Sometimes it's hard to see what others see

Rating: 5/10 (24 August 2010)

Usually if you find that you don't like a film which has been deemed a classic you can at least see what it may be that leads people to think so highly of the film. That is not the case with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I don't get it. I'm not seeing what so many others apparently are seeing. I see an incredibly overrated film that is not even remotely worthy of the near mythical status it has attained. Whatever it is that supposedly makes this film a classic is well and truly lost on me.
The biggest problem with the film is that nobody involved apparently could decide what kind of film it was they were making. Was it a serious Western or a comedy Western? The film ends up stuck in some sort of netherworld in between. It's much too jokey to take very seriously but not nearly funny enough to be labeled a comedy. The film tries to be multiple things and ends up not being much of anything at all. It's a film that never really convinces, things always seem a bit off. Just the very concept that the "good guys", the guys we're meant to sympathize with and root for, are actually the bad guys was always going to be a little jarring. Hooray for the train robbers! It could have worked but it really doesn't. No fault of the actors as Paul Newman and Robert Redford, Newman especially, make the characters of Butch and Sundance respectively easy to like. And Sundance's girl, played by Katharine Ross, certainly has her charms as well. But even if you end up liking these characters it's still hard to like the movie.
You would think it would be hard to make a boring movie based on the exploits of notorious bank and train robbers. But that's pretty much what we have here. This film moves at a snail's pace, moments of excitement are few and far between. The interminable chase sequence dropped into the middle of the film surely doesn't help. If I had to watch Butch peer into the distance and say "Who are those guys?" one more time I'd scream. Get on with it already. Honestly for much of its running time this movie has you desperately trying to stifle yawns. And when the movie tries to have a little fun it generally doesn't work. So many jokes which fall flat. And that famous, yet exceedingly dopey, bicycle sequence. Hard to take the movie seriously after that. Good song though. I just have no idea what in the world it's doing in this movie. One thing you can say for the movie is that it is beautifully photographed. Cinematographer Conrad Hall's Oscar was well earned. And Newman and Redford, both of course terrific actors, do have very good chemistry and Ross fits in well also. The interactions among the three lead performers provide some good moments. But there are not nearly enough of those moments to salvage the film. It's dull and drawn out, it's neither serious enough to work as a real Western or funny enough to get by on comedic value. The film just doesn't work. But it's a "classic". I don't get it.