Wich2 wrote:
That says it well, Jack. And this -

"That whole opening POV shot can go—it's "smart," but totally pointless."

- is dead on.

It is half again too clever, calls attention to itself like a sore thumb, and is a textbook example of NON-seamless filmmaking.
This is a good example of what I was asking about in the OFF TOPIC thread about  judging old movies.

I'd agree that all the POV trickery is pointless, but I'd think that when the movie was released it was rather innovative for the time, pointless or not. 

It's no perfect classic to this viewer.


It's not "perfect" to me either (so that'd make it ***1/2 of **** in my book ). But as for its classic status, I'd think that is already established.