It's a Wonderful Life

[yojimbo7248]

I'm sure there has been a thread about this movie somewhere on ronfez.net but I couldn't find it so I am starting a new one.

I don't like "It's a Wonderful Life" and when I tell people that they react as though I am calling their mother a whore. In the NY Times this week, there was an article about some of the annoying things about the movie. First of all, not only does Pottersville look like a hell of a lot more fun than Bedford Falls but it would have also have had a brighter economic future since it would be based on nightclubs and gambling rather than manufacturing, which dried up in upstate NY fairly soon after the movie came out. Also, George almost certainly would have had some jail time for taking the money even though he returned it. Most importantly, the main message of the movie seems to be that the best thing you can do is stay in your boring little town and abandon your dreams and goals of seeing the world and living a more interesting life.

Seriously, I am amazed at how angry friends and family are when I tell them I hate this movie. What do you all think - do you like this movie or not?

[Foster]

I love this movie!

I wish they would go back to playing it on every channel all night long on Christmas Eve, like they used to.
I still get tears in my eyes at certain points in the film, especially at the end when everyone comes running to George's side.
"...to my brother Gearge Bailey, the richest man in town!"
I love that scene.

I hate you for hating this movie!


by the way, I also hate those assholes who colorized this movie years ago

[yojimbo7248]

I love this movie!

I wish they would go back to playing it on every channel all night long on Christmas Eve, like they used to.
I still get tears in my eyes at certain points in the film, especially at the end when everyone comes running to George's side.
"...to my brother Gearge Bailey, the richest man in town!"
I love that scene.

I hate you for hating this movie!

You're not alone!

[Gvac]

To this day I've never been able to make it through the whole movie. It bores me to tears.

You're not alone, yojimbo.

[Foster]

To this day I've never been able to make it through the whole movie. It bores me to tears.

You're not alone, yojimbo.

you disapoint me Gvac

[Coach]

I'm sure there has been a thread about this movie somewhere on ronfez.net but I couldn't find it so I am starting a new one.

I don't like "It's a Wonderful Life" and when I tell people that they react as though I am calling their mother a whore. In the NY Times this week, there was an article about some of the annoying things about the movie. First of all, not only does Pottersville look like a hell of a lot more fun than Bedford Falls but it would have also have had a brighter economic future since it would be based on nightclubs and gambling rather than manufacturing, which dried up in upstate NY fairly soon after the movie came out. Also, George almost certainly would have had some jail time for taking the money even though he returned it. Most importantly, the main message of the movie seems to be that the best thing you can do is stay in your boring little town and abandon your dreams and goals of seeing the world and living a more interesting life.

Seriously, I am amazed at how angry friends and family are when I tell them I hate this movie. What do you all think - do you like this movie or not?
What money did he take? His drunk idiot of an uncle wrapped the deposit in a newspaper and stupidly dropped it in Potter's lap.

[Foster]

What money did he take? His drunk idiot of an uncle wrapped the deposit in a newspaper and stupidly dropped it in Potter's lap.

He didn't take any money, but he was accused of taking the money his uncle lost.

[yojimbo7248]

I know I am fighting a losing battle and I am not going to convince anyone who loves the movie to criticize it. I just thought I would cut and past the part of the article that deals with the misplaced funds:

And what about that banking issue? When he returns to the “real” Bedford Falls, George is saved by his friends, who open their wallets to cover an $8,000 shortfall at his savings and loan brought about when the evil Mr. Potter snatched a deposit mislaid by George’s idiot uncle, Billy (Thomas Mitchell).

But isn’t George still liable for the missing funds, even if he has made restitution? I mean, if someone robs a bank, and then gives the money back, that person still robbed the bank, right?

I checked my theory with Frank J. Clark, the district attorney for Erie County upstate, where, as far as I can tell, the fictional Bedford Falls is set. He thought it over, and then agreed: George would still face prosecution and possible prison time.

“In terms of the theft, sure, you take the money and put it back, you still committed the larceny,” he said. “By giving the money back, you have mitigated in large measure what the sentence might be, but you are still technically guilty of the offense.”

He took this a bit further: “If you steal over $3,000, it’s a D felony; 2 ½ to 7 years is the maximum term for that. The least you can get is probation. You know Jimmy Stewart, though, he had that hangdog face. He’d be a tough guy to send to jail.”

[Sinestro]

It's a movie. All reality based deals and conditions are thrown out the window.......unless it's one of those "based on real life events" flicks.

[Foster]

I know I am fighting a losing battle and I am not going to convince anyone who loves the movie to criticize it. I just thought I would cut and past the part of the article that deals with the misplaced funds:

And what about that banking issue? When he returns to the “real” Bedford Falls, George is saved by his friends, who open their wallets to cover an $8,000 shortfall at his savings and loan brought about when the evil Mr. Potter snatched a deposit mislaid by George’s idiot uncle, Billy (Thomas Mitchell).

But isn’t George still liable for the missing funds, even if he has made restitution? I mean, if someone robs a bank, and then gives the money back, that person still robbed the bank, right?

I checked my theory with Frank J. Clark, the district attorney for Erie County upstate, where, as far as I can tell, the fictional Bedford Falls is set. He thought it over, and then agreed: George would still face prosecution and possible prison time.

“In terms of the theft, sure, you take the money and put it back, you still committed the larceny,” he said. “By giving the money back, you have mitigated in large measure what the sentence might be, but you are still technically guilty of the offense.”

He took this a bit further: “If you steal over $3,000, it’s a D felony; 2 ½ to 7 years is the maximum term for that. The least you can get is probation. You know Jimmy Stewart, though, he had that hangdog face. He’d be a tough guy to send to jail.”

This is a movie where an angel came down and showed a man what life for his loved ones would be liked if he was never born. I think that fact that he may have been charged with larceny can be over looked.

[GreatAmericanZero]

not only have i never seen "its a wonderful life", i've never even attempt to watch it

just never had any interest to

[hammersavage]

It's the only Christmas movie that has an emotional effect on me.

I guess because I've seen it every year since I was 4 but it deals with actual life and death and promotes to positive aspects of Christmas.

[EliSnow]

Jail time? No way he gets convicted for larceny. Look at the facts established by the movie.

The last scene and the whole movie showed how the Building and Loan allowed people to move out of Potter's slums and get a home. Given all that George Bailey did for the town of Bedford Falls (and that his brother's a war hero), a jury in Bedford Falls would be unlikely to convict Bailey.

At the very least, you'll have numerous character witnesses who will testify about how selfless George is: forgoing his own dreams, putting his brother through school, giving his freaking honeymoon money to people during the bank run, donating his time, etc.. And yet, this guy allegedly stole money?

Plus, add to the fact that the DA would have to prove that he actually stole the money, and you need an intent to take the money for larceny. Just because Potter swore out a warrant for his arrest doesn't mean that it will be easy to prove the above elements. With the testimony of the uncle and the other co-workers is that the uncle had the money, but misplaced it, and the uncle was well-known to be forgetful, providnig intent will be improbable, especially to a biased jury.

And he's likely to have a very good attorney. His high school friend Sam Wainwright is wealthy, and the last scene showed that he would provide any amount necessary to help George.

I think the DA would likely not prosecute given the forgoing (and the restitution) or would plead it out to a minor offense with no jail time.

And if he didn't, George has a guardian angel who was able to create an alternate reality to prove a point to George, I say a conviction is improbable.

So really if you want to be critical, and not have a suspension of disbelief, then look at all the facts. George Bailey ain't going to jail.

[razorboy]

I don't dislike the movie, but give me the Bogart, Ustinov, Ray 'We're No Angels' anyday. Now that will get my waterworks going.

[mendyweiss]

I actually preffered Pottersville to Bedford Falls.
Booze, Broads lining the streets, much more happening place !!

[drjoek]

Potter is one of the greatest movie villians on screen. The speech he gives to George when he crawls back to him asking him for money is classis

[PD]

I don't dislike the movie, but give me the Bogart, Ustinov, Ray 'We're No Angels' anyday. Now that will get my waterworks going.

pretty much there.
It is the typical Frank Capra fare- simple story where good triumphs.
One reason this movie is so popular is that it was in the public domain for so many years - and those years were prior to the explosion of cable channels- so it was on so often.

I'll watch it, but its not as good as some like to remember.

Mr Smith goes to Washington and Lost Horizons are much better Capra films.