Lawrence of Arabia

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Andrew_Sch, Feb 10, 2002.

  1. Andrew_Sch

    Andrew_Sch Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,153
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, saw Lawrence for the first time ever last time, and this is what I thought:

    Beautifully shot, wonderfully acted, great score, epic scope...and it still SUCKED. I have never seen a movie that took three and half hours to do less than this did. Does anyone else feel this way? Am I missing something? I am just an idiot? What's going on here?
     
  2. Tino

    Tino Lead Actor
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    2,540
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Metro NYC
    Real Name:
    Valentino
    [​IMG]
    Can you be more specific in regard to what you disliked about the film so as not to mistake this thread as flame bait?
     
  3. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    31,355
    Likes Received:
    6,602
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Andrew,

    I hope you're not trolling here! If not, I'm sorry the film didn't work for you but to explain why I loved it would simply be a waste of my time because evidently, the reasons as to why this is such a great film never dawn on you in the first place.

    Crawdaddy
     
  4. Andrew_Sch

    Andrew_Sch Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,153
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of, I never intended this thread to be flame bait, so please don't take it that way anyone. What I didn't like about the film was that, to me, it sort of just dilly-dallied around for three and half hours without doing much. The importance of what he was doing was never really explained. Also, I don't mind a long movie (Heat, LOTR, Gladiator, Braveheart are among my favorites) but I just felt that three and a half hours was a little excessive for what the movie was trying to do.
     
  5. george kaplan

    george kaplan Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,063
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I too found Lawrence of Arabia extremely boring, but I certainly wouldn't say it sucks. Rather it's a very good film, but of the type that I don't personally care for.
     
  6. Edwin Pereyra

    Edwin Pereyra Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 1998
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In my judgement, Lawrence of Arabia is magnificent both in captivating so many memorable images and in its story. I consider it one of David Lean's best films and definitely one of the best films ever made.
    ~Edwin
     
  7. Steve_Ch

    Steve_Ch Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Looking at the list of films that you like, such as Heat, Gladiator, etc, it appears that you like movie with more actions, which LOA is really not. We all have our preferences, which is perfectly fine. Personally, I love LOA but was on pins and needles after the first 10 minutes of Gladiator, and must have looked at my watch 20 times and wonder when is this thing ever going to end.

    BTw, besides what's already been often mentioned here, LOA has an absolutely great screenplay and dialog. If you are looking for something to "happen", you may have missed listening to it. I remember this being the ONLY movie I've ever watched that I said to myself, "I got to find and read the screenplay". According to an interview with Steven Speiberg, he thought the LOA script was one of the very best, if not the best script, ever written.
     
  8. Dharmesh C

    Dharmesh C Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2000
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Speilberg watches LOA everytime before making his movie.
     
  9. Peter Kline

    Peter Kline Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 1999
    Messages:
    2,393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOA is a movie that is more of a novel. There are no "every 15 minute" action scenes tthat seem to be common in today's "big" movies. Life is not that way. A whole generation of "Xer's" have grown up on MTV with quick cuts, loud music and beautiful women (!) Movies now pander, in my opinion, to the lowest common denominator too often. No story, no acting, just over the top special effex. It's OK once in a while but after seeing the same thing over and over and becoming used to that kind of thing it's no wonder some would thing LOA is boring. Sorry, it is a literate, beautifully photographed and acted film. If you are used to hamburger, perhaps you need to learn to appreciate a good sirlion steak! My opinion anyways. [​IMG]
     
  10. Lars Vermundsberget

    Lars Vermundsberget Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2000
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In reply to the initial post of this thread:

    Sorry you see it that way. LoA is one of the very greatest, IMO. I'm almost speechless.

    I don't know you and what your range of tastes in movies is like. But if you expect any "great" movie to have a lot of action and explotions all the time, maybe you should throw away some of those expectations and give Lawrence another try.
     
  11. Rod Melotte

    Rod Melotte Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Peter Kline has it right on (A+). The problem with LOA NOW is that at the time it was filmed there was a different way of making movies. I saw this on in the theature in Milwaukee WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT. On a curved screen. This file was the T2 of it's time.

    It's not an action adventure as most people think. Thus they are disappointed when there is not 2 hours of action. It's more of an exciting biography.

    I've seen if 3 or 4 times now and you are right, it's not EXCITING. And I dare say it is NOT a GREAT movie for anything less then a 60 inch tube.
     
  12. Andrew_Sch

    Andrew_Sch Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,153
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmm, I can see where my opinion would give off the impression that I'm one of those teenagers (which I am) who needs a huge action sequence or explosion or sex every ten minutes in order for a movie to be good (which I'm not). Not that I have anything against that stuff, but none of it is neccesary to make a great film. I even liked Dr. Zhivago, which was somewhat similar in that it relied on beautiful cinematography and hit the three-hour mark (almost), so I really don't know what it is with LOA, I just didn't like it. In fact, I actually found myself dozing off during the last hour.
     
  13. Jon_W

    Jon_W Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The reason our friend Andrew here did not like it was one of the main reasons why I did. The cinematography, the score, the story all lend themselves perfeclty to the epic style of film making. I love the of Lawrence because it is like being caught up in another world, however corney that sounds. I just could not see Lawrence being as engrossing a film if it were 2 hours.
     
  14. StephenA

    StephenA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I loved the movie. Great everything. I can see why some wouldn't like it due to the time, not too much action and gore, and other stuff. It's definately not for everyone. I'm not gonna try to get someone to like if they don't want to. For some it might be a movie you give a couple tries, others will hate it no matter how many times they've seen it.
     
  15. Peter Kline

    Peter Kline Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 1999
    Messages:
    2,393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Andrew.
    Take this advice if you can. Wait another couple of years and see LOA again. You have a whole lifetime to see film and believe me you'll probably change your mind. Life and experience does that to people.
    Also, next time bring plenty of liquids, wear lightweight cotton clothing, be well rested and park your camel outside.[​IMG]
     
  16. Andrew_Sch

    Andrew_Sch Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,153
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Speaking of camels, one thing that I did thoroughly enjoy was all the funny noises the camels made. Now that's entertainment.[​IMG]
     
  17. Guy_K

    Guy_K Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LoA reminds me of the modern "The English Patient" in that it's a long drawn-out epic film with a divided audience.
     
  18. Tom Ryan

    Tom Ryan Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,044
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not really sure the English Patient comparison applies so well.......Lawrence Of Arabia is nearly universally praised as a masterpiece, in fact this is the first time I've ever heard or seen anyone say that it "sucked". Anyways, I loved the film and I've only seen it once. I need to get the DVD. Doctor Zhivago was great too, and I look forward to seeing The Bridge On The River Kwai.

    -Tom
     
  19. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    31,355
    Likes Received:
    6,602
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
     
  20. Dome Vongvises

    Dome Vongvises Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    8,172
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quite frankly, I can easily understand Andrew's point. Most movies made "back in the day" require an attention span most young people of today haven't developed or simply lack.
    From those who do not understand Lawrence of Arabia for why it is the way it is, the three hour running time seems excessive. But from those in the know and love Lawrence of Arabia, three hours hardly did it justice.
    In the linear notes and what little I know of this man, Lawrence was an extremely enigmatic character, and the movie made its best attempts to paint a portrait of him. In essence, David Lean was able to do such a splendid job regarding the gargantuan task laid before him. Did Lawrence really love the desert? Did he really admire the Arabs? Was he a blood thirsty soldier or simply a coward trying to do his job?
     

Share This Page