A River Runs Through It

**KillerWolf** · 03-02-2006, 11:16 PM

i just watched this movie for the first time a couple of days ago. i found it to be a pretty pretentious film. i mean it was clearly Oscar bait.

does the fact that a movie is quaint and timey give it an excuse to uterly boring and pointless? an hour and a half into it, im thinkin', "is there going to be any conflict in this movie? i cant beleive it's an hour and a half in and nothing has happened. everyone seems to be living a pretty normal and happy life."

albeit far from the worst movie i've seen, in the context of what it is supposed to be, the movie is a complete fraud. furthermore, it did not contain one interesting character - least interesting of all: the main character.

you do not make a movie based on a man's memoirs, when a man has led an uterly normal and uneventful life - and then claim to have a "classic" on your hands.

03-02-2006, 11:16 PM	#1
KillerWolf \m/(-.-)\m/ Posts: 1,456	A River Runs Through It i just watched this movie for the first time a couple of days ago. i found it to be a pretty pretentious film. i mean it was clearly Oscar bait. does the fact that a movie is quaint and timey give it an excuse to uterly boring and pointless? an hour and a half into it, im thinkin', "is there going to be any conflict in this movie? i cant beleive it's an hour and a half in and nothing has happened. everyone seems to be living a pretty normal and happy life." albeit far from the worst movie i've seen, in the context of what it is supposed to be, the movie is a complete fraud. furthermore, it did not contain one interesting character - least interesting of all: the main character. you do not make a movie based on a man's memoirs, when a man has led an uterly normal and uneventful life - and then claim to have a "classic" on your hands.