Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crimson" data-source="post: 347787" data-attributes="member: 5079">The irony of Crowther&#039;s review, and that he chose to professionally die on that particular hill, is that he wasn&#039;t technically wrong but came at it from the incorrect --&nbsp; and, probably, out-of-date -- perspective.&nbsp; Consider ...&nbsp;&quot;It is a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy that treats the hideous depredations of that sleazy, moronic pair as though they were as full of fun and frolic as the jazz-age cutups in Thoroughly Modern Millie.&quot;I mean, he&#039;s not really wrong in his assessment.&nbsp; The movie is a glamorization of two murderous lowlifes; the film even flirts with -- but, fortunately, pulls back from -- the notion that B&amp;C were Robin Hood-esque bandits sticking it to The Man.&nbsp; If BONNIE AND CLYDE was meant to be a realistic (even in that fake Hollywood concept of realism) portrayal of the pair, it&#039;s pretty terrible.&nbsp; But the movie is film-as-folklore, one of the better examples of the American love of mythologizing rebels and outlaws.&nbsp; Even the look the characters plays into that.&nbsp; Neither Beatty nor Dunaway look plausibly 1930s but, notably, do they look too anachronistically 1960s.&nbsp; They both look sleekly timeless.One notable thing about BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE THOMAS CROWNE AFFAIR -- they were gorgeous films with lush cinematography and vibrant colors.&nbsp; &nbsp; The films of the 1970s are just so visually drab and blah in comparison.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crimson, post: 347787, member: 5079"] The irony of Crowther's review, and that he chose to professionally die on that particular hill, is that he wasn't [I]technically[/I] wrong but came at it from the incorrect -- and, probably, out-of-date -- perspective. Consider ... "It is a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy that treats the hideous depredations of that sleazy, moronic pair as though they were as full of fun and frolic as the jazz-age cutups in Thoroughly Modern Millie." I mean, he's not really wrong in his assessment. The movie is a glamorization of two murderous lowlifes; the film even flirts with -- but, fortunately, pulls back from -- the notion that B&C were Robin Hood-esque bandits sticking it to The Man. If BONNIE AND CLYDE was meant to be a realistic (even in that fake Hollywood concept of realism) portrayal of the pair, it's pretty terrible. But the movie is film-as-folklore, one of the better examples of the American love of mythologizing rebels and outlaws. Even the look the characters plays into that. Neither Beatty nor Dunaway look plausibly 1930s but, notably, do they look too anachronistically 1960s. They both look sleekly timeless. One notable thing about BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE THOMAS CROWNE AFFAIR -- they were gorgeous films with lush cinematography and vibrant colors. The films of the 1970s are just so visually drab and blah in comparison. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What month follows July?