Anybody find it over rated?


I don't mind this movie. But I also find it far from a masterpiece
It's entertaining, but really a bit shallow. I had a friend who described it as "thin" and I thought that was pretty accurate. And as much as I adore Elizabeth Taylor, I find her performance to be pretty hollow, false. She has some decent moments, but I agreed with Pauline Kael who said Taylor faked her way through the performance. If the Oscar really meant anything, Liz would have won five years later for "X, Y and Zee". But hardly anybody saw that much better movie.

Anyway, I don't think this movie is great. It aspires to be deep, but it just feels like a lot of shouting. The best things in it are Richard Burton and Sandy Dennis, the cinematography and the score. I would give it a big fat "B"
...

reply

I agree that Taylor's performance is somewhat overrated, but the film itself and the rest of the cast were not. Burton in particular was at his best - he really had the personality and mindset of a bookish, ineffectual man who survives a dismal personal life through dark humor down perfectly.

reply

No !

reply

No. Underrated concerning IMDb score.

reply

No. I just think you're one of those people that likes to find everything everybody else likes to be "overrated."

reply

Are you basing your opinion on the fact that I find this one movie overrated?

reply

No. But that's even beside the point. Just judging from your criticisms of this movie, your use of words like "shallow," "thin," "hollow," "aspires to be deep but ends up being a lot of shouting," makes me wonder if you've actually understood all that's going on in this movie, which is pretty true to Albee's play. You don't really explain WHY you think it's hollow. Liz Taylor had better performances in other movies (she, herself, preferred her performance in Butterfield 8 to this movie), but that doesn't mean her performance in this was thin. I especially liked how she handled the scene where George "kills" her son.

I guess I'm suspicious because I see this play as an allegory for more than one possible condition of trapped existence in life. But maybe I'm just aspiring to be deep.

reply

I found the movie to be "hollow" and "thin" because it felt to me that it was mostly just a bunch of shouting. There was no modulation and nothing really to discover. The movie is somewhat entertaining and Sandy Dennis and especially Richard Burton were excellent, but it felt like the movie thought it was deeper than it really was.

And as much as I ADORE Elizabeth Taylor as a person, I never thought she was that good of an actress. She projects big all over the place, and for the most part I've never found her performances convincing. The one notable exception to this was her performance was in X, Y and Zee, where she is stunningly good. I could go on and on about entertaining and forceful she is in that movie, which, for me, was so much better than WAOVW? Have you seen X, Y and Zee?

Anyway, in this movie the most powerfully emotional moment for me was at the very end when George asks Martha the title question. It's also the quietest moment in the movie and the only time where I, myself, actually felt some of the character's depth of feeling.

reply

Did the movie even understand what was going on the the movie? Not all all us like theater-based films where things are a guessing game, because it makes it seems more eclectic and intellectual.

Plays are usually like this (save for Neil Simon). I always wondered why stage plays are not more literate. Are they afraid a literate play would be too boring, and not sophisticated enough? Then when everybody applauds at the end , did they even understand what they saw, or just applauding in unison because that's the custom?

reply

lol surely you jest. X, Y and Zee is one of the worst films ever made and she's terrible in it.

reply

Why do you think "X, Y and Zee" is one of the worst movies ever made, and what is it about Elizabeth Taylor's performance that you find so terrible?

reply

It's hammy to the nth degree, and she looks terrible in it.

reply

Ahhhh, I see...

reply

I couldn't disagree more. It's actually really hard to watch but every line of dialogue is full of substance and interpretable symbolism and clues. So it's basically the opposite of entertaining but shallow.

reply

Hmmmm... I didn't much care for The Lion in Winter, either. And for some of the same reasons.

To each his own!

reply

It sounds you just dislike the material. The Edward Albee play is an American classic. Do you also find 'Long Day's Journey Into Night' 'shallow and overrated'?

reply

It's not necessarily the material, it's more Albee's approach to it. It's the dialogue that I don't like very much.

I liked "Long Day's Journey into Night" quite a bit, certainly i like it better than WAOVW? One thing I noticed reading LDJIN is that the characters go back and forth changing their minds in 2 seconds or apologizing for some outburst of temper before changing their minds again and then reverting to their temperamental natures. They do this a lot.

Anyway, this is how I feel about "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" If you don't agree with me, that's okay. I was asking if anybody agreed with me on this.

Everybody has taste, which is an entirely personal thing. I adore Tennessee Williams and "A Streetcar Named Desire" is my favorite play. Not only is the subject matter fascinating, but his writing is so good, both delicate and robust. Tennessee Williams felt things exquisitely.

reply

Well if you don't like the play itself then the film is irrelevant. Unlike O'Neill and Williams, Albee is partially an absurdist. The play should not be taken literally. Read his 'Zoo Story' to see where he was coming from.

reply

I helped a friend rehearse his part in "Zoo Story". I was reading lines for the more passive guy siting on that park bench. I don't remember too much else about the play. I could stand to revisit it.

reply

I tend to agree with the OP, to a point.

In 1966, Taylor's performance was a revelation. But while I liked her quiet moments better, the crassness and vulgarity of the character and the dialogue impressed people at time, on that cusp in the mid-'60s where the old world was ending and the new world was emerging.

I'm not fond of Pauline Kael as a rule, and I think her criticism is too harsh and off-base (as usual) but in retrospect, Taylor's performance comes off as merely goodish today with plenty of shlock mixed in -- perhaps because we soon became so familiar with subsequent outrageous performances from Elizabeth. (I love her in NIGHT WATCH).

Burton is the best thing in VIRGINIA WOLFE (I also loved him in THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, and there's nothing like London's bustling streets in the Cold War chill of the mid-sixties) and the B&W cinematography.

Likewise, VIRGNIA WOLFE is a kind of time capsule picture.

I like Taylor in it more than Sandy Dennis, perhaps because Dennis seemed to give the same neurotic-to-the-point-of-nausea performance in everything she did.

George Segal was all wrong, and I wish Robert Redford had accepted the role instead. Redford was still stiff and limited at this point in his career, but he would have seemed less like George Segal and that's fine with me. I alway think "hack" with Segal, even back then, while Redford would have seemed more the part. (He thought it was a "terrible movie" and apparently didn't regret the decision not to do it).

I essentially like the picture, and think it's aged okay. But I would love to see Albee's dream cast of Bette Davis and James Mason. I can only imagine how perfect that would have been.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA


reply