Ok. Let's say you consider yourself no slouch at film appreciation or criticism. Your friends say you MUST watch The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. You watch. And you come away thinking it's mostly a big bowl of bloated, talky, overlong, poorly paced, drearily written, under-acted film verite that, and anyone who stays to the end, deserves a medal.
This film strikes me as an movie experiment, where all the actors are given one direction per scene, and then told to ad-lib all 137 minutes or whatever interminable length it runs.
I simply do not see any "genius" in this movie whatsoever. But I want to, because I don't want to seem stupid or dense, or artistically ignorant. Since I know I'm neither, then I can only conclude that this is a movie that critics like to use to seem smarter than they are, because no matter how I try, I don't see it. And I'll bet most people who watch it, won't see its merits either.
On the plus side, it's got one of the coolest titles in modern film history. A movie with a title that cool deserves a better treatment. And it's also an interesting slice of 1970s Los Angeles life.
This film strikes me as an movie experiment, where all the actors are given one direction per scene, and then told to ad-lib all 137 minutes or whatever interminable length it runs.
I simply do not see any "genius" in this movie whatsoever. But I want to, because I don't want to seem stupid or dense, or artistically ignorant. Since I know I'm neither, then I can only conclude that this is a movie that critics like to use to seem smarter than they are, because no matter how I try, I don't see it. And I'll bet most people who watch it, won't see its merits either.
On the plus side, it's got one of the coolest titles in modern film history. A movie with a title that cool deserves a better treatment. And it's also an interesting slice of 1970s Los Angeles life.