MovieChat Forums > Ladri di biciclette (1949) Discussion > Facking awful (spoilers)

Facking awful (spoilers)

posted 12 years ago by Rupert__Pupkin
16 replies | jump to latest

What a complete waste of time. 90 minutes of watching some poor schmuck looking for a bike he never finds. I can't imagine what scripts De Sica turned down before choosing to direct this one. Maybe a movie about an old man ordering the meat loaf at Denny's but then going with the BLT instead; or maybe the compelling story of an obese woman who decides to roll over one day but then doesn't; or how about the man who spends 30 minutes looking for his office keys but then realizes it's his day off. Wow! Too many great plots to choose from. Going with the missing bike was a tough call.

Garbage.

And to save people time, let me give you a list of cliched responses from which you can choose your snarky retort:

1) The old person: You must not like the classics.
2) The lazy person: You didn't get it.
3) The snob: The subtleties of fine film are lost on you.
4) The moron: I guess you need explosions and CGI to hold your attention.
5) The condescending: You must be too young. Watch it when you're a bit older.

Did I leave anyone out?

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 12 years ago

I really enjoyed the TJ Hooker scene, you know, the one where men run faster than a bicycle moving at full speed.

I also enjoyed seeing Mitt Romney's acting debut.

[–] lubin-freddy 11 years ago

I really enjoyed the TJ Hooker scene, you know, the one where men run faster than a bicycle moving at full speed.

The ones who caught up to him were the ones he passed, and they joined in. The scene is realistic.
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
to rock my soul

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

Realistic? How? It's not true just because you say it. Last I checked, a man pedaling at full speed is faster than a man running at full speed. If you aren't aware of this, maybe you should hop on a bike more often.

[–] lubin-freddy 11 years ago

As I wrote, but you seemed not to read, the men who caught Antonio started after him as he passed them, and was forced to slow down when he reached the street. Only then did the others catch up. I watched the film the other day, and paid attention. You seem to be spending too much time in the basement, making your tapes.

Listen to the river sing sweet songs
to rock my soul

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

I read what you wrote, but what you wrote didn't make any sense. So the people who caught him were the people he passed. And your point? Regardless of who passed whom, a bike is faster than a person on foot. Instead of playing cognitive gymnastics to make this movie work, just admit that it's stupid.

[–] babastooey 11 years ago

When the father goes to steal the bicycle, he first attempts to ride it downhill towards the square where the football stadium is. When he finds his path blocked by people coming towards him, he has to reverse direction and ride uphill, where his velocity would obviously be slower. Combine this with the fact that he wasn't at 100% because he had been on his feet all day searching for his bicycle, and it doesn't seem illogical that a man on foot could catch him.

He wasn't climbing a mountain by any means, but go to YouTube and watch ordinary men run alongside professional doped up cyclists as they climb a mountain. They are able to keep up even with mutants on bikes who are doped out of their minds.

Contrast that with the speed demon who stole his bike in the first place, going downhill. With the lead he was able to get, he was able to outrace a car.

I submit to you that it is entirely plausible.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

Possible? Only in the sense that anything is possible. Plausible? Not a chance. I've actually been on a bike before, and I have a very rudimentary understanding of basic physics. Both of these facts make me conclude that this scene is preposterous and about as believable as the conclusion to E.T. (But I like E.T. because it presents itself as a fantasy. It doesn't masquerade as serious film.)

[–] RetroNewWave 11 years ago

I've ridden a bike before too, and I've chased people on bikes, and I've chased people while I was on a bike.

It's certainly plausible for a group of people to tackle a man riding a bike when they are in a crowded area. The man that actually grabbed the bike came from the sides to bring him down.

I was MovieKid56, but then I was cured alright

[–] benGsboat 11 years ago

Yes Rupert, you did...

6)The curious: What prompted you to watch it?
7)The obvious: Well, that's just your opinion
8)The sarcastic: Hey, you're really funny - ever consider stand-up?
9)The offended: This is one of my favorite films...how dare you call it 'garbage'!
10)The trendy: I smell a troll
11)The apathetic: Whatever

[–] gribfritz2 11 years ago

Hmmm....you think an old guy eating at Denny's is as critical as being out of work and losing an item required for you to put food on your table? For most, wars are largely by remote control now so no matter how old you get, I still don't think you'll "get it."

Sadly, you really DON'T get it. This style of film making was realism. As real as it gets. In your old guy at Denny's scenario, that is realistic too. The difference is these were insanely hard times and finding that bike could be the difference between his kid eventually starving. Realism from your middle-class couch certainly isn't entertaining, but realism from the gutter with life-threatening stakes is.

Now for the real question: why'd you even watch it? You HAD to know going in that the film is about a guy trying to recover his lost bike. Why waste your own time?

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 11 years ago

I thought the movie looked good. That's why I watched it. Man was I wrong.

[–] lola_mento 10 years ago

Some guy on the Internet didn't like it... Oh, well. We'll live.

[–] PeruLou (7) 8 years ago

The bike was a piece of crap and hard to pedal.

[–] DaveBowman2001 (518) 7 years ago

Gotta agree. I heard the hype from the basement dwellers how it was such a classic top 10 movie (some even listed as their favorite movie!). Hugely disappointing and not engaging. I had my doubts and set my expectations low, but figured there must be some great story that might appeal to me. I waited and waited. Dreadful and boring. The guy wasn't even a sympathetic character. He was kinda of a careless slacker to be honest. I can appreciate the film making and seeing the time capsule, but that's about it....still don't hold it in any sort of high regard.

OK, it's not for me. I won't argue with someone liking it, but I don't see how this could be ANYONE's favorite movie, let alone top 10. Even if you liked it, would you really enjoy subsequent viewings? For the record, I like slow paced films, as long as there's something there. This was only 90 min and it felt 70 min too long and drawn out. I'm also in my late 40s, hate action flicks, quick cuts, superheros and most CGI.

[–] TheArgentinian (7106) 4 years ago

basement dwellers? You mean cultured film fans? Let me guess, you're a conservative, right?

[–] DaveBowman2001 (518) 4 years ago

This was 3 years ago and I don't remember why I said those specific words in this context. I can only assume it might have been referencing the "Welcome to the Basement" show on Youtube who talk about movies, because I have never used that term before. They refer to themselves as basement dwellers in jest. I think that is where I might have first heard of this movie and watched out of curiosity (and/or lists of top 10s on IMDB).

and I don't label myself anything liberal/conservative. I've always been independent, middle of the road, free thinking. I once felt I was in the liberal/libertarian spectrum, until 4 years ago when "conservative" meant anything right of communism.

Now tell me why you love this film so much and maybe I can try to understand it.