable in almost every scene in which she appeared, regardless of the movie, than Katherine Hepburn?"
Haven´t seen enough of Hepburn to answer "no" here... but in any case Mia Farrow at least comes close to topping that particular list.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I can sympathise with your reaction to Katharine Hepburn, especially in this movie. But Hepburn was nominated for 14 Academy Awards, 5 BAFTA Awards, 8 Golden Globes, 2 Tony Awards and 2 Screen Actors Guild Awards and worked for over 60 years. She must have been doing something right.
shareThe was so much loud chatter in this movie, and a lot of the time i could not understand what the characters were saying, i found Katharine Hepburns character TOO whinney.
I also found the structure of the comedy annoying, Where we as the auidience understand what the a certain character may not, instead of finding the confrontations funny i just found them disorientating and annoying
I got a little lost in the prison scene but otherwise it's pure gold
shareYES! We had to stop watching before the nightclub scene was even over. 4 adults and one teenager all agreed - the most annoying movie any of us had EVER seen!
shareI actually think this movie seems very modern, especially for something that was made in the thirties. I don't think Hepburn overacted too much, not to a point to which I would have disliked her even if I had liked the movie.
The movie didn't charm me one bit, even though I like to think I have a good sense of humor. Maybe it's because I generally dislike screwball comedies, especially those with inept leads (although like the OP, I do enjoy the Marx Brothers).
---
Japan Relief Fund
http://tinyurl.com/4vjm9my
http://tinyurl.com/6hw2cat
Ditto. Totally into to watching old movies and ones considered classics and I'm 26 mins in and am developing a headache like insanely strong!
shareI must say, I am amazed at the negative reactions to this movie. I still find myself laughing out loud during it. Katherine Hepburn was such a ditz, and I loved her. And Charlie Ruggles, I always found him a charming character actor.
I'm the kind of guy, when I move - watch my smoke. But I'm gonna need some good clothes though.
Recently, I participated in a two-person skit. Being an amateur, I had to learn practically everything from scratch. So when I watch Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant, I have to say that their timing and body language was excellent. The scene in the restaurant where they accidentally ripped each other's clothes ... the timing was so perfect that it looked so natural and effortless! Acting-wise, it was a joy to watch.
Script-wise, I find it a torture to watch. I can only say different types of funny appeal to different people. Strictly speaking, the dialog is actually not bad, for example, the dialog between Hepburn and Grant at the golf parking lot. Movie scripts these days contain so much sex and/or vulgarities that "A King's Speech" is a rare jewel.
What I cannot accept is Hepburn character's blatant disregard common sense and law. In my country, cars are expensive commodities. To drive off in someone else's car, crash their bumpers (?? what's the name of that car part?) against another car, shrug off the incident as nothing is wrong is illegal and certainly not amusing. I don't know how to identify with or talk to such a person who is so totally beyond normal reasoning. Hence, I don't find her funny. In the last scene when she brought the dinosaur skeleton down, all I can think of is, "all those hard work putting up the dinosaur gone". If I were in Cary Grant's shoes, I would probably strangle her rather than fall in love with her. Rachel Weisz's character did something similar in "The Mummy" when she brought the library shelves crashing down but thankfully she behaved normally the rest of the movie.
Katherine Hepburn's acting is brilliant. It's her character that is so unlikeable that I couldn't finish watching the movie :(
Oh yes, I want to add a postscript that the animals saved the day. Kudos to the animal trainers !
[deleted]
So glad to find others on here who aren't hoodwinked by the hype that this film is a classic comedy when it is tedious, shrill, completely unbelievable from start to finish and contains no good jokes! The script was just bad and overall seemed really stagey, like an amateur play that had been filmed. The animal actors completely upstaged the humans and were the only redeeming feature of the film. Examples of how terrible the script was: at the end when Susan turns up at the museum, David is annoyed to see her and tells her to put down the bone and leave. It seems completely genuine, and is also totally believable that he can't stand the sight of her. 15 seconds later, when she has climbed up the brontosaurus (it sounds much funnier than it is) he suddenly out of the blue confesses his love and claims that the horrendous series of misadventures they've just endured is the most fun he's ever had! Nothing leads up to this, there is never any hint that he is secretly enjoying himself during all the trials, there is no sexual chemistry between them and thus it's completely not credible that he's suddenly saying this. When a character in a film changes their mind about someone or something, there is usually some hint, some indication of their conflicted feelings. But in this film David seems to HATE Susan from the get-go and this we can understand, because she is vile; thoughtless, spoiled, narcissistic and stupid. Then after she stalks him, ruins his relationship and shames him in front of professional colleagues and potential donors, he is helplessly charmed into falling in love? What a pile of crap. I don't care about Hepburn and Grant's status as divine heroes of Hollywood's golden age. This is not a good film.
shareThe first time I saw it, I was irritated by it. However, that may have just been the mood I was in then, because I watched it again recently and loved it.
Maturity. The very staple of the IMDb message boards.
linguacrobat makes a good point. Some of the "screwball" comedies of this era, including 'Bringing Up Baby,' are filled with sudden 180-degree plot turns that make no logical sense and don't seem motivated by anything we see.
As stated above, David shows no signs of loving Susan until he suddenly declares his love for her. Nothing causes it. Nothing explains it. And, like most of this movie's detractors, I see nothing in Susan's behavior or personality that would make David change his mind about her.
Some might think that in a comedy -- a "screwball" comedy especially -- logic and coherence don't matter. "Hey, it's just a comedy!" some would say. I disagree. A coherent storyline with logical plot twists is necessary in almost every movie.
Yes - this brief sentence from tgibbs279 sez it all: "A coherent storyline with logical plot twists is necessary in almost every movie."
Exactly. Unless the filmmakers' objective is to create an immersive visual experience with no narrative connection between images and sounds, a psychedelic swirl-fest of sorts, then movies DO have to make some kind of sense. Even if the situation is outlandish, or set on a fictional planet, or in another version of reality; even if it's a "screwball comedy" and thus understood as a broad exaggeration, even if it's a friggin' cartoon where cars can fly and cats speak French, there STILL has to be an internal logic to the proceedings. In other words, within the little universe created by the film, whether it be 19th Century Poland or yesterday at the bottom of a disused mine, stuff characters do has to be BELIEVABLE within the context of the set-up, for the time being at least!
That is what is meant by "suspension of disbelief" which a good film will achieve by being entertaining and not insulting the audience's intelligence with gaping implausibilities in the plot or behaviour of the characters; the properly seduced viewer becomes a willing pawn and buys the whole yarn hook, line and sinker, even if a rational analysis of the plot would determine it as highly improbable.
It's said that there's no accounting for taste and that defining humour is almost impossible. Nevertheless, I fear for the people who insist this is a funny film and can only hope that they are not in the filmmaking business themselves.
linguacrobat wrote:
Nevertheless, I fear for the people who insist this is a funny film and can only hope that they are not in the filmmaking business themselves.Then you will be unhappy to learn that Peter Bogdanovich has had a substantial career in the filmmaking business.For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
Yes it's mad and crazy and all the people do insane things that wouldn't happen in real life, and almost nothing makes sense, but that's the sheer, exhilarating joy of the whole thing. Not to mention the supreme comic timing of Grant and Hepburn and just about everyone else.
If you don't find it funny, fine. Different things make different people laugh. But this film is consistently voted as amongst the greatest comedies of all time and plenty of people adore it. It's got a high IMDB rating and that's because more people can find its appeal than not.
Go find something you do like, I don't mind, but don't suggest people are somehow stupid or ignorant because they disagree with you, when you're in the minority.
I've seen it more times then I can remember and laugh more every time I see it, and that's rare with comedy.
Work of genius!
tgibbs279 wrote:
As stated above, David shows no signs of loving Susan until he suddenly declares his love for her. Nothing causes it. Nothing explains it. And, like most of this movie's detractors, I see nothing in Susan's behavior or personality that would make David change his mind about her.Well, David does say,
Now it isn't that I don't like you, Susan, because, after all, in moments of quiet, I'm strangely drawn toward you, but - well, there haven't been any quiet moments.And at the end of the film, he says,
I have just discovered that was the best day I have ever had in my whole life.and he repeats the sentiment.That might have something to do with it.For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255 share
Now it isn't that I don't like you, Susan, because, after all, in moments of quiet, I'm strangely drawn toward you, but - well, there haven't been any quiet moments.
[deleted]
Just saw 3/4ths of it today for the first time and I feel it held up very well. I laughed out loud many, many times especially at the beginning and the snappy banter between Grant/Hepburn when they first meet.
share