The Great Gatsby (1974)

Directed by	Jack Clayton

Screenplay by	Francis Ford Coppola

Cinematography	Douglas Slocombe

Nick Carraway, a young Midwesterner now living on Long Island, finds himself fascinated by the mysterious past and lavish lifestyle of his neighbor, the nouveau riche Jay Gatsby. He is drawn into Gatsby’s circle, becoming a witness to obsession and tragedy.

Excellent(If No-Frills) DVD

13 December 2003 | by westegg (New York) – See all my reviews

So much for hoping for a special edition DVD of this undervalued movie. Not even a trailer! But at least the movie has never looked better, and the original music soundtrack has been fully restored, so I’m not about to complain any further. Ever since its release this film has been battered with wildly vicious criticisms. Maybe that can be better reserved for the genuinely numbing and off key 2001 TV version, which makes this version look better than ever. This version, to me, improves with every viewing–it’s peculiar rhythms and deliberately sedate pace does work very well, creating a mood not easily comparable to other movies. Then too, look at director Jack Clayton’s movie, THE INNOCENTS (1960), which shares a bit of this studied approach.

I’m glad this Gatsby version wasn’t reduced to a quick and vulgarized romp; instead Clayton took a more intellectual tone, very nicely counterpointed with a superb array of period music. The crowning touch, Irving Berlin’s “What’ll I Do,” is a match made in heaven, both the song and the novel having appeared within a year of each other in 1925. As for the DVD, it now highlights to maximum effect the evocative, first rate cinematography and art direction (what were those other commentators thinking–were they watching a duped VHS?), etc. Too bad a 30th anniversary edition couldn’t have happened in 2004, but I’m more than pleased this has been given its chance on DVD. I agree that the novel’s literary aspects defies easy transformation into a movie, but we are more than fortunate that this 1974 film version is as haunting and quietly moving an experience that it is.

Too Faithful Adaptation Dampens the Many Qualities of an Elaborate Production

Author: Ed Uyeshima from San Francisco, CA, USA
11 August 2006

It seems something of a shame how maligned the extravagant 1974 movie version of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s literary masterwork was when it was originally released. So much media hype surrounded the production, including a Scarlett O’Hara-level search for the right actress to play Daisy Buchanan, that it was bound to disappoint, and it did critically and financially. It’s simply not that bad. Interestingly, looking at the film over thirty years later, I am taken by how faithful the movie is to the original book both in text and period atmosphere. The central problem, however, is that Jack Clayton’s overly deliberate direction and Francis Ford Coppola’s literate screenplay are really too faithful to the book to the point where the spirit of Fitzgerald’s story becomes flattened and plot developments are paced too slowly. The result is an evocative but overlong 144-minute epic movie based on a novel that is really quite intimate in scope.

The focus of the plot is still the interrupted love story between Jay Gatsby and his object of desire, Daisy. Narrating the events is Nick Carraway, Gatsby’s modest Long Island neighbor who becomes his most trusted confidante. Nick is responsible for reuniting the lovers who both have come to different points in their lives five years after their aborted romance. Now a solitary figure in his luxurious mansion, Gatsby is a newly wealthy man who accumulated his fortunes through dubious means. Daisy, on the other hand, has always led a life of privilege and could not let love stand in the way of her comfortable existence. She married Tom Buchanan for that sole purpose. With Gatsby’s ambition spurred by his love for Daisy, he rekindles his romance with Daisy, as Tom carries on carelessly with Myrtle Wilson, an auto mechanic’s grasping wife.

Nick himself gets caught up in the jet set trappings and has a relationship with Jordan Baker, a young golf pro. The characters head for a collision, figuratively and literally, that exposes the hypocrisy of the rich, the falsity of a love undeserving and the transience of individuals on this earth.

Casting is crucial, and surprisingly, most of the actors fulfill the characters well. Robert Redford, at the height of his box office appeal, plays Gatsby with the right enigmatic quality. As Daisy, Mia Farrow captures the romanticism and shallowness of a character that ultimately does not deserve the love she receives.

Even if she appears overly breathy and pretentious, her frequently trying performance still fits Fitzgerald’s image of the character. Bruce Dern makes an appropriately despicable Tom Buchanan, while Karen Black has scant screen time as the trashy Myrtle. A very young Sam Waterson makes the ideal Nick with his genuine manner and touching naiveté, and Lois Chiles is all throaty posturing as Jordan. As expected, all the exterior touches are luxuriant and feel period-authentic – Theoni V. Aldredge’s costumes, John Box’s production design, Douglas Slocombe’s elegant cinematography, and the pervasive use of 1920’s hits, in particular, Irving Berlin’s wistful “What’ll I Do?” as the recurring love theme. The film is worth a look if you have not seen it and a second one if you haven’t seen it in a while. It’s actually better if you’ve already read the book. The 2003 DVD has a nice print transfer but sadly no extras.

Don’t judge a book by its movie.

Author: FilmWiz from Setauket, NY, USA
4 February 2006

This version tries to stay very true to the roots of the story. It’s greatest detriment is its lavish budget, made evident from scenery and costuming. Coppola does an admirable job with his script, but it is impossible to fail to realize that he borrowed heavily from the source material, often citing it verbatim. In this sense, the plot is very faithful to the novel. The film fails to recapture the feel, mood, and spirit of the novel and of the twenties. Fitzgerald made Gatsby a very personal character. For him, there was always something unattainable; and for Gatsby, it was Daisy, the lost love of his life, forever symbolized by a flashing green light at her dock.

When it doesn’t try, the film captures the mood of the twenties. This is especially true during Gatsby’s first party, showing people being themselves. The majority the cast, particularly Mia Farrow, and with the exception of Bruce Dern (Tom Buchanan) play their parts as if they were silent actors. Even the flickering quality of silent film seems to haunt this film stock. It goes without saying the acting was overdone for the most part. This is true of the essence of the characters and of the times, although in the film, it is overkill. The set decoration was visually pleasing and it effectively captured the mood of each scene and the twenties.

This film, more than anything else, is a scary attempt of a tribute. In the novel, the green light, and the T.J. Eckleburg sign had significant meanings. Stranded in the film, they remain merely stripped objects. The set seems to attempt to “fix” Fitzgerald’s descriptions. Where in the book, Daisy and Tom Buchanan’s home is very inviting, the film drowns in whites and yellows in the film.

Actors aren’t exploited to its potential. Clayton fails to give us a relatable Gatsby, a crucial element to the novel. Redford could have played Gatsby very well. It’s not his fault that he doesn’t. When we are introduced to Gatsby, it’s through a low-angle shot of a figure seen against the night sky, framed by marble. This isn’t the quiet, unsure, romantic Gatsby on his doomed quest. This is the arrogant, loud and obnoxious Charles Kane, who knows he’s rich and isn’t shy about it. The scene where Gatsby symbolically reaches out to snatch the green light stays true to the book, but looks stupid on film.

Three essential scenes make the film seem even less credible. These are times where it is essential to portray Gatsby as the one we know and love from the novel. The first is the original meeting between Gatsby and Nick.

Redford’s inarticulate and formality with Nick is laughable. It’s the first time we hear him talk, and he’s so mannered that the acting upstages the content of the scene. Nick is supposed to be so relaxed he doesn’t realize that he’s talking to a millionaire. Changing the location of this scene from in the party to the office is the cause for this dramatic awkwardness. This has to have been Clayton’s doing. This changes Gatsby’s character, and he Gatsby isn’t as sure of himself as the book had made us believe. Doesn’t that have to be Clayton’s fault? Using The Sting, Butch Cassidy and The Candidate as examples, we know Redford has enough versatility to play this scene several other, better ways. In the Gatsby and Daisy reunion (crucial moments to the picture) we see Gatsby’s smiling and Daisy’s stunned reaction held for so long, we wonder why Nick just doesn’t go out and smoke one cigarette, come back, and go outside again to smoke another one.

He’d go through a whole pack. Any tension we might have had has been fed to ridiculousness. The other plot cliché that further adds to this product of celluloid silliness is Gatsby’s final scene. The way this is presented may work on stage and it certainly would work in a silent film, but here it is so hackneyed, so irreversibly awkward that any suspense is gone, and it looks silly.

The message of the novel, in my opinion, is that although Gatsby is a crook and has dealt with the likes of Meyer Wolfsheim, gamblers and bootleggers, he is still a romantic, naive, and heroic boy of the Midwest. His idealism is doomed in the confrontation with the Buchanan recklessness. This isn’t clear in the movie.

We are told more than shown. The soundtrack contains Nick’s narration, often verbatim from the novel. We don’t feel much of what we’re supposed to feel because of the overproduction and clichés. Even the actors seem somewhat shied away from their characters because of this. We can’t figure out why Gatsby’s so “Great”, or why Gatsby thinks that Daisy is so special. Mia Farrow’s portrayal of Daisy falls flat of the novel’s description. The musical quality of her voice has been replaced with shrills, and her sophistication has been stripped of her complexity. This is extremely evident by her Clara Bow acting style in this picture, especially in the scene where Redford is throwing his shirts on the floor and she starts crying.

How could a screenplay that borrowed so much of Fitzgerald’s novel be portrayed so inaccurately? When one reads a novel, it is up to the author to create his symbolisms from scratch. When a book is transformed into a film, the filmmakers must be sure to covey the symbols more than by merely showing them.

They must still be carefully developed, whether by dialogue or more action. In the novel it works well. When translated to film symbolism is lost in translation.

As a film on its own, the technical qualities are excellent, and can be more than worth your while catching at least an hour’s worth just for the scenery, costuming, and for the few great scenes that successfully convey the twenties.

Much better than you think…!

Author: canuckteach from Canada
1 June 2008

After weighing in on the Boards about this terrific film, it’s about time I posted a review, since I do have it on my Top-20 list! I love period-pieces, especially those set in the era of, say, 1918-1938. Hence, ‘Eight Men Out’, ‘Great Gatsby’, and ‘Sting’ are in my Top-20, and, of course, Redford appears in two of those. Redford had the required screen presence, and acting talent to play Gatsby.

Those who criticize the film or Redford’s interpretation are, to me, just over-analyzing or too caught up in comparisons with the fabulous novel by F. Scott. In addition to superb acting from Redford and a great ensemble cast, the costumes, music and fabulous sets/photography give this flick plenty to recommend.

I have read the book a few times — I view it as a great American tragedy. But tragedies about larger-than-life characters are not so easy to reproduce on-screen. Anyway, maybe half the viewers haven’t read the book; so, for a screenplay writer, it’s a dilemma. Maybe *this* particular tragic role – a man who builds fabulous wealth in just a few years, a man who suddenly can compete with the N.Y. aristocracy in attracting the rich and famous to his parties, a man who does it all to reclaim the rich ‘jewel’ he lost in his youth, a man who gambles it all on one shake of the dice – is, like King Lear, almost too surreal to be performed. Think of it that way, and watch Redford again.

He is brilliant. And if you want to see the role messed up, watch A&E’s 2004 version. Thirty years to try to improve? And they produce an interpretation of Gatsby I call the ‘grinning idiot’.

I’ve never heard Redford comment on the mixed opinions about his Gatsby portrayal, but I’ll guess he knows he got it right, and there wasn’t anyone else with the required taste and style to outfit this role. (And as Michael Caine so deftly expressed it in ‘Dirty Rotten Scoundrels’, “Taste and style are commodities that people desire..”). You’d be hard-pressed to name a current American actor with the same charisma (so, you go to the U.K. and get Jude Law or Ralph Fiennes, right?).

I’ll touch on the comment of one frustrated IMDb reviewer who wondered why they changed how Nick meets Gatsby. In the movie, Gatsby’s compact but sinister bodyguard (who has just decked a guy the size of a Buick) quietly leads Nick upstairs to Gatsby’s private study. As soon as Redford appears, we know – and Nick knows – that it’s Gatsby. In the book, Nick is having a conversation at a table with an amiable fellow who turns out to be Gatsby! Can you imagine filming a scene with a character chatting with Redford and – surprise – it turns out to be Gatsby? (A&E tried it that way in 2004 – note my ‘grinning idiot’ comment above). Furthermore, this reference to Gatsby’s protective layer helps us to identify his tragic blunder later on: he fires his household help for the sake of privacy once his romance with Daisy blooms. That decision is costly.

The book was described somewhere as a ‘story in perfect balance’. In practice, that includes characters that are neither too villainous nor too heroic — neither too loose (morally) nor too prudish. Our eyes and ears for the story, Nick, probably does not whole-heartedly approve of Tom’s fling with Myrtle, but he’s not about to blow the whistle on him either. He observes, and goes along for the fun with a crowd that clearly is more prosperous than he is. Later, he has good reason to assist in brokering the romance between Daisy and Gatsby (Nick has a growing friendship with Gatsby – and he is no big fan of Tom). At the same time, he finds Gatsby’s affectations a bit annoying – and he only pays him one compliment (at the end – remember? “they’re a rotten crowd – you’re worth more than the whole lot of them put together”).

Anyway, once again, portraying all this on screen is no easy matter. So, relax and enjoy the show, a sparkling period-piece that relates to us a tragic tale about the folly of wealth. Meantime, I will try to track down the 1949 version with Alan Ladd, to see how *they* did!

9/10 – canuckteach (–:

Batman: The Movie (1966)

Directed by	Leslie H. Martinson

Batman, often promoted as Batman: The Movie, is a 1966 American superhero film based on the Batman television series, and the first full-length theatrical adaptation of the DC Comics character Batman. Released by 20th Century Fox, the film starred Adam West as Batman and Burt Ward as Robin.

Released in July, the film hit theaters two months after the last episode of the first season of the television series. The film includes most members of the original TV cast, with the exception of Lee Meriwether as Catwoman, the character previously played by Julie Newmar in two episodes of the series’ first season.

The arch-villains of the United Underworld – the Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler and the Catwoman – combine forces to dispose of Batman and Robin as they launch their fantastic plot to control the entire world. From his submarine, Penguin and his cohorts hijack a yacht containing a dehydrator, which can extract all moisture from humans and reduce them to particles of dust. The evildoers turn the nine Security Council members in the United World Building into nine vials of multicolored crystals! Batman and Robin track the villains in their Batboat and use Batcharge missiles to force the submarine to surface.

It’s a “Splash!” of good times

30 November 2003 | by Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) (Chicago, Illinois) – See all my reviews

Batman, the best superhero of all time is finally in techni-color. And is coming to a DVD near us. Sorry, just had to get that out, I mean this movie leaves you will a cheesy goodness that is Batman.

I know a lot of people always criticize and make fun of the series, but I don’t understand how anyone could hate this? Yeah, it’s a complete turn around from the original comic books, but it’s just non stop laughter and even the actors were aware of that. You just have to love the sprays that Batman has, “Shark repellent”? LOL! Not to mention the fun villains who are just so “filthy and diabolical”.

I am in love with this script, I mean, it’s so cheesy, but it did it on purpose. Like when Batman finds out the true identity of Catwoman and Robin says “Holy Heartbreak!”. Or my favorite scene that is possibly my favorite scene of all time, where Batman has a bomb in his hands and is trying to get it out of people’s way so they won’t get killed, but no matter what he keeps bumping into the same marching band in the streets or finding people in the way, and finally he just sighs and says “Some days you just can’t get rid of a bomb”. CLASSIC! Please, watch this movie, it’s beyond hilarious, just pay the $5.99 for the movie!

9/10

Brilliant parody of 1940’s serials

Author: CatTales from United States
11 March 2001

I’m dismayed by the reviewers who compare this with the bloated, boring Batman movies of 1980-90’s. It was always intended as comedy, and the special effcts, acting, etc., were designed to that effect. Maybe it’s okay in comic books but can anyone take seriously a bunch of crazy hero/villains running around in capes and tights? You have to look back to those 13 chapter sci-fi serials of the 1940’s to get the show/movie: each chapter ended with the heroes getting blown up, then the next chapter showed the last 5 minuts of the previous chapter except with the added footage showing the hero’s escape.

Then another 5 minutes of the characters recapping the entire story for the benefit of the audience if they hadn’t seen the previous chapters. Quite amusing to watch today (I would recommend “Lost City of the Jungle” which loosely inspired Indiana Jones, and has those credits that stream up the screen like in Star Wars). That’s why the Batman series were always 2-parters with ridiculous cliff hanger endings, with Batman uttering “If I can only reach my utility belt…” Adam West’s performance can only be characterised as sublimely surreal: he really deserves an award. The only thing that comes close to this is Mystery Men, which many also unfortunately don’t seem to get.

“Oh, the delicious irony of it all!”

Author: The_Movie_Cat from England
15 May 2001

Having, losing, gaining… to a generation of kids this WAS Batman. Only when Tim Burton reinvented the big screen perception of the “caped crusader” did it become outdated.

The third of the new films, Batman Forever parodied this film and the series with a “holy” joke. Unfortunately the movie in question was the first to be directed by Joel Schumacher, and so was consequently brash and bereft of wit. Yes, thanks to ShoeMaker this version of Gotham has suddenly become the coolest yet again.

It’s all such brilliant fun, awash with the irony so gloriously absent from Batman & Robin. Michael Keaton was a wonderfully dark Batman, but the other two were planks. Adam West is knowingly hammy as the title role, and relishes the deliberately cheesy lines. He has a potbelly and a costume that looks like it was made out of an old binliner. Anyone who cannot see the genius of that is beyond help. Burt Ward’s brilliantly overacted Robin is also hilarious, and far less irritating than the asinine Chris O’Donnell version.

The Batmobile is ace, too. I remember having a chunky Corgi model of the car that shot out matchsticks across the room. Much better than a CGI-enhanced penile extension. Even the rubbish filmed backdrops are fun. Everything’s a bat-something in this film, a rope ladder having a large “Bat Ladder” sign tied to the end.

This is a fantastic movie, how could anyone not love it? Some hilarious scenes include the shark fight, the trap door spring and Batman with the biggest (and longest-fused) bomb in history. Look at this dialogue exchange where they try to work out which supervillain is behind the mayhem: “But wait! It happened at sea. See? C for Catwoman.” “An exploding shark … was pulling my leg.” “The Joker! It all led to a sinister riddle. Riddle -er. Riddler?”

Fortunately, it turns out they’re all involved, along with Burgess Meredith as the Penguin. The scenes set on the villains’ hideout are shot with the camera at slanted angles, an inspired touch. All the poor things about this film work in its favour – Cesar Romero as the Joker looks about 80 and clearly hasn’t bothered to shave off his moustache, but it works, as does the full-bore “acting” of Meredith and Merriwether. Only Frank Gorshin as the Riddler slightly disappoints; though that’s because he’s nowhere near as over the top. He is, of course, infinitely preferable to Jim Carrey. Anyway, they all work superbly together and the film doesn’t feel top-heavy. A huge flaw of the new series, where more than one villain never quite clicked, can you imagine Nicholson, Pfeiffer, Carrey and DeVito all in the same movie? Of course it’d be impossible not just in budget but in egos, so having modest TV actors here serves the story well.

One strange element of characterisation is seeing the Joker getting bossed around by the Penguin, something that would never happen in the comics.

Some of it’s so wilfully silly it almost goes too far. If you put your tongue into your cheek you may choke, and seeing a Pentagon head playing tiddlywinks eggs the joke a little, though the whole thing is so well-meaning that you simply can’t hold it against the movie. The plot, though, really isn’t up to much at all, something I never noticed as a child (but then I never realised it was a comedy when I was a child, either). A repetitious sequence of events that sees the villains constantly trying to destroy Batman and Robin from afar, the heroes trying to locate their secret base. It goes round in circles, but a glorious “Biff! Pow!” fight on a submarine and a sideways swipe at eugenics make sure it all ends in style.

Lastly, look out for the scene where Ward and West run up and down on the spot (“Luckily we’re in tip-top condition!”) while a film background of a street and the theme tune play – a classic. Simple, silly fun and almost relentlessly appealing. So much so I nearly added another point to the total… 6/10.

‘Sometimes you just can’t get rid of a bomb!”

Author: phillindholm
1 June 2007

1966 was, among many other things, the year of “Batman”. This campy color TV series (very) loosely based on the classic comic strip, was originally planned for a fall debut. But the ABC network which commissioned the show, had already seen several of their new programs fail dismally in the ratings. Desperate for some promising new material. they gave “Batman” the green light, and it premiered in January. Thanks to it’s ‘hip’ humor, an eye-popping kaleidoscope of bizarre color backgrounds and a cast of “guest villains” second to none: Julie Newmar, Cesar Romero, Anne Baxter, Burgess Meredith (the list goes on and on) the show was an immediate smash.

Suddenly, America became “batty” and it’s popularity was so great that stars scrambled for a chance to appear on the program. Along with its ratings, success came the brilliant merchandising campaign – everything from bubble gum cards and records to underwear and cereal. Inevitably, a movie was planned, supposedly either to introduce audiences to the show (which wasn’t necessary after all, because the program was picked up first) or to sell the series overseas. It’s main function, of course, was to cash in on the Batmania flooding the country while it was still hot. So, with a slightly bigger budget – mainly to accommodate the construction of the batboat and the batcopter, a feature version of the show was quickly filmed between the end of the first season and the beginning of the second.

By the time of the movie’s release in August 1966, however, the Batman craze had already begun to fade. The critics, for the most part, dismissed the film and audiences chose to ignore it. And, in recent years, there has been some speculation as to what happened. Although it has been written that Twentieth Century-Fox did little to inform the public that this was a project made exclusively for the big screen and not (as with “The Man from Uncle”) a compilation of previously seen television episodes edited into a feature. In fact, the movie was promoted both in advertising materials (trailers, posters, etc) and magazine features as being “All New, Made Especially for the Giant Motion Picture Screen”. It appears that the viewing public felt that it was probably just more of the same, figuring there was no point in paying to see what they got for free at home. So, despite mass bookings in every theater available, the film came and went. But, seen today, “Batman” holds up well, capturing perfectly what was one of the biggest fads to come along in the sixties.

Adam West and Burt Ward personify the clueless but virtuous Superheroes – always ready for a challenge, and, as usual, lionized by their puny police force led by Commissioner Gordon (Neil Hamilton) and Chief O’Hara (Stafford Repp). Alfred, alter-ego Bruce Wayne’s faithful butler (Alan Napier) and Harriet Cooper (Madge Blake), aunt of Robin’s alter ego Dick Grayson are on hand as well. The chief delight here though, are the four Supervillains – The Catwoman (Lee Meriwether, subbing for Julie Newmar), The Penguin (a rakish Burgess Meredith), The Joker (onetime Latin lover Cesar Romero) and The Riddler (a manic Frank Gorshin). The plot, the usual nonsense involving this crew’s attempt at world domination, serves as a suitable background for sight gags and pratfalls galore.

Meriwether and Meredith are the Villains with the most footage, each getting to disguise themselves during the course of the story. Posing as Russian reporter Miss Kitka, and sporting a commendably convincing accent, the incredibly lovely Meriwether is (understandably) successful in a scheme to lure Bruce Wayne into a kidnapping, hoping Batman will dash to the rescue! Meredith is not quite as able, in his guise as the villain’s hostage Commodore Schmidlapp, though he does manage to get into the secret Batcave. And the plot thickens…West and Ward perform their chores with appropriately deadpan dispatch, but, as usual, the devils have the best parts, with Lee Meriwether offering a deliciously different interpretation of The Catwoman, and Burgess Meredith, who was born to play The Penguin, standing out. Batman is great fun both for younger viewers (who won’t pick up on the intentional parody) and older ones (who will). “Holy time capsule!” Sevaral years ago, a wide screen DVD was released.

It boasts an excellent transfer, Stereo sound and many extras, including a running commentary track with West and Ward, trailers, still galleries, and new featurettes about the film, and the Batmobile, with creator George Barris. A MUST for Batfans!

Holy marathon Batman.

Author: Spikeopath from United Kingdom
13 June 2008

The Joker, The Riddler, The Penguin & Catwoman have joined forces to wreak havoc on Gotham City……and then the World! Can Batman & Robin save the day?

Remember when Batman was fun? Not a serious scene in sight, no tales of revenge or personal demons to burst from the screen in a day glow burst of thunder. For many of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s this was the only Batman that mattered, pure unadulterated fun, all campy veneer and skin tight Technicolor suits. This full length outing for the dynamic duo is of course just an extended episode from the joyous TV series, just add a bit more money and you got a Bat Boat, a Bat Helicopter and erm, erm, Bat Shark Repellent! It’s just wonderful I tell you.

How any of the actors kept straight faces is anyones guess, but they did, and they collectively delighted millions of children and like minded adults in a way that can’t be described to the none believers, thank holy god for the caped crusaders that always kept us safe. 8/10

Footnote: Watching now in my middle years I ask any red blooded male this; is there anything more sexy than Lee Meriwether in the Catwoman suit? No wonder my Dad was a fan of the show back then………..

Cheesy, a great comedy.

Author: LebowskiT1000 from Escondido, California, USA
4 October 2002

I seriously hope that the director intended this film to be a comedy and didn’t want the audience to actually take Batman seriously, because after a few minutes of this film, all seriousness is thrown out the window.

When I was young, I used to watch the old Batman TV series, so I kind of knew what to expect, but it has been quite some time since I’ve seen any of those episodes. The film was far cheesier and sillier that I expected. With all that said, I actually liked the film. I didn’t think it was an excellent film, but it was worth my time.

Adam West and Burt Ward are hilarious in this film. The way they say things just cracks me up. The cast of evil-doers are quite good and funny as well: Lee Meriwether, Cesar Romero, Burgess Meredith, and Frank Gorshin. The rest of the cast pulls off a good performance as well.

I don’t know that I would recommend this film to everyone, but if you’re a fan of superhero films or just like old campy movies, then this is the film for you. If you do see it, I hope you enjoy it. Thanks for reading,

-Chris

Camp, At It’s “Best”

Author: Ryan from King of Prussia, PA
13 February 2005
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is not the Tim Burton, Michael Keaton “Batman”. This is pure West, Adam West that is, playing Batman only the way he knows how, pure camp. Is the acting over the top? Yes. Is the story silly? Yes. Is there Bat-shark Repellant? Yes. Did I enjoy the movie? Very Much Yes. If you are looking for a movie to play it straight, be the dark, super-hero movie that Tim Burton produced in the late 1980s, you’ll be in for a bitter disappointment.

The story, for what it’s worth, has all of the Batman villains coming together to dream up a plan to take over the world. The plan? It’s not important, but if you must know, it involves dehydrating the members of the United World Nations, or whatever the UN is called in the movie, then running the world from the Penguins submarine. It’s pure camp, silly, but still entertaining.

Even though it is often described (like many contemporary shows) as a parody of a popular comic-book character, some commentators believe that its comedy is not so tightly confined. They felt the film’s depiction of the Caped Crusader “captured the feel of the contemporary comics perfectly”. The film was, they remind us, made at a time when “the Batman of the Golden Age comics was already essentially neutered.”

Certain elements verge into direct parody of the history of Batman. The movie, like the TV series, is strongly influenced by the comparatively obscure 1940s serials of Batman, such as the escapes done almost out of luck. The penchant for giving devices a “Bat-” prefix and the dramatic use of stylized title cards during fight scenes acknowledge some of the conventions that the character had accumulated in various media. However, the majority of Batman‘s campier moments can be read as a broader parody on contemporary mid-1960s culture in general.

Furthermore, the movie represented Batman’s first major foray into Cold War issues paying heavy attention to Polaris Missiles, war surplus submarines and taking a poke at the Pentagon. The inclusion of a glory-hunting presidential character and the unfavorable portrayal of Security Council Members marked Batman’s first attempts to poke fun at domestic and international politics.

Batman premiered at the Paramount Theatre in Austin, Texas on July 30, 1966 (between the first and second seasons of the TV series); it was moderately successful at the box office. The Batboat featured in the film was created by Austin-based company Glastron, whose payment was in having the film premiere in their hometown. In conjunction with the premiere, Jean Boone of Austin CBS affiliate station KTBC interviewed the film’s cast, including Lee Meriwether, Cesar Romero, and Adam West.

ABC, the network which previously aired the Batman television series, first broadcast the film on the July 4, 1971 edition of The ABC Sunday Night Movie; the film was quickly rebroadcast on ABC September 4 of that year. The film was released on VHS in 1985 by Playhouse Video, in 1989 by CBS/Fox Video, and in 1994 by Fox Video. The film was released on DVD in 2001, and re-released July 1, 2008 on DVD and on Blu-ray.

Reception

The film has received generally positive reviews over the years. On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an 80% rating based on 30 reviews, with an average rating of 6.2/10. The site’s consensus states: “Batman: The Movie elevates camp to an art form — and has a blast doing it, every gloriously tongue-in-cheek inch of the way.”Bill Gibron of Filmcritic.com gave the film 3 out of 5 stars: “Unlike other attempts at bringing these characters to life…the TV cast really captures the inherent insanity of the roles.” Variety magazine stated on their review that “the intense innocent enthusiasm of Cesar Romero, Burgess Meredith and Frank Gorshin as the three criminals is balanced against the innocent calm of Adam West and Burt Ward, Batman and Robin respectively.”

HOLY INSERT-JOKE-HERE! this is one of the corniest, awesome/camp movies ever made!

Author: MisterWhiplash from United States
2 July 2008

Try not to put it too much, at all, in line with the other Batman movies, first of all. The difference between Christopher Nolan’s Batman films and the 1960’s TV show and subsequent spin-off movie is the difference between a hat and a boot- they both fit, but never in the same sections (unless one likes walking on a hat or wearing a boot). Weird comparison? Try some of the one-liners in this movie, man! This is filled with so much comedy, both intentional and not so, one has to keep a tally on when things are meant to be crazy and when they just are by design of whatever’s going on in the low-budget but high concept stratosphere. This is NOT your darker, Frank Miller/Grant Morrison/Alan Moore Batman work, but rather the by-product of a period where superheroes were just frigging goofy. And, hey, why not camp it up for all it’s worth?

My high rating for this movie is and isn’t ironic. It’s got some of the cheesiest, lamest, most “what-in-Jebuz-were-they-thinking” sets and props (the shark is something Ed Wood would’ve cut out), dialog exchanges and super-obvious stereotypes (not the least of which on commies but also the UN room!), and it looks like half of its 30-day shooting schedule was used to play ping-pong when things got boring on the set. It is at its core for Bob Kane’s creation what the 1978 Holiday Special was the George Lucas’s Star Wars: it’s so bad it’s truly and utterly awesome for every moment it can squeeze out a frame. Watch it with friends, make wisecracks right alongside the characters, make your own Joker makeup and put it over your mustache, and try and put out of your mind “HOLY ALMOST!”

BUT, at the same time, some of the writing by Lorenzo Semple Jr is, genuinely, clever and well-worded. Amid the stupidity and pandering and things that only kids would think are somewhat OK in the comic-book setting (and even I when I saw this as a kid knew it was WAY outside of the usual Batman ground), one marvels at some of the puns and gags and things that work, tremendously. And to be certain the bomb gag, with Batman running around trying to bypass nuns and ducks and babies is something that is about as close to Monty Python as one could ever hope for the dark knight, and it’s pure genius. The film also boasts its all-star cast (save for Catwoman who was replaced momentarily), whom all chew up scenery like it’s fillet mignon at the Old Homestead.

The camera-person, too, is often in on the weird excitement, and has the kinds of tilted angles and perspectives one would normally see in a Terry Gilliam freak-out. Did I mention the weirdly awkward ending that seems resolved but has the air of uncertainty for no reason?

Batman is a delightful bad-movie masterpiece, a not-totally guilty pleasure that you can’t turn away from for a moment but realize is everything you wouldn’t want Batman to be if taken at all seriously. For its time and place it came, it saw, and it conquered a good portion of the audience for three seasons and a cheap flick. And I love every second of it.

Too many crooks spoil the froth …

Author: Merwyn Grote (majikstl@aol.com) from St. Louis, Missouri
17 July 2005

Okay, Adam West will never be thought of as a great actor. But to West’s credit, he is the only one of all the Batmen to actually give the character any personality. All the subsequent movie Batmen — Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney and Christian Bale — made their mark as Bruce Wayne, but simply disappeared into their costumes when they transformed into Batman. Logical, perhaps, given the demands of the role; it is what they should do, if they were, indeed, to be real-life superheroes, anonymity supposedly being a vital requirement.

But West, with his deadpan yet archly melodramatic delivery, tied the alter egos together, making it all the more ridiculous that Batman could not be recognized as Bruce Wayne. The same was true of Burt Ward’s Robin/Dick Grayson. Yet, as transparent as their disguises were, and as arch and campy as their performance were likely to get, there was something more courageous — as well as outrageous — about their interpretation of The Dynamic Duo. They didn’t “strike fear into the hearts” of criminals through intimidation as dark and threatening symbols of nighttime vengeance, but rather by being incorruptible symbols of goodness and honesty. West’s Batman may have worn the dorky cowl, but he did not hide behind it. West’s Batman was anything but a creature of the night. As deadpan, square-jawed, ham-bone and self-mocking as West’s Batman was, he managed to make the Caped Crusader into something more than a stuntman in an ugly superhero costume.

To some, that more would be less; at least to those who prefer their superheroes to be mysterious, dark and brooding creatures of violence and psychological complexity. Certainly, that was not the goal or even fleeting concern of the makers of the 1960’s TV series. Their Batman makes no attempt to embrace or even recognize the supposed complexities of superhero mythology and/or psychology. The TV series, like this quickie/ripoff feature film, refused to take comic books, pop culture and the media seriously — even as it became a symbol for all three. For that reason it is disliked, or, at most, barely tolerated, by comic book fanatics. But for a generation, “Batman” — like “The Adventures of Superman” a decade prior — defined what comic book heroics were all about: the simplistic vision of good versus evil. This “Batman,” however, added an element of absurdist farce.

There was an element of brilliance to the 60s Batman that made him a wonderful superhero for the turbulent era. On the one hand “Batman” promoted very traditional virtues, with clearly defined messages about what is good and evil; yet, with tongue firmly in cheek, the show mocked its own simplistic 1950s Americana outlook. The show embraced middle American values, but recognized that those values could quietly encompass eccentric alternatives; an added subversive quality that highlighted the series’ gay subtext. It was a kid’s show that didn’t patronize younger viewers, but could cast a knowing wink at the adults who recognized the sophistication behind the juvenile silliness. Like “The Beverly Hillbillies,” “Green Acres,” “The Addams Family” and “Get Smart,” among others, it was a show that could be dumb in a very smart way. Rather than just being the joke, “Batman” got the joke.

Coming at the peak of the series’ success, the big screen version must have seemed like a great idea: make some big bucks off the franchise before the shine wore off. Yet, while the movie captures much of the campiness of the TV show, it was undoubtedly one of many factors that began its inevitable decline. The best way to see something’s flaws is to blow it up in size; the worst way to tell a funny joke is to needlessly stretch it out. Instead of making it all bigger and better, the BATMAN movie somehow made it all seem smaller and, well, lamer. This is, after all, a feature film made on a TV show’s budget. Next to the James Bond films, BATMAN the movie looks a little bit puny.

Yet there is much to enjoy here, not the least of which is West and Ward, who never miss a beat in their attempt to gain movie stardom. The film is worth watching just to hear West deliver that immortal line “Some days you just can’t get rid of a bomb!” I think the film falters by not just giving us one good villain but by trying to squeeze in four (the later big screen versions make the same mistake). While it is a kick to see pros like Burgess Meredith, Cesar Romero and Frank Gorshin in all their glory as Penguin, Joker and Riddler, they do tend to get in each others way.

Super-villainy is not a team sport, but a colossal ego trip; thus the story lacks focus. Yet even as the film offers up too many crooks, it is regrettable that Julie Newmar wasn’t available to fill her signature role as Catwoman. Lee Meriweather does an admirable job, but for fans of the TV show, Newmar will always be the one and only Catwoman.

Production-wise, this BATMAN can’t compete with the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher films that eventually followed. But unlike its successors, BATMAN 1966 is unpretentious, straightforward and cheerfully aware of the basic absurdity of its own mythology, making it the best of the Bats.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Major Ben Marco (Frank Sinatra) is an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army. He served valiantly as a captain in the Korean war and his Sergeant, Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey), even won the Medal of Honor. Marco has a major problem however: he has a recurring nightmare, one where two members of his squad are killed by Shaw. He’s put on indefinite sick leave and visits Shaw in New York. Shaw for his part has established himself well, despite the misgivings of his domineering mother, Mrs. Eleanor Shaw Iselin (Angela Lansbury). She is a red-baiter, accusing anyone who disagrees with her right-wing reactionary views of being a Communist.

Raymond hates her, not only for how she’s treated him but equally because of his step-father, the ineffectual U.S. Senator John Iselin (James Gregory), who is intent on seeking higher office. When Marco learns that others in his Korean War unit have nightmares similar to his own, he realizes that something happened to all of them in Korea.

Could it really happen?

16 May 2005 | by Lee Eisenberg (lee.eisenberg.pdx@gmail.com) (Portland, Oregon, USA) – See all my reviews

During the Korean War, an American platoon is kidnapped by the North Koreans. When they return, one of them (Laurence Harvey) appears to be acting strangely. As the story progresses, it becomes clear that the enemy did something to him, possibly to the point where they might still be in complete control of him.

Admittedly, “The Manchurian Candidate” is basically a Red Scare movie, but it’s different in that it doesn’t simply follow the silly story of the Commies invading a Norman Rockwell-style town. The movie’s focus is what the audience doesn’t know. Not to mention the top-notch performances from Harvey, Frank Sinatra, Janet Leigh, Angela Lansbury and John McGiver. Interestingly, the 2004 remake actually managed to be as good as the original. Ten out of ten.

A political and social thriller/drama ahead of its time.

Author: teren from Chicago, USA
20 August 2001

John Frankenheimer’s surrealistic direction and George Axelrod’s adaptation of the 1959 book by the same name offer Laurence Harvey a career defining role.

Set in 1950’s, A Korean War veteran Raymond Shaw(Harvey) returns home to a medal of honor for rescuing his POW platoon from behind Chinese lines and back to safety. One of the returning soldiers, (played effectively by Frank Sinatra) however, has recurring dreams of his platoon being brainwashed and Shaw committing acts of murder.

He eventually convinces army brass that Shaw is still a puppet of his Communist-Marxist operators.

Angela Lansbury, (although barely a few years older than Harvey was at the time) plays his mother in a tour de force role. She absolutely captivates and steals every scene she is in, playing a very complex role that needs to convince the viewer of many things without much dialogue.

There’s a rich cast of characters, including Janet Leigh, Henry Silva, James Edwards, and a painfully accurate James Gregory. Each character weaves through the methodical subplots and tapestry of Frankenheimer’s masterful “Hitchcockian” pace.

I won’t give away the plot, but dear readers, allow me to sat that this one is really worth watching–until the nail-biting and chilling conclusion.

There are many undertones in this film — political, sexual, class and power, and social. You will want to view this film several times to approach it from different perspectives.

A Powerful, Wicked Satire.

Author: nycritic
9 March 2005
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

By the dawn of the 60s America had not been through with McCarthy-ism, the Korean War, and Communist witch hunts when it was already aiming towards a Cold War situation and ultimately, Vietnam.

So much plays into this movie which came out at exactly the right time and place that even years later, layers of subtext can be garnered from its paranoiac, frightening images.

Power is a deadly thing to deal with, especially when it falls into the hands that should have it the least, and the word seems to dominate every angle of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE like a glowing ball of fire. The power to control minds and bend them to darker wills. The power to control the people into believing what the powers-that-be want. The power to demolish anything or anyone considered an even remote obstacle. The power to seize power, extend it outward, blindly, into a waiting globe.

And so does this disturbing, dark tale of the search for power in the political world takes place, with some of the most indelible images ever transferred onto the face of cinema. Frankenheimer amps up the paranoia already oozing from the story and with some truly nightmarish sequences brings forth a Creation that always seems like it will disclose some hideous, unseen force playing behind the scene — the deceptive hydrangea scene at the beginning of the movie and the train scene where a shaken Sinatra meets Leigh who seems to be sincere are two very uneasy sequences to follow through, for example, because both disorient and succeed in sticking needles of doubt into your mind in more ways than one. You know something is completely wrong here and what lies beneath is always unsettling than what is eventually uncovered.

This is a character study as well as a political satire: while there is plenty of tension throughout, deep characterizations come through, and needless it is to me to state Angela Lansbury’s terrifying performance as Mrs. Iselin, or Laurence Harvey’s chilling portrait of a non-entity, a victim and a puppet who’s design is to serve as a killing machine and a false hero. Much can be also said of Janet Leigh’s Rosie, since her part suggests she also knows and is more than what she reveals, but sadly the film drops what might have been an interesting side story from the moment she appears on the train and talks in that coded language. It seems she only serves to be Sinatra’s “controller.” As for Sinatra himself, he’s an asset and a weakness. He’s too old to be Laurence Harvey’s equal in combat, and his persona often comes through, but he does tune in a measured performance as the damaged General Marco.

MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE is one of those stories that detail the loss of innocence in America (with its killing of the more honest Senator Thomas Jordan and his almost pure daughter Josie, done without music, but in two long takes) and its transition to a super-power bent on political domination, and it chills to the bone to see it still today, 42 years later.

Keep Your Eye on the Card, Keep Your Eye on the Card…

Author: tfrizzell from United States
11 June 2004
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Intense Cold War era masterpiece that seems to grow bolder and more intelligent with age. A group of U.S. soldiers are captured one night during the Korean War in 1952. Next thing the group remembers is arriving home with Laurence Harvey (one of the troops) being given the Medal of Honor for some unknown reason.

He immediately decides to go to New York City to get away from his over-protective mother (Oscar nominee Angela Lansbury) and her senator husband (a solid turn by character actor James Gregory). But nothing is quite what it seems. Harvey, obviously with no experience in journalism, becomes involved with a publication that is sympathetic with Communist propaganda. Meanwhile several other soldiers from Harvey’s battalion (commanding officer Frank Sinatra in particular) start to have disturbing dreams where the group is in a room during a dull women’s meeting where the main topic of discussion is botany. Flashes occur however where the women actually become Korean and Russian delegates that are all listening to a crazed doctor (Khigh Dhiegh) who is discussing brainwashing techniques and total mind manipulation through various kinds of hypnosis. The dreams are rough and frightening.

It seems that Sinatra has a rare form of war fatigue, but there is no way to explain how others are having similar night-time delusions. As he tries to cope he falls in love with the beautiful Janet Leigh and they start to have a relationship. Eventually Sinatra begins to put the jagged pieces together just as Harvey becomes serious with a beautiful young woman (Leslie Parrish) whose father (John McGiver) happens to be one of Gregory’s main obstacles to a possible vice presidential nomination in the next national election. Who is really controlling everything from the inside and what is Harvey’s main purpose for being brainwashed? Richard Condon’s paranoid novel comes to life vividly in a truly outstanding motion picture. Screenwriter George Axelrod’s adaptation keeps the momentum of the book at a fevered pitch throughout. Director John Frankenheimer (only 32 at the time) completed the one film that he would always be remembered for.

His career honestly had a lot more lows than highs, but his full potential as a first-class film-maker is easy to recognize here. The performances are top-notch with Lansbury (actually only three years older than Harvey) doing the best work of her career (albeit in a somewhat small role). Laurence Harvey’s tortured character is also a sight to behold. It is an immensely interesting role that keeps the whole production glued together. Harvey, an actor I really never thought had much talent, proves that when everything else is working well that he can be a reputable performer. And of course Sinatra is solid as he always was throughout a film career that hit its peak from about 1950 through 1965. Once again he adds a certain depth and an amazing complexity to an already rich role. Smart, stylish, at times nasty and always impressive, “The Manchurian Candidate” is one of those pictures that continues to be a fixture in the American cinema as time goes by. 5 stars out of 5.

Excellent Cinema

Author: Hobbes_512 from Chicago, IL
3 July 2003

I went into “The Manchurian Candidate” without knowing too much about the movie itself. I knew about its critical acclaim, but I was unfamiliar with the plot. Regardless, when I rented and watched the film, I had high expectations. I was not disappointed either.

The plot revolves around the strange case of Raymond Shaw, a sergeant who wins the Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery in the cold war. Two of the men in his company, however, have strange nightmares that suggest Raymond is not as deserving of the award as he seems. One of these men, Major Bennet Marco, led on by these recurring nightmares, unravels a sinister Communist plot.

Set against the cold war paranoia of the sixties and McCarthyism, “The Manchurian Candidate” does an excellent job of recreating the intense suspense and tension of the time.

The acting in this film is superb. A great script is heightened by excellent acting in this movie. It’s hard not to like Frank Sinatra in his role as Marco, who is the protagonist. Laurence Harvey as Raymond does a good job showing us a character that is wholly unlikable and snobby, yet pathetic and sad at the same time. And of course, Angela Lansbury in her role as Raymond’s malicious and plotting mother is excellent.

Some stand-out scenes in the film were the nightmare sequences that brilliantly interlaced dream and reality, the all-queen solitaire game with Marco and Raymond, and the supremely tense climax at the political convention. The cinematography in the movie was very well done as action, romance, and tension all mixed together smoothly. All the scenes managed to keep my attention and kept me wondering what was going to happen next. As a thriller, the film works remarkably well, and it is quite easily the best political thriller I’ve seen to date.

Keeping me from giving the movie a perfect ten are one or two little nagging problems. I wasn’t a big fan of the music for the movie, and it even disrupted the mood for me at one point in the film. It was okay, just not great. Also, the whole plot is sort of unlikely. I wont go into it here, but I don’t think that the Communist plan for world domination would fall into the hands of one relatively uncontrolled person, no matter how well trained his mind was. That’s just my opinion, however.

The movie is sort of long, and isn’t exactly action packed, but it is very interesting, insightful, and even chilling. I had a great time watching it, and I definitely recommend it if you are interested at all in seeing a gripping Cold War era political thriller. Besides, the cultural relevance of the film alone is enough to see it.

9/10

Mississippi Burning (1988)

Cinematography	Peter Biziou

Directed by	Alan Parker

Two FBI agents investigating the murder of civil rights workers during the 60s seek to breach the conspiracy of silence in a small Southern town where segregation divides black and white. The younger agent trained in FBI school runs up against the small town ways of his former Sheriff partner.

Sometimes rules need to be broken 9/10

14 April 2002 | by The_Wood (United States) – See all my reviews

Alan Parker’s Mississippi Burning is an unflinching look at racism in the South. This is a very difficult movie to watch, but it is well worth it, and a reminder of past events — events that should never be forgotten. Gene Hackman gives a power-house of a performance, ripping up the screen in every scene. The film has a strong supporting cast as well, including the always dynamic Michael Rooker.

Many have complained about the death-wish like final act, but the final results are completely called for and necessary.

Where does hatred come from?

Author: Dan Grant (dan.grant@bell.ca) from Toronto, Ontario
18 July 1999

Where? Where does racism come from? How can one race feel superior to another? Are we born with it? No.

Do we become it on our own? Maybe? Or is it perhaps that we are taught it? There is a small scene in Mississippi Burning that is just as powerful as any Gene Hackman speech or any violent montage to gospel music that is in this film. There is a rally at a park with the head of the KKK ( without his hood ) telling thousands of people that have gathered that he loves being white. He loves the fact that Mississippi is segregated. And in the crowd the camera pans across and shows three year old kids smiling and cheering as gleefully and loudly as their parent’s are. It is haunting.

This film is bit like JFK in a way. It is not an absolute recreation of the events that took place in 1964, but it is a film that tells a true story and then adds a bit of fiction to make it more interesting for a mass audience. For example, the case was not cracked by Mr. Anderson fooling around with Pell’s wife. But that is besides the point, the point being that this film is mesmerizing. Everything from its direction, cinematography, acting, writing and music, it is the best film of 1988. And having Rain Man take most of the major awards is really quite sad. Because Mississippi Burning is much more ambitious, important and well done. Rain Man is a very good film and I will even go as far as to say that Hoffman is the only one that deserved to win best actor just as much as Hackman did. But 1988 was a bad year for the rest of the Oscars. Anyway…

I have been edgy before. Boyz and the Hood did that to me, but this film makes me angry. It makes me want to jump back into 1964 and try to do something to stop this. The film is that strong at showing us how terrible and pointless racism is. And in order to make this film work, there has to be strong elements in all areas. But for me, what really made me feel the things that I did is the actors that played their roles.

Hackman is brilliant. He gives the performance of a lifetime and it is his anger that gives him his edge. He sees things differently than Mr. Ward does and that sometimes makes them bump heads with each other. But they ultimately have the same goal in mind. Just different ways of achieving that goal. Dafoe is great as well, but it is the supporting cast that really makes this film. From Dourif to R. Lee Ermey to Stephen Tobolwolski, these characters are richly portrayed by the actors that play them.

There is however one actor in particular that I wanted to touch on and that is Michael Rooker. He plays Frank, the nastiest, meanest, no conscience, negro hating person that I think I have ever seen on film. I don’t know where his anger comes from, but he is the kind of character that you can imagine had a violent father that drank too much and always told stories about how bad the black man was. When Rooker is on screen you listen. You pay attention to what he is saying and doing. And my hatred of him was one of my favourite parts of the film.

Mississippi Burning shows us how strange people are when it comes to racism. The characters in this film don’t know why they hate the way they do, they just know that they do. And they are powerless to stop themselves. What happened to the three civil rights workers was a disgrace and a tragedy. But not just because three boys were murdered, but because no one knows why they were murdered,besides racism that is. Why did they have to die? Because they were a different colour of skin? Because they were Jewish? It really doesn’t make any sense.

Mississippi Burning is one of the best films I have ever seen. It is important and it is entertaining. If you haven’t seen it, do so just for the scene with Mr. Anderson and Deputy Pell at the barber shop. That is worth the price of the rental alone. But for a really important film that has something to say, this is one of the best.

---

It broke my heart

Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois
31 December 2005

Not saying this isn’t an excellent film, it is just bluntly honest. I remember in English class in high school, we were learning about racism in the 60’s, and how horrible it was. The worst part was that I am from a very racist town, unfortunately, and watching the beginning of the film terrified me because I felt like this world hadn’t changed since I felt like I was living that film. Being one voice sometimes can either be helpful or get you into a lot of trouble.

I didn’t want to see this film again because of the awful situations I saw or heard of. Now, I am out on my own, and I had the chance to see the movie once again, and felt that I could see it. It’s a terrific and very powerful movie that can get anyone to cry unbearably. It’s not just the actors, but Gene and William’s characters, I wanted to be just like them, they were able to stand up even though the many times of being knocked down and caring so much just to try to in some way save that town.

I honestly feel that everyone should see this movie, it can change your life or make you look around and want to change things. I know this comment feels more like a lecture than a comment, but that’s how much this movie got to me. I think we all can do something right in this world, it’s just a matter or standing up. Even if this film isn’t historically accurate, it’s accurate enough to see how people treat other people. Hopefully, we will have a better future for generations to come.

9/10

Dynamite in Celluloid Form.

Author: tfrizzell from United States
20 January 2003

A highly charged box of fireworks is the best way to describe “Mississippi Burning”. It is 1964 and the Civil Rights Movement is tearing apart many areas in the deep south. Mississippi is definitely the hottest spot of all as the entire state seems to be split between whites and African Americans. After some white Civil Rights activists disappear, the FBI is called in to investigate (Oscar-nominee Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe). Naturally the sheriff’s department is difficult to say the least and it appears that it may have even had a part in the apparent murders. Frances McDormand (Oscar-nominated) proved that she was a truly gifted actress as the wife of one of the local deputies (an evil Brad Dourif). Alan Parker’s smart Oscar-nominated direction and the Oscar-winning cinematography give the film a tense feel that leaves its audience visibly shaken during and after its running time. A great achievement. Easily one of the finest films of the 1980s. 5 stars out of 5.

1964 – The year America was at war with itself!

Author: faraaj-1 (faraajqureshi2401@gmail.com) from Sydney, Australia
6 September 2006

1964 – The year America was at war with itself! Thats a pretty good tag-line. The promotion for this film seemed to pitch it as a thriller or a buddy movie. It is neither. This is a very mature investigation of a racist Mississippi town where the brutal murder of three civil rights activists took place in 1964. The film is inspired by real-life events.

Dafoe and Hackman play the two FBI agents sent to investigate. Their differing styles of pursuing the case and Dafoe’s belated admiration for Hackman’s “method’s” is an interesting layer of flesh added to the structure of the film.

You will see some really nasty racist characters played by familiar faces like Brad Dourif, Lee Ermey and an especially violent Michael Rooker. All are excellent. Frances McDormand really steals the movie as the wife of racist Dourif.

This film is far more intelligent than some of the Stanley Kramer movies of the 60’s which dealt with racism. It does not shy away from showing the seriousness (and sickness) of the racial mindset without being excessively preachy. It is in fact very watchable – largely due to a colorful and humorous Hackman whose character was himself a Mississippi small-town Sheriff at one time and understands the pitfalls of the Hoover boys going in all guns blazing.

Highly recommended!

Well executed,gripping story.

Author: SmileysWorld from United States
14 July 2004

This film is a good,though not flawless representative of the turbulent 1960’s south.The character representation is good,though taken to a bit of an extreme in places.Gene Hackman gives another knockout performance here,as he does always as does Willem Dafoe.The cast is great,though Gailard Sartain was a surprising choice as Sheriff Stuckey, given his penchant for appearing in the worst of films.It is based on a true story,and as we all know,true stories are never presented to perfection.It is,however,presented as well as it can be.This is a very gripping,edge of your seat film,and very well done.

These events bad enough without revisionism…

Author: donny-31 from Southeastern United States
29 May 2005
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am from Mississippi. I lived through these times. Secretly, I did things to help in the voter-registration of Black folks; things you could get killed for, in those days. I know whereof I speak.

Therefore, let me say this: the events this film seeks to depict were bad enough without any inventions. But invent they did. Every local Black person in this movie is noble and a great singer. Their buildings, however, would lead you to believe they couldn’t put tin on a roof straight.

Why try to improve on facts? Every White person depicted in this film is an idiot. Out-houses in the sixties? KKK ruling the roost in an entire town?

Where are the rich, educated, “landed gentry” who were behind all this violence, encouraging the rednecks with nods and winks? Not in this movie. But I know they exist, because I know some of them…a few who are still living. Mostly it is their children I know, who still feel the same way about Blacks, and still do the same encouraging of White trash.

This film does not show how things really were. It seeks to make things look even worse, to people who don’t know any better. It is a terrible story, with moments of good acting from many of the stars. It is the script and the direction that are awful.

What you see in this movie is not true. The truth is far worse.

Maybe a bit too much of a film but still enjoyable

Author: bob the moo from United Kingdom
7 December 2003

When three young civil rights workers (two white and one black) going missing in the deep south of America, the FBI send two agents in to investigate. Liberal young agent Ward and cynical local agent Anderson both approach the case in different ways, however both come up against a wall of silence and racism which seems to go all the way through the community, making their task near impossible.

What do I mean when I say this is a bit too much of a film? Well, the issues, history and settings here are all semi-factual and therefore should be quite an interesting film that attacks the heart. Instead however, it is a thriller type film – and this becomes more and more evident as it goes on.

The final 30 minutes set aside themes and discussion and go right for a thriller climax with enjoyable touches. However it does lose sight of the issues, although, in fairness, it didn’t have too good a grasp on them in the first place.

The film never really sets out to do much more than paint the community as racist – and it does it rather too easily. All the white racists are painted as inbred and monstrous (I’m not complaining!) while the black characters are all pretty much a silent group of extras. I understand why the film did it this way, as to allow development of characters on both sides would have caused the thriller side of it to become baggier and less effective. As it is, the broad strokes still work because I don’t think many of us need to really be convinced that such racism is tolerable: it’s easier just to cut out the debate in a thriller.

The plot is pretty good and does paint the black situation pretty well. It works best as a thriller though and early attempts to show the divide and so on are slowly moved to the back burner in favour of thriller touches. Aside from a total lack of black characters and a tendency just to pigeon hole the white characters, the cast do a reasonable job, with plenty of well known faces. Dafoe is good in the lead, despite being a little too wide-eyed for a FBI agent in charge of a major case. Also, watching it now, it’s funny at times because he sounds very like Agent Smith when he says `Mr Anderson’. Hackman overplays to good effect and he steals almost every scene he is in, although his romancing of McDormand is a little drawn out. The support cast includes some reasonable turns from well-known faces including Dourif, Ermey and Tobolowsky.

Overall this film has a reputation for being a quite powerful issue film. However it reality it is more a thriller which uses this setting of racial hatred as it’s background and driver, rather than looking into it as a debate. In fairness, it doesn’t suffer for this and is actually an enjoyable film, which also serves as a reminder of a very common situation only a few short years ago.

it didn’t really happen like this

Author: Lee Eisenberg (lee.eisenberg.pdx@gmail.com) from Portland, Oregon, USA
29 July 2005

The recent belated conviction of Edgar Ray Killen (wouldn’t you say that it’s appropriate that he has “kill” in his last name?) brings to mind the story that inspired “Mississippi Burning”. It’s the story of how a group of Ku Klux Klan members murdered civil rights activists James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in the summer of 1964.

The movie portrays the murders, but FBI agents Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman) and Alan Ward (Willem Dafoe) are made up. It turns out that the FBI bribed one of the murderers to rat on the other two, and all the while the FBI was tapping Schwerner’s father’s phone to see if he was a Communist.

So, they played with the facts. Hollywood often does that. Either way, “Mississippi Burning” still is a good movie, reminding us of a time in our country’s history when we were about to explode.

Nice drama, conjectural history.

Author: Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) from Deming, New Mexico, USA
13 April 2007
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Willem DaFoe is a by-the-book FBI investigator and is assisted by ex-Southern-sheriff Gene Hackman in the real-life inquiry into the deaths of three civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964. The three kids disappeared. No one, black or white, is willing to cooperate with the “Hoover boys” that poke around in the small town’s business. The blacks won’t cooperate because they’re afraid, the whites for more obvious reasons. And some less obvious ones. As the clued-in Hackman puts it, “They have to live here long after we’re packed up and gone.”

Just about every character is a stereotype that’s played out like a card in a hand of bridge. The head of the local Ku Klux Klan, who calls himself “a local businessman” is a balding nincompoop who hates not just blacks but Papists and Jews and probably Brobdignagians. He doesn’t have a family. Not even a dog or a cat as far as we can tell. The other heavies, including the prototypical redneck Michael Rooker with his frozen sneer, don’t have families either, except for Deputy Brad Dourif, who has a wife. But he only has a wife so that the movie can show us that not all Southern whites are murdering racists. Some are sweet and lovable and attractive, in the way that Carol Burnett is attractive, and, as just about sublimely played by Frances McDormand, are so haunted by distaste for these illegal caste-ridden shenanigans that she’s able and willing to squeal to Gene Hackman’s FBI agent about the murders. That indiscretion gets her clobbered.

The performances are all good and some are splendid. Hackman could not be better. Every move he makes, every line of dialog, carries weight. DaFoe’s character is less colorfully delineated. McDormand is outstanding, and so are Rooker, Dourif, and the guy who plays the KKK head. (What a trio of villains.) The tobacco-chewing Sheriff is great in a small supporting role.

When the FBI is stretched to its official limits without results, Hackman is given license to use his own methods. Enter two unofficial FBI heavies. One is a balding red-head with bulging eyes who has since made a career out of playing serial murderers. The other is a huge black guy with an ominous and resonant baritone who threatens to castrate the Mayor unless he spills the beans, which the Mayor does, leading to almost all the desired convictions.

The direction is tasteful. When the decomposing corpses are uncovered, it’s in long shot. When Dourif beats hell out of McDormand, we only get a few introductory blows before the cut, just so we know what’s going to happen next.

Location shooting is evocative. It’s a convincing small Southern town shimmering in the summer heat. Most “Southern” scene — the silent guy on the Choctaw reservations who is carving up catfish. The characters, although they may as well carry sandwich boards advertising their function in the script, are pretty well drawn.

If there’s a problem with the film it’s that it is laid out like a dramatic movie in the usual form of rising climaxes. The payoffs towards the end simply don’t fit in with the otherwise realistic depiction of events. I did not for a moment believe that undercover FBI agents were brought in to kidnap the Mayor and threaten to cut off his family jewels. That belongs to a movie script, or to some black hole of a CIA prison in Bulgaria, not to a narrative that purports to be based on an historic event.

The final impression the film leaves you with is how surprisingly easy it is for a deeply felt and thoroughly entrenched set of values to change so quickly. A generation has passed, only a generation, since the governor of Mississippi’s neighboring state stood in the doorway of the university and proclaimed, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

The situation displayed here, in 1964, isn’t perfect now. Nothing is perfect. But it’s a hell of a lot better than it was then. This is actually a curiously mixed blessing. It leaves Southern white people with still another defeat that they must get over. And it leaves blacks with a great deal of anti-white resentment that has no place to go.

Harper (1966)

Lew Harper is a Los Angeles based private investigator whose marriage to Susan Harper, who he still loves, is ending in imminent divorce since she can’t stand being second fiddle to his work, which is always taking him away at the most inopportune of times. His latest client is tough talking and physically disabled Elaine Sampson, who wants him to find her wealthy husband, Ralph Sampson, missing now for twenty-four hours, ever since he disappeared at Van Nuys Airport after having just arrived from Vegas. No one seems to like Ralph, Elaine included. She believes he is cavorting with some woman, which to her would be more a fact than a problem.

Harper got the case on the recommendation of the Sampsons’ lawyer and Harper’s personal friend, milquetoast Albert Graves, who is unrequitedly in love with Sampson’s seductive daughter, Miranda Sampson. Miranda, who Harper later states throws herself at anything “pretty in pants”, also has a decidedly cold relationship with her stepmother, Elaine..

According to the TCMDb, this film was “one of Newman’s biggest hits of the ’60s and a film that helped establish his reputation as one of the screen’s coolest stars”

Terrific

23 April 2004 | by compsecure (sydney australia) – See all my reviews

Harper was one of a select few in the sixties that still stand out as eminently watchable films if not for the plot then for a host of other notable features. Newman together with Steve Mcqueen were the cool end of town during the sixties and more or less had the field to themselves.

In Harper Newman extends himself in the cool department & delivers a classic performance which ranks with the better films he has made to date. In fact in this role Newman probably tried to do Mcqueen better than the man himself & to a great extent succeeded. Who could resist seeing Pamela Tiffen on that springboard in that bikini if you watched it for no other reason that would not be bad start.The look on Newmans face when he sees the pool for the first time and the laconic looping wave of the arm as he departs the pool after the first encounter with Tiffen & Wagner.The supporting cast should not be forgotten with sterling efforts from the adorable Lauren Bacall & Strother Martin to name a couple.Like many 60s movies which were quickly seen & forgotten this one is worthy of a place in the top shelf as Newman says in the film theres something all bright & shiny. All in all !triffic!

Good movie version of the book

Author: dgcrow from Kelso, WA
1 August 2005

I just read “The Moving Target” by Ross Macdonald, the book upon which “Harper” is based. Given that the book was written in 1949 and “Harper” was contemporary (1966) when made, the movie follows the novel pretty darn close. Many of the scenes are done almost verbatim from the book. Harper is more acerbic than Macdonald’s Lew Archer, and the novel, of course, fleshes out the characters and their motives a little better. But I think the movie stands up pretty well by itself. It has an outstanding supporting cast and, except for Pamela Tiffin, the acting is good, with high marks especially for Paul Newman and, in my opinion, Arthur Hill. The photography is gorgeous, and I can listen all night to any music by Johnny Mandel. All that and those great one-liners by Newman! I’d give it a 7 or 8 out of ten.

A Good ‘Noir’ For The ’60s

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States
12 August 2009

This is very much like a late 1940s film noir, except it’s filmed in the mid 1960s. It has that same edgy dialog and feel to it as private eye “Lew Harper” goes looking for a missing man. His character is based on Ross McDonald’s best-selling P.I. “Lew Archer.”

In “Harper,” all the characters are suspicious and they vary from suave “Allan Taggart” (Robert Wagner) to the coquettish late teen “Miranda Sampson” (Pamela Tiffin) to a lawyer “Albert Graves” (Arthur Hill) who’s infatuated with the hot teen and also carries a gun. Then there’s the overweight has-been entertainer “Fay Esterbrook” (Shelly Winters), the druggie jazz singer “Betty Fraley” (Julie Harris), the New Age scam artist “Claude” (Strother Martin) and a bunch of gangsters and thugs who are the obvious targets. Of them all, I though Winters was the biggest hoot.

Along the way, Newman wins all the verbal bouts but loses the physical contests. He zings everyone with some great put-downs, but takes a physical beating a few times, too. He sports a nice shiner in the last half of the film.

This film will put you smack into the time period, when people danced “The Frug” and referred to cops as “the fuzz.” People were starting to wear Beatle-type haircuts, although you’d never find Newman giving in to that counterculture fad. In here, at least, he’s old school, tough, relentless and suspicious of everyone……which, at it turns out, is as it should be.

The DVD is now part of the Paul Newman Collection and it’s shown with a very sharp 2.35:1 ratio transfer, very much showing off Conrad Hall’s cinematography. Johnny Mandel’s music score adds to the “coolness” of this film, too.

Newman acclaimed as the new Bogart…

Author: Righty-Sock (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico
6 January 2009

The film opens with Harper (Newman), unshaven and gradually awakening from a hangover… He puts his head under a faucet, attempts to make coffee but finds none left, and dispiritedly takes yesterday’s grounds from the garbage and makes a perfect1y terrible cup of coffee… At once we get Harper’s image as an antihero detective without any illusions…

As he is commissioned by Lauren Bacall to trace her wealthy husband who has been kidnapped, the details are filled in: he’s tough, ironic, cool, unpleasant and repugnant… Although occasionally given to a moment of sensitivity or remorse, he’s most1y sadistic and exploitative…

Harper is a loner, with an air of detachment and an ability to dispatch opponents with a fist and a flippant remark… He swings into action only mechanically… He chews gum constantly, looks around in an uninteresting manner, makes little disapproving gestures, laughs in total disregards, and smiles mischievously…

Harper’s dealings with women are based exclusively on coldness, deception and sexual exploitation… He is estranged from his wife and would like to renew his marriage…

Only cream and bastards rise to the top.

Author: Spikeopath from United Kingdom
15 April 2010

Paul Newman’s first foray into detective playing came after Frank Sinatra had turned the role down. Quite what the other “blue eyes” would have done with the material is anyones guess, but it’s hard to think he could have been as effortlessly cool and have the comic nous that Newman puts into Lew Harper. Whilst I wouldn’t go so far as saying that Harper revitalised a faltering “detective” genre, I do however think it’s fair to say that it stands as one of the genres most important post 50s entries.

Harper has a bit of everything, a dynamite leading performance, a tricksy plot full of suspicious and near bonkers characters, cool locations, dames of all shapes, ages and sizes, and more tellingly, a cracking screenplay that’s inventive in structure and sizzles with humour. Hell, even the end has a nice touch, a conversation piece indeed.

With its shades of The Big Sleep and its obvious Raymond Chandler conventions, Harper for sure is hardly original. But it’s so colourful, in more ways than one, it is able to hold its head up high and stand on its own two feet as a slickly constructed detective piece for the modern age. That it doffs its cap to those wonderful 40s & 50s movies should be applauded, not used as a stick to beat it with. From the off we know that Lew Harper may well be a cool dude that looks pretty, but he’s also the sort of PI that is fallible and is prepared to go low to get his leads.

As he fishes out dirty coffee filters from his garbage can to take his morning hit, we know we are in the presence of no ordinary detective. Where ever Harper goes he meets “interesting” characters, if they are not sticking a gun or a fist in his face, then they want something from him or intend to hinder his progress. The roll call consists of a gun-toting attorney (Arthur Hill), a poolside gigolo (Robert Wagner), an alcoholic ex-starlet who has let herself go (Shelley Winters), the missing man’s horny daughter (Pamela Tiffin), a jazz loving junkie (Julie Harris), Harper’s estranged wife (Janet Leigh) and the leader of nutty religious order “Temple Of The Clouds” (Strother Martin). Then there’s the secondary characters that file in and out as Harper chases clues, hit men, bag-men, fresh faced cops and mysterious servants. All serving a purpose and giving the excellent Newman scope to act off.

Tho Conrad Hall’s cinematography is on the money, Harper isn’t stylish in the film noir tradition in that respect. There’s no visual tricks, and in truth this is not a film for the action junkie. What it is is damn fine story telling that is acted accordingly, and yes it is very noirish in plotting. There’s never a dull moment and all scenes are relevant. It’s also very funny. Witness Harper’s “date” with Fay Estabrook, Newman & Winters are comedy gold. And Harper’s phone calls to his estranged wife, or simply lap up Martin’s hilarious religious berserker turn. But ultimately you want, and need, a bit of hardness in a plot such as this, and we get it as the last third of the film arrives in a ball of gun play and torture. It’s a smashing film for those after a slick detective piece driven by a charismatic leading man. 8/10

Noir and humour make an original, sassy classic.

Author: (michael-heathcote3) from Hampshire, England
13 October 2008
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It astounds me that this movie isn’t higher rated, talked about more, written about more. It is phenomenal. Funny, satirical, sassy, well cast and acted. It has all the ingredients of noir, the rich bitch with a vendetta, a mean patriarchal crimelord, a complex plot of nefarious goings on, a few homicides along the way, a betrayal by a friend, and a hard boiled and cynical P.I. who knows every trick in the book. Trump card is the L.A. setting, and that’s where the satirical edge comes in. Strother Martin as a berobed cult leader is a scream, and there is real satire here aimed at the freakier fringes of California’s laid back community.

The movie has a cracking script by Goldman, a good score, and is choc full of style. My only very slight quibble with it is that it is almost TOO ambitious and tries to be both great noir and great semi-humorous gumshoe thriller. But it largely succeeds in all things and Newman is sizzling as the humorous, sharp as a razor P.I. I can see its influence in several great films that followed it, including Chinatown, and that’s why I am staggered at the lack of attention it gets. Top noir, even topper P.I. semi comic thriller. Outstanding and groundbreaking.

” So long as there’s a Siberia, you’ll find Lew Harper on the job “

Author: thinker1691 from USA
25 January 2009

Dectectives per Se are a miserable lot. There’s is a primitive existence and are derided by nearly everyone they meet or work for. They are seen as the lowest form of life, by law enforcement officials at every level.

Nevertheless, they are indispensable to mystery stories in every city. In this film, “Harper” Paul Newman gives a solid performance to his character. He is hired by an old friend, Albert Graves (Arthur Hill) to investigate what appears to be a missing person’s case. The fact the missing man is rich, powerful and much hated, quickly escalates to one of Kidnapping, extortion and finally murder. Along the way, Harper meets an obvious assortment of characters, which includes the dispassionate widow, Elaine Sampson (Lauren Bacall), the beautiful but self-absorbed, daughter Miranda (Pamela Tiffin), the loyal but lecherous attorney (Arthur Hill), the trusted friend Troy, (Robert Webber) the faithful but ambitious driver Allan Taggart (Robert Wagner) and finally the vicious thug Puddler (Roy Jenson). These are a few of the interesting people who complicate the case, which does not includes Harpers’ wife, (Janet Leigh) who pushes him for a divorce.

The intricate story twists, turns and involves many a strange bed-fellow from drug addicts, to spiritual charlatans, smugglers and greedy employees. Everything is as it should be for a mystery best seller which lends itself well to a Paul Newman who-done-it. Follow closely and you’ll enjoy it, as it’s a good movie. ****

Production

William Goldman had written a novel Boys and Girls Together, the film rights to which had been optioned by Elliot Kastner. Kastner met with Goldman and expressed a desire to make a tough movie, one “with balls”. Goldman suggested the Lew Archer novels of Ross Macdonald would be ideal, and offered to do an adaptation. Kastner agreed, saying he would option whatever of the novels Goldman suggested, and Goldman chose the first The Moving Target. According to Goldman, the script was offered to Frank Sinatra first who turned it down, then to Paul Newman, who was eager to accept as he had just made a costume film, Lady L, and was keen to do something contemporary.

The script was originally called Archer. The name of the lead character was changed from Lew Archer to Harper because the producers had not bought the rights to the series, just to The Moving Target. Goldman later wrote “so we needed a different name and Harper seemed OK, the guy harps on things, it’s essentially what he does for a living.

Goldman adapted another Macdonald novel, The Chill, for the same producers, but it was not filmed.Paul Newman pulled out of the project and Sam Peckinpah became attached as director for a while as the film was set up at Commonwealth United Productions. But when that company wound up its film operations it was not made.

Yet another Macdonald novel, The Drowning Pool, was adapted to film with Paul Newman reprising the role of Harper. The Drowning Pool was released, by Warner Brothers, in 1975.

cool once and for all

2 June 2007 | by (winner55) (United States) – See all my reviews

I first saw this film when it came out, at age 12, and chewed my gum like Paul Newman for the next 20 years.

What’s remarkable about that is, I “got” the film at that time, recognized its depth (as well as its superficialities), loved it; and having seen the film several times over many years, the basic experience hasn’t changed.

This is probably the most accessible “hardboiled” detective film ever made, yet it never panders – it depicts a rough world straight on, and doesn’t particularly like – or condemn – any of its characters. Is it the classic that “The Big Sleep” is? No, because its world is smaller than that of Chandler/Faulkner/Hawks, even though it glitters more; and Smight is a solidly competent director but not an ‘auteur’ – which works in the film’s favor: Smight just gets on with the job and tells his story, he doesn’t stop for extra flourishes.

But, although all the acting in the film is top-quality, it is Newman’s performance that carries the film over the top: witty, cynical, detached, yet with glimpses of passion and commitment, Newman uses Harper to define pre-hippie cool once and for all.

Historical note: although this is not “The-Maltese-Falcon” classic noir film, the detective film was believed to be a genre of the past (at best fodder for bad TV) when this came out. “Harper” kept alive what many thought a dead tradition. The reviewer who wrote that this film made the Elliot Gould “Long Goodbye” possible is right on the money; and when nine years later Jack Nicholson starred in Polanski’s tribute to the genre – “Chinatown” – it was Newman’s performance here that he is referencing, not Bogart. That makes this an important film, and one should give a second look to a film that influenced so many others.

Paul Newman’s Turn As Private Eye Delivers

Author: Kelt Smith from Baltimore, MD
4 October 2006

Sexy, schmaltzy & slick; all good words to describe this 1966 Paul Newman vehicle. Newman cast in the title role of HARPER is a 40ish ‘Private Eye’ living out of his small agency office pending divorce from his ‘had it up to here’ wife Susan played by Janet Leigh.

The movie starts out on an early California morning with LEW HARPER going to visit the extremely wealthy convalescent Elaine Sampson (Lauren Bacall) at her palatial mansion. Mrs. Sampson’s husband has been missing for a day and one her husband’s attorneys Albert Graves (Arthur Hill) has suggested that she hire his longtime friend HARPER to find the missing millionaire.

“Drink, Mr. Harper ?”, offers Mrs.Sampson. “Not before lunch,” the declining HARPER says as he spits out his gum. “(But) I thought you were a detective,” inquires Mrs. Sampson. “New type,” counters HARPER.

Mrs. Sampson’s concern about her husband’s alleged disappearance has little to do with his well being and more to do with his affability while drunk. Apparently Mr. Sampson has a history of going on drunken binges with “happy starlets” and giving away things. Also present at the house are Mrs. Sampson’s ever snooping manservant Felix (Eugene Iglesias), step daughter Miranda (Pamela Tiffin), and Mr. Sampson’s private pilot Alan Taggert (Robert Wagner) who was the last person to see Mr. Sampson.

HARPER goes on a whirlwind through southern California running into a variety of interesting supporting characters from fat boozy former starlet Faye Estabrook (Shelly Winters) who had been doing Mr. Sampson’s astrology charts for the past several years, Faye’s sadistic criminal husband Dwight Troy (Robert Webber), cabaret singer Betty Fraley (Julie Harris), and Claude (Strother Martin), a man to whom Mr. Sampson gave away a whole mountain that he has turned into a ‘religious sanctuary’.

Throughout, HARPER is a ‘smart Aleck’, who runs circles around the inept police personnel, and is one step ahead of the rest of us.

Bright crisp colorful photography, to the point action as directed by Jack Smight, a terrific supporting cast (particularly Winters who didn’t mind going out on a limb), & an easy background score. This film is fast paced, and thoroughly enjoyable. HARPER is Paul Newman’s baby all the way.

Deadline – U.S.A. (1952)

Directed by	Richard Brooks

Cinematography	Milton R. Krasner

Ed Hutcheson, tough editor of the New York ‘Day’, finds that the late owner’s heirs are selling the crusading paper to a strictly commercial rival. At first he sees impending unemployment as an opportunity to win back his estranged wife Nora. But when a reporter, pursuing a lead on racketeer Rienzi, is badly beaten, Hutcheson is stung into a full fledged crusade against the gangster, hoping Rienzi can be tied to a woman’s murder.

James Dean appears in a tiny non-speaking role in the film as a press boy.

During the first day of shooting, star Humphrey Bogart admitted to friend and writer/director Richard Brooks that he had been drinking until late in the morning, and had not learned his lines. Earlier in the day, while he had being difficult on the set and resistant to saying his lines (ones he never knew) veteran Ethel Barrymore pushed him to just get on with it, by explaining that ‘The Swiss have no navy’. In other words, like actors, they are powerless.

The story is based on the closing of the New York “Sun,” founded by Benjamin Day, in 1950. The Sun was sold to the Scripps Howard chain and absorbed into the “World-Telegram.”

A homage to those great Warner dramas of the 1930’s

31 December 2009 | by calvinnme (United States) – See all my reviews

I don’t know if it was intended to copy the fast-paced press room and gangster films that Warner Brothers did in the 1930’s, but you certainly get a chance to see what Bogart could have done had he been a star at Warner Brothers during the 30’s rather than largely a supporting player.

Of course, everything here is taking place in present day – 1952 – but not only does the film reach backwards for its brisk pace, it reaches forward into the 21st century with some of its subject matter. In particular, there is the subject of how big companies buy smaller more effective companies to eliminate the competition, and the subject of inherited wealth and how the companies that formed that wealth are often not appreciated by the spoiled children-heirs.

Here Bogart plays the editor in chief of crusading hard-hitting daily newspaper “The Day”, which is about to be sold off by the bored children of the deceased founder. The founder’s widow (Ethel Barrymore) unfortunately is outvoted by her ungrateful children, and with the encouragement of Bogart’s character tries to come up with enough money to buy her children’s shares back from her daughters. In parallel with this is the story of The Day trying to break one last big story before they are bought out – a story that will break the power of a local crime boss who is not taking his possible downfall lying down.

This one is seldom seen and very well done, and I highly recommend that you see it if it ever comes your way.

surprisingly timely

Author: blanche-2 from United States
6 August 2005

A very good movie about The Day, a newspaper publishing its last editions, and its aggressive attack on a known mobster. Humphrey Bogart does an excellent job as the editor, and Ethel Barrymore gives a wonderful, regal performance as the widow of the publisher, whose daughters are now demanding that the paper be sold to a competitor.

The film brings up, a mere 53 years ago, issues that are relevant today – the tabloids versus real, factual news, and the meaning of a free press. These debates continue today, but unfortunately, it seems that the tabloid type of journalism is winning. As for a free press – our press might be freer than many, but it isn’t entirely free. As anyone who lost money in the great savings and loan scandal can tell you, important stories disappear from the front pages all the time.

Bogart’s strong performance is the engine that keeps this film going, and there’s a nice performance by Kim Hunter as his ex-wife. Deadline USA reminds us of the good old days, when you could believe what you read in the New York Times.

Racing to beat life’s deadline

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
9 June 2006

Deadline – U.S.A. has Humphrey Bogart as the editor of a big city newspaper that is in the process of being sold to a Rupert Murdoch like chain that publishes scandal sheets. His paper is in the process at the same time of doing an expose of notorious racketeer Martin Gabel.

And if that ain’t enough for Bogey his wife Kim Hunter is splitting from him. It’s the usual story, she can’t stand having him married to her and the paper as well.

Growing up in New York in the Fifties we had several newspapers, each vying for a smaller readership. I remember we had the Times, News, Post, Herald Tribune, World-Telegram&Sun, Journal-American, and the Daily Mirror. Some of those you can see are the products of consolidation, there were more in the past. After a printer’s strike in the sixties most of them went out of business.

The papers were competing for a shrinking share of readership. In the previous generation, radio competed with the print media and I grew up with that new phenomenon of television. Today we are seeing the effects of the Internet as the individual’s primary source for news.

The gangster part of the plot gets started with the discovery of the body of a Virginia Hill like moll, the former mistress of Martin Gabel. While some of the scandal sheets cover the sensational aspects of the murder of a glamor girl, Bogey’s paper does some serious investigative reporting and uncovers a lot of evidence. Their work also has consequences including the maiming of young reporter Warren Stevens.

In the meantime the heirs of the newspaper’s original founder are looking to sell the paper. Opposing it is their mother, Ethel Barrymore and she has a fine part and is obviously the model for the widow publisher played by Nancy Marchand in Lou Grant. She has one classic scene with Humphrey Bogart where they commiserate over their mutual problems.

Deadline – U.S.A. is a realistic look at the life of a big city paper in days gone by. It’s a gritty piece of nostalgia, as timely in its day as The Front Page was in the Twenties. Cast members like Paul Stewart, Jim Backus, and Ed Begley look and feel right at home at their jobs.

The film is recommended particularly for younger viewers who are glued to their computers and television to see how a newspaper functioned back in the day.

One of Bogart’s two most underrated films.

Author: bat-12 from New York, N.Y.
5 April 1999

This film was released (as I remember) the same year as The African Queen. I have always liked it more than the latter film. Richard Brooks’s prior experience working on a newspaper gives it a genuine idea of what that kind of work is like. The performances of Bogart and Barrymore are very good. I think it’s one of her very best. This movie deserves to be seen and appreciated more.

“…and the lawyers are up in the dome right now waiting to explain the nature of their crime with facts, figures and falsehoods. One more ‘F’ and they won’t be drafted.”

Author: classicsoncall from Florida, New York
4 June 2006
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

“Deadline U.S.A” is the story of a newspaper facing extinction, though it delves into a neat little crime story that graces page one prominently during it’s final days.

What’s interesting is that the gangster drama doesn’t involve Humphrey Bogart as a mobster or a law man; he’s the editor of ‘The Day’, a paper put on the selling block by an owner family at the advice of their financial attorney. The family’s matriarch, portrayed by Ethel Barrymore eventually sees the light of ‘Day’ so to speak, as you know she will. Her conversation with Bogey near the end of the film is a classic tribute to freedom of the press and the role of newspapers as society’s watchdog.

There’s another side story going on as well, though it’s not entirely necessary. Ed Hutcheson (Bogart) attempts to reconcile with ex-wife Nora (Kim Hunter), and though it appears he’s hit a roadblock, winds up winning her back in the end. It’s never made clear however what the turning point in the relationship was, since Nora was planning to remarry and abruptly changed her mind.

Classic film fans will enjoy seeing Ed Begley and Jim Backus in roles as newspapermen employed by ‘The Day’. The mobster being investigated by the paper is portrayed by Martin Gabel. It was with a bit of discomfort watching Bogey’s character get into the back seat of Gabel’s car to ‘go for a ride’. That scene could have gone either way, especially since editor Hutcheson felt compelled to crack wise with a goon who had murder included in his resume. As for the rough stuff, that was generally handled by Tomas Rienzi’s main henchman Whitey, Joe Sawyer in an uncredited role, but a Warner Brothers mainstay nonetheless.

With the clock running out on the newspaper, and a judge siding with the sellers, Hutcheson gets to the finish line with his page one story with damning evidence of Rienzi’s complicity in the death of his hush hush girlfriend and her brother. But the film ends so abruptly, there’s no time to reflect on the bittersweet finale, not even a shot of Bogey and his ex getting back together for a feel good moment.

If you enjoyed this film, you might want to check out another lesser known Bogart movie titled “Two Against The World”, it also goes by “One Fatal Hour”. There he finds himself in another media forum running a radio station. Like “Deadline U.S.A.” though, it may be difficult to find since neither has been commercially released. You’ll have to keep your eyes peeled for a cable presentation, or source it from private collectors.

Everyone is Pressed

Author: pensman from United States
7 April 2004

`Stupidity isn’t hereditary, you acquire it by yourself.’ A great line from one of those films you need to have made every so often-one that glorifies the value of a free press. Bogart is the hard-hitting editor of a newspaper on the brink of extinction. He has to decide whether to fight for the press or his wife. Oh yes, his ex-wife tired of being a `bulldog’ widow and is ready to remarry. Will the daughter of the original-now deceased-owner/publisher move on to a less printful husband? Will the publisher’s widow be able to halt the sale of her husband’s paper? Will the editor be able to bring down a local racketeer/thug/murderer?

No doubt this film will fade into obscurity to be viewed only by a few journalism/media majors doing a research paper on the portrayal of the press in film-assuming they go beyond All the President’s Men. Too bad.

The Seven Year Itch (1955)

With his family away for their annual summer holiday, New Yorker Richard Sherman decides he has the opportunity to live a bachelor’s life – to eat and drink what he wants and basically to enjoy life without wife and son. The beautiful but ditsy blond from the apartment above his catches his eye and they soon start spending time together. It’s all innocent though there is little doubt that Sherman is attracted to her. Any lust he may be feeling is played out in his own imagination however.

Marilyn at her most innocent

6 September 2002 | by caspian1978 (Boston, MA) – See all my reviews

In Some Like it Hot, Marilyn was the hottest she ever was. In Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, she’s the Woman of all Women. But in The Seven Year Itch, Marilyn is the prize of all treasures. She is timeless in every frame of the film. Coming across as this unique, cute, and innocent little woman, Marilyn makes your mind race, your heart thump, and your youth return.

No one else but Marilyn Monroe could play “The Girl” in the movie. She is just that, a girl, but much much more. Most of the physical comedy in the film is executed by Monroe herself. A lot of us don’t realize this as we expect most of the comedy to come from the comedian in the film, Tom Ewell. A must see if you are a fan of America’s first Dream Girl, the amazing Marilyn Monroe.

A Fabulously Funny, Fast-Paced Sex Farce From The Fifties…It’s “Just Elegant!”

Author: Allison Dragotto (palal16@aol.com) from ilion, New York
15 July 1999

The 1955 comedy, “The Seven Year Itch,” directed by Billy Wilder, is one of the most amusing sex farces ever filmed. Starring Tom Ewell and Marilyn Monroe, and based on George Axelrod’s play, the film takes a humorous look at the problems of a typical middle-aged married man. Tom Ewell, and unassuming leading man with a flair and talent for comedy, is perfectly cast in this movie. Ewell plays the part of Richard Sherman, an average middled-aged man of the 50’s…office worker, city inhabitant, with a loving wife and one son. He is left alone in the city for the entire summer while his family vacations in Maine. All is well until Mr. Sherman meets the beautiful blonde who rents the apartment above his for the summer.

They soon get to know each other and become friends over champagne, potato chips, and a Rachmaninoff record. Their friendship causes Mr. Sherman to worry that his wife will find out about his relationship with the blonde bombshell. With his overactive imagination, Mr. Sherman dreams up numerous situations concerning this young woman, as well as his wife. Although his imagination causes Mr. Sherman much worry, it provides many of the film’s most memorable and enjoyable scenes. Of course, the film is famous for the scene of Monroe standing over the subway grate, which has always been a classic movie scene. Monroe, although unnamed in the film, gives one of her best screen performances, which is “just elegant,” as she says throughout the movie. She displays a talent for comedy as well as beauty, which should not be overlooked. Ewell’s portrayal of Richard Sherman is delightful, hilarious, and perfect. His facial expressions and comedic timing contribute to the film’s enjoyability.

Along with these stars, the supporting cast is excellent as well. It includes such character actors as Robert Strauss (Mr. Kruhulik, the janitor), and Donald MacBride (Mr. Brady, Richard Sherman’s boss). “The Seven Year Itch” is one of the ultimate 50’s pop culture films. And since it was filmed in Cinemascope, it would be perfect to see on the big screen. Any fan of Monroe, Wilder, old movies, or 50’s culture would enjoy this movie; I strongly recommend it. The comedy, timing, acting, and direction are flawless…and they all help to make “The Seven Year Itch” “just elegant!”

sparkling but a bit confusing!

Author: didi-5 from United Kingdom
13 May 2004

The film succeeds mainly because of Marilyn Monroe’s obvious charisma and appeal – she really shines in this as the dizzy, curvy blonde upstairs. Tom Ewell has been married seven years and has seen his wife and son away for the summer – he determines not to smoke, not to drink, and not to chase women. The moment Monroe wiggles up those stairs all that goes out of the window and he starts fantasising about the new arrival.

There are a lot of funny situations and you’re never quite sure what it in Ewell’s head and what is real (well, I wasn’t anyway). I love the scene where they are playing Chopsticks and of course, that old chestnut the 2nd Rach concerto rears its head! Victor Moore plays a doddery plumber and Oscar Homolka a shrink who advises Ewell not to consider anything as drastic as murder until he can get simple problems sorted out, while Evelyn Keyes makes the most of her few appearances as Ewell’s wife (or is she his conscience?!).

The film is fun, the famous skirt and grid scene is now legendary (but quite unlike the often-seen poster shot), and there is much in this bouncy production after nearly fifty years to entertain pretty much anyone.

Naive and Innocent in the Present Days, Tested the Limit of Censorship in the 50’s

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
23 October 2006

In summertime in Manhattan, the plain and average Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell) sends his wife and son for vacation in the country. Sherman is the key man of a publishing firm, Brady & Company, which publishes cheap pocket books. The faithful Sherman has a routine life with his family and dreams on being successful with women.

When a beautiful and sexy blonde lodges the upstairs apartment of his small building, Sherman first opens the front door for her and then he invites her to have a drink with him after the fall of her tomato vase on his chair on the backyard. Along the days, he spends some time with the girl and feels tempted by her, but later he misses his family and travels to meet them.

“The Seven Year Itch” is a naive and innocent romantic comedy in accordance with the contemporary moral standards, but actually this feature tested the limits of censorship in a time when Hollywood was ruled by a rigid moral code. The story is based on a George Axelrod popular 1952 Broadway play about a man that has an affair with his upstairs neighbor. Unfortunately in the 50’s, the American cinema did not have the same artistic freedom as theater.

The screenplays and movies were submitted to the scrutiny of the powerful Hayes office, the censorship of Hollywood. There was a Production Code in Hollywood that stated that adultery should not be the subject of comedy or laughs, and this story violated the Code. Billy Wilder was fascinated by this story and purchased the rights of George Axelrod. However, to make the movie was a challenge for this great director, since many scenes and lines were ripped away by the censorship and by the National Legion of Decency, mutilating the plot.

Marilyn Monroe was selected to the cast, but Billy Wilder wanted a plain, average and non-handsome actor for the role of Sherman. His first choice was Walter Matthaus, but Fox direction did not want to take the risk of an unknown lead actor, therefore they selected Tom Ewell. The most famous scene of Marilyn Monroe, with her dress being lifted by the air of the subway, was first an exterior scene, but later Billy Wilder needed to shot again in the set because the noise and whistles of the viewers spoiled the original footage. This external scene also provoked the end of the marriage of Marilyn with Joe Dimaggio, who felt humiliated with the manifestation of the public.

One dialog that I particularly like is when Sherman and the blonde leave the movie theater and she says that the creature needed to be loved, in an analogy between Sherman and the creature of the black lagoon. The restored DVD is fantastic and this is the most sexually suggested role of Marilyn Monroe to date. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): “O Pecado Mora ao Lado” (“The Sin Lives on the Next Door”)

A legendary scene, but little else to remember…

Author: Enchorde from Sweden
9 February 2010
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Recap: Richard Sherman has just sent his wife and kid away to the countryside, to let them escape an especially bad New York City heat wave. Sherman is left behind during the summer, having to work. But something else starts to occupy his mind, his new upstairs neighbor. It isn’t just anyone, but a spectacularly beautiful young woman. A model to boot. Sherman starts flirting with her, but his guilty conscience is having the best of him. Should he or should he not act on the romance with the girl upstairs.

Comments: A rather unusual story where most of the story is played out in either Sherman’s apartment or Sherman’s imagination, as he obsesses if he should or shouldn’t act on his impulses. But unusual and original as it is, it is not that funny that one could hope for. Legendary screenwriter and director Billy Wilder spearheads this movie and that promises a lot, and it doesn’t live up to the expectations. There were a few outright laughs, it mostly made me smile a little. With Sherman’s obsessing it almost gets a little brooding instead.

It does bear watching though, if nothing else for one famous scene where Marilyn Monroe steps out on the grating above the subway, and her dress blows up around her legs. It’s fun to have seen the original seen that has been copied and parodied countless times since.

But at almost two hours running, it is not really good enough to really carry itself. Some small moments of good jokes but otherwise it was just rather long. If you want to watch a really funny Marilyn Monroe movie I recommend Some like it hot. Also directed by Wilder it is much better.

5/10

Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

1934. Young adults Bonnie Parker, a waitress, and Clyde Barrow, a criminal just released from prison, are immediately attracted to what the other represents for their life when they meet by chance in West Dallas, Texas. Bonnie is fascinated with Clyde’s criminal past, and his matter-of-factness and bravado in talking about it. Clyde sees in Bonnie someone sympatico to his goals in life. Although attracted to each other physically, a sexual relationship between the two has a few obstacles to happen. Regardless, they decide to join forces to embark on a life of crime, holding up whatever establishments, primarily banks, to make money and to have fun.

They don’t plan on hurting anyone physically or killing anyone despite wielding loaded guns. They amass a small gang of willing accomplices, including C.W. Moss, a mechanic to fix whatever cars they steal which is important especially for their getaways, and Buck Barrow, one of Clyde’s older brothers.

Trivia

Producer Warren Beatty requested that the sound of gunshots in the movie should be much louder than the rest of the soundtrack. He was greatly influenced by Shane (1953) in this regard. However, at a screening in London he noticed that the gunfire sounds were much softer than intended. He went to the projection booth, where the projectionist told he that he had “helped” the film by adjusting the gunfire sounds. The projectionist said that he had not come across a film as poorly mixed since “Shane”.

A masterpiece that dares to be excessive!

8 February 2009 | by Righty-Sock (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) (Mexico) – See all my reviews

‘Bonnie and Clyde’ is not a film about two real people famous for so many bank robberies and murders across the big country… It shows a new kind of fury in which people could be harm by weapons… The film, however, manages to carry the impression that these two youngsters took great pleasure in robbing banks and stores… It also suggests that it was very easy for them to fool the law—as certainly occurred in real life… Though merited punishment caught up with them, audiences laughed at their remarkable deeds and wanted them to get away…

In ‘Bonnie and Clyde,’ Penn created an emotional state, an image of the 1930s filtered through his 1960s sensibility… The sense of this period reflects Penn’s vision of how the 1930s Depression-era truly was, and for all the crazy style and banjo score, this vision is greatly private…

What is also personal about ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ and constitutes its incomparable quality, is its unusual mixture of humor and fear, its poetry of violation of the law as something that is gaiety and playfulness…

‘Bonnie and Clyde’ is both true and abstract… It is a gangster movie and a comedy-romance… It is an amusing film that turns bloody, a love affair that ends with tragedy…

A modification between pleasure and catastrophic events is important to the essential aim of the film… In their second bank robbery, a daring and joyful action goes morosely embittered when Clyde is forced to kill an executive in the bank, and real blood pours out from his body…

Bonnie and Clyde take self-gratification posing for photographs with their prisoners… But when surrounded by detectives in a motel, they turn into vindictive bandits struggling for their lives… C. W. Moss, specially, brings to mind Baby Face Nelson, when he murders policemen with a blazing machine gun…

One of the stimulating moments in the film happens when Clyde chases Bonnie through a yellow corn field, while a cloud transverses the sun and slowly shadows the landscape… Here the characteristic quality of the Texas countryside and the vague aspect of the story are beautifully communicated……

Penn’s masterpiece nominated for ten Academy Awards, including Best Picture, won two Oscars, one for Best Actress in a Supporting Role and another for Best Cinematography…

The movie that made it okay to sympathize with murderers…

Author: filmbuff-36 from Houston, TX
30 October 2001

First of all, let me say that I’m appalled by the real life Bonnie and Clyde. They were two psychopathic thrill killers from Dallas who had a special hatred for law enforcement officers.

I must admit that I do feel sorry for the way they were killed, but like the old axiom goes, “If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.”

That said, the movie “Bonnie and Clyde” was a groundbreaking film. It was the first time that we the audience were allowed inside the killers minds, and could see what made them tick. This is perhaps the first film that takes a somewhat objective look at crime; we the audience don’t have “FBI Seal of Approval” morality shoved down our throats, but we still can tell by the actions of the characters that they are evil, whether they know it or not.

The story is of two Texas young adults who, bored with their lives and the prospects of going nowhere in the world, decide to live out their dreams of stardom by going on a crime spree. They fancy themselves a sort of “Romeo and Juliet” couple, and think of their robberies as harmless fun. They start out small by knocking over grocery stores and gas stations, but soon graduate to banks when they need more money to accommodate their lifestyle. Soon they have a simple minded gas clerk named C.W. and Clyde’s brother and wife in the gang, and the duo goes down into history.

Then the fun and games are over. With law enforcement officials now looking for Bonnie and Clyde, they become targets of bounty hunters, unethical cops and other greedy persons who wish to make a name for themselves, and they lose a part of their childish innocence as the escalation of their crimes makes them become more and more violent. When death finally comes for Bonnie and Clyde, it comes with a vengeance.

Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway have never been better. Beatty, who plays Clyde Barrow as an impotent, ne’er do well country boy who seems to be sowing his wild oats, is in top form. He makes Clyde likable, with a goofy smile perpetually pasted on his face, even when sticking up a bank with two guns in his hands. Dunaway is the ultimate femme fatale as Bonnie Parker, a sweet natured Southern belle who likes the feel of a .38 in her hands as she politely asks for all the money. It’s absurd, it’s unrealistic, but hey, it’s Hollywood. And the film works.

But most importantly, Bonnie and Clyde are in love. It’s a kind of love that only few films afterward have been able to equal. There is a genuine feeling of giddy romance between the two no matter what the scene, be it a bank robbery or family get-together away from the reaches of society.

Arthur Penn was obviously a man on a mission when he directed this film. You could sense with every frame that he knew of the importance of this movie; a cinematic masterpiece that dares to make its audience evoke pathos for what would have been banned just a few years earlier.

The finale is still to this day a triumph of audience manipulation. The two bandits, finally captured and unable to escape, are dealt with in a fashion that will haunt you days after viewing. It’s sad, it’s disgusting, but it brings closure to the lives of two individuals whose works and existence could not be tolerated by the powers that be.

The movie “Bonnie and Clyde” inspired a generation of film makers to look at cinema in a different light. Actions movies were allowed to be funny from this point; funny movies could get away with violence. On the negative side, however, the film changed the morals of Hollywood by allowing murder to be dealt with in such a nonchalant fashion.

Sure, Claude is obviously shaken up after his first kill, as are Bonnie and C.W., but from that point on violence against law officials is no longer a problem. The police in this film are rather like the way gangsters used to be portrayed; a collection of stupid, soulless individuals who only want to ruin Bonnie and Clyde’s fun.

In the end, this in an excellent film about Depression era gangsters. Most ironically, however, is that it seems dedicated to the two real life robbers who don’t deserve such an honor of having a film legacy created in their names.

10 stars. Innovative, fresh, and hey, it helped pave the way for “Dillinger”, my favorite movie in the robber-gangster genre.

“We Rob Banks.”

Author: Michael Coy (michael.coy@virgin.net) from London, England
10 January 2001
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Boy meets girl, boy takes girl on robbery spree, cops chase boy and girl. This innovative film transformed Hollywood’s approach to the crime genre and ushered the nouvelle vague into America’s mainstream.

The real-life Bonnie and Clyde ranged the rural Texas-Oklahoma-Missouri emptiness in the early 1930’s, holding up village banks. A product of the Depression, these amateurish outlaws attracted media attention because they brought drama to a bleak, joyless world. They were freewheelers who turned the tables on the banks, notorious but somehow admirable villains. The Robin Hood theme is quietly insisted upon throughout the film. Banks foreclose on poor farmers, or suddenly fail, wiping out ordinary folks’ savings. Out of this chaos emerge these youngsters, scourging the rich and living for the moment, riding their luck for as long as it lasts, “uncertain as times are”.

Mythology is the stuff that Bonnie and Clyde are made of. The film deals admirably with both reality and myth. A farmer touches Clyde reverently, as he might touch a sacred relic. On the other hand, Old Man Moss is disappointed by the ordinariness of the dynamic duo – “they ain’t nothin’ but a coupla kids!” We see the clumsy, ragged robberies and the burgeoning fame. Our lovable rogues may be violent thugs, but they favour the little guy. During a robbery in progress, a farmer is permitted to keep his money. The authorities are portrayed as hapless oafs, as is customary in ‘Robin Hood’ movies, but here it bears an underlying significance – America’s institutions have failed the citizens. People can’t repose trust in the police. (The film was made at the depths of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights disturbances.)

One of the striking features of the film, and one which attracted criticism on its release, is the linking of violence with comedy. This was a period when violence was being portrayed graphically onscreen, and what is new in this film is that the firing of the gun and the bullet hitting the victim are both contained in the same camera shot, as opposed to the traditional euphemism of the cut away from the gun. We never forget that, for all their hedonistic levity, our two leads are “staring square into the face of death”. The final shoot-up is a shocking and fascinating danse macabre. “There’s nothing quite like the kinetics of violence,” says director Arthur Penn. He uses crazily juxtaposed running-speeds to compound the horror of the madly-flailing corpses, an effect which he calls “both spastic and balletic”.

And then, of course, there is sex. The real Clyde Barrow maintained a homosexual liaison with C.W. Moss, and originally the writers Benton and Newman had wanted the menage-a-trois with Bonnie to be a part of the film. Warren Beatty objected to playing a bisexual, and on reflection the Beatty-Penn-Benton-Newman production team dispensed with the sexual sophistication, reasoning that it would complicate the story unnecessarily and alienate cinema audiences. The only remaining vestiges are Clyde’s difficulty making love to Bonnie, and some laddish cuddles during the card game in the hideout. The meeting of Bonnie and Clyde at the start is filled with playful sexual imagery. A bored, trapped Bonnie pummels the slats of her bedframe, pouting with sexual frustration. Clyde bursts into this ‘prison’ and seduces her with his aura of danger and excitement. Check out the phallic symbols – toothpick, gun and coke bottle.

The music is wonderful in itself, and wonderfully appropriate. Flatt and Scruggs’ “Foggy Mountain Breakdown” evokes place and time perfectly, and provides a rousing accompaniment to the car chases. Director Penn has the boldness to dispense with incidental music and, where dramatic effect requires it, to rely on ambient sound such as eerily-rustling grass.

At the writing stage, Benton and Newman were in love with the French New Wave and wanted this project to enshrine the nouvelle vague principles. Strenuous but abortive attempts were made to recruit first Truffaut and then Godard, but Beatty finally convinced the writers that outer trappings such as European directors were unnecessary, because the script held all the New Wave ingredients.

Truffaut’s benign influence pervades the final version, especially the section where Bonnie reads her ballad aloud. We move visually through three scenes as Bonnie’s voice proclaims the couple’s testament, a cinematic gem suggested by Truffaut. Throughout the action, the jump-cut style of editing captures perfectly the spareness which is the essence of New Wave. Two sheets of newspaper are scattered on the swirling wind, an image which underscores the feckless, empty existence of the protagonists. Benton may not have got his francophone director, but in this fresh treatment of classic American subject matter he succeeded in making his “specifically European film”.

“We couldn’t have made it on the back lot,” says Beatty, and he is right. The rural Texas locations are terrific, their open spaces hinting at both freedom and emptiness. Bonnie and Clyde are at their best when on the move, and they grow fractious whenever cooped up. The countryside is almost a participant in the story, as when the distraught Bonnie, filled with thoughts of death and separation, absconds through the field of withered corn, or the Eugene-Thelma episode closes with a dustcloud ‘wiping’ the action. The night-to-day sequence around the two cars after Buck’s misfortune is beautifully done.

Beatty produced the film as well as starring in it. He held daily pre-shoot discussion sessions for the cast, an admirable attempt to enrich the creative process. By the evidence of this fresh, entertaining and superbly-constructed film, his inclusive instincts triumphantly augmented a winning formula.

1967’s best movie.

Author: Charles Saint-Pierre from Montreal, Canada
10 September 1999

“Bonnie and Clyde” is, what I would consider to be, the movie that let loose violence in cinema. Artur Penn’s based on a true story classic of violence, sexuality, and crime, was excellent thirty-two years ago when it first came out, is excellent today, and will be excellent for decades to come. Plus, it is one of those rare movies that are at the same time a landmark for cinema history as well as a true classic for more than just its landmark aspect. This movie earned five nominations only for acting and won best supporting-actress for Estelle Parsons.

One morning, as she wakes up, Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) notices that a man is trying to subtly break into her car. She quickly dresses up and runs down. The man looks up at her embarrassed and we are than revealed Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty). The two of them go for a walk down the road but when Clyde tells Bonnie that he is a robber, she doesn’t believe him. So, he decides to prove to her that he isn’t lying and robs a small grocery shop right away. As soon as he exits the store, he shows Bonnie the money and they escape in a car that they steal. And so begins an adventure they will never forget.

Along their way, they pick up a young boy who works at a gas station who is called C.W. (Michael J. Pollard).

They begin doing more and more robberies until Clyde is finally forced to kill someone. Later on in their trip, Clyde’s brother (Gene Hackman) and his wife Blanche (Estelle Parsons) catch up with Clyde, C.W., and Bonnie and they continue committing crimes such as robberies and even sometimes murders but usually in cases of self-defense.

“Bonnie and Clyde” is beautifully acted and expertly directed. After “Bonnie and Clyde”, Arthur Penn directed some other good movies such as “Little big man” but as good as they were all, none ever equalled “Bonnie and Clyde”. If you haven’t seen it yet, you should put it first on your “Next movies to watch” list.

Bonnie’s Kids (1972)

Sisters Myra and Ellie have finally had enough of their miserable, dead-end lives. When their step-father Charley (The Bonnie from the title being long dead) tried to rape Myra, Ellie ventilates him with a shotgun, and the pair run off to their wealthy uncle’s mansion in El Paso. From that point on, the two undergo a transformation in their personalities, and start to enjoy living their lives on the wild side.

Cracker-Jack drive-in rollick, among the best of its kind.

29 November 2003 | by EyeAskance (fabulous Las Vega$!) – See all my reviews

For small-fry entertainment, you can’t beat BONNIE’S KIDS…it’s clever, briskly paced, and sexy as Hell. Ambitiously played by a cast of highly capable performers, all of whom should have been better utilized in Hollywood, this unassuming little offering stands as one of the crown jewels of 70s drive-in fodder.

Noir-ish story revolves around a pair of gorgeous young sisters who are determined to get ahead no matter who gets screwed in the process. When a private detective comes round to deliver a “special package” to one of the girls, things really start cookin’…a crime story with more flurried excitation, concupiscent titillation, and shifty maneuvers than a Crisco coated Naked Twister marathon.

On a scale of 1-10, BONNIE’S KIDS gets a solid 8.5…right up there with THE CANDY SNATCHERS as a sleazy must-see classic.

A true seventies exploitation classic!

Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England
13 February 2008

I do love a good sleazy seventies crime flick, and Bonnie’s Kids is certainly a very good sleazy seventies crime flick! The main reason this film works so well is because everything about it is absolutely spot on – writer-director Arthur Marks creates a real gritty and sleazy atmosphere that fits his plot brilliantly, while lead actresses Tiffany Bolling and Robin Mattson both manage to pull off performances that are sexy and tantalising as well as being deceptive and as far away from ‘innocent’ as you can get! The film makes best use of its elements and what we end up with is pure drive in gold! The plot focuses on two girls, Ellie and Myra, the daughters of deceased town tramp “Bonnie”.

After their no good stepfather tries to rape the younger daughter, the older one blows him away with a shotgun and the two daughters decide to go and stay with their only relative, Uncle Ben, in his lavish mansion in El Paso. The two get involved with their new lives, and soon enough the older daughter is asked to run an errand for her uncle, but when a chance to steal a load of money presents itself; she takes it…

The plot of this film is great in that we get a basic premise and from there it’s never clear where it’s going to go. Arthur Marks’ script has plenty going on in it; the main story always revolves around the girls, but there’s enough going elsewhere and with other characters to ensure that it’s always interesting and the 105 minute runtime is certainly not packed with filler! The film is also good in that it’s clearly a product of the time in which it’s made – everything about the film clearly sets it in the seventies; the fashions, the music, the cars, houses etc are all exactly what you’d expect from a film like this. There’s a real lot of themes that are common in seventies exploitation that made it in too, from sex and shooting to lesbianism and teenage angst.

The fact that the film is not predictable is carried on all the way to the end, and the climax really does come as a big surprise and was not what I was expecting! Overall, this might not appeal to all tastes, but for my money, Bonnie’s Kids is an out and out drive in classic and should not be missed by anyone who considers themselves a fan of films like this one!

Did Tarantino See This As A Youngster??

Author: shark-43 from L.A. CA
3 March 2005

This is a thoroughly entertaining 1970’s sleazy crime film – where desperate people do desperate things for sex and money. The clothes, the music, the lingo, the hair styles – a great time capsule of the early 70’s.

The curious thing is the movie has some real interesting quirks to it – one being a “salt and pepper” hit team – white guy, black guy who spend a lot of time walking hallways, sitting in a car, sitting in diners and talking about this and that – very much like Travolta and Jackson in “Pulp Fiction”. Now, is THIS film the first to have such a hit team – probably not. But in the theatre midnight movie showing I saw it at – many people were shouting out the “Pulp Fiction” similarities. Hmmmm. Just like many people bring up the jewel robbery in the powerful Asian crime film “City On Fire” as the “inspiration” for the jewel robbery in “Reservoir Dogs”. Hmmmm. Anyway, the movie of “Bonnie’s Kids” is a blast – good and gritty and Alex Rocco (Moe Green in the Godfather and the Emmy-winning sleazy agent in the short-lived comedy Famous Teddy Z) is the white guy assassin.

They sure don’t make ’em like this anymore

Author: lazarillo from Denver, Colorado and Santiago, Chile
12 September 2008

It may be a bit hard to fathom why this is called “Bonnie’s Kids” when the mother character “Bonnie” is dead before the movie even starts and does not appear at all, even in flashbacks. But this is no doubt a reference to the movie “Bonnie and Clyde” which this film at times certainly resembles. Two sisters are living with their drunken, brutish stepfather after the death of their prostitute mother. The older sister (Tiffany Bolling) catches the stepfather trying to molest the younger sister(Robin Mattson) and shoots him dead.

The two go on the lam and end up at the home of an uncle, who owns a fashion magazine, but (rather incongruously) is also a vicious gangster on the side. The older sister goes to pick up a “package” for the uncle from a dimwitted private detective. They fall for each other and when they discover the “package” is a large amount of cash, they flee with it with two of the uncle’s dangerous associate (Alex Rocco, Timothy Brown ) in hot pursuit. Meanwhile, the younger sister is seducing practically everyone in her uncle’s household from his studly gardener to his lonely lesbian wife. The ending makes the finale of “Bonnie and Clyde” seem positively cheery by comparison.

This movie has a real early 70’s atmosphere of bleak pessimism to it, much like “The Candy Snatchers”, another cult film of that era starring Bolling. It isn’t just the downbeat ending though, but the fact that ALL the characters are totally amoral and unsympathetic, even the supposed heroines. The two sisters are more than willing to use their sexy bodies to get what they want and they seem completely untroubled by morals or basic human feelings. After convincing him to steal the money, the older sister is perfectly willing to betray her private detective beau and run off with a lecherous traveling salesman to save her own skin. The younger sister, meanwhile, is even more callous: she drives one of her lovers to suicide and then just laughs when she discovers the body. In the end, she doesn’t even seem to care about the fate of her older sister.

These sexy but totally unsympathetic heroine roles were pretty much the specialty of Tiffany Bolling. So, not surprisingly, she’s pretty good here. This is one of Mattson’s first movies, but she would go on to a brief exploitation career (i.e. “Candy Stripe Nurses”), and a much longer career in American television. In way she almost manages to “out-Bolling” Bolling here. She was still pretty young when she did this role, but nevertheless men (and lesbians) everywhere will no doubt be thankful that they don’t have a malicious temptress like THIS for a stepdaughter. Director Arthur Marks, who also produced “The Candy Snatcher” would go on to do a couple influential “blaxploitation” movies (“Detroit 9000”, “J.D.s Revenge”). I can’t say this movie will fit everyone’s taste, but one things for sure–they don’t make ’em like this anymore.

Some bonds needed to be broken!

Author: Brian T. Whitlock (GOWBTW) from WILMINGTON, NC
7 October 2012

Family bonds were meant to last a lifetime. But in the movie “Bonnie’s Kids”, it’s a whole new story. Two sisters Ellie(Tiffany Bolling) and Myra(Robin Mattson) are stuck in a town where nothing exciting goes. They lost their mother, Bonnie. They have a stepfather who’s a total jerk. He crossed the line with Myra when she was on the phone, and tried to rape her. Kellie comes home in time, and blitzes him with a shotgun. They would later travel to Texas, find their uncle who works for a fashion company, and takes the two under his wing. Unbeknownst to them, he’s involved in shady business. If you think that’s bad, the uncle’s wife Diana(Lenore Stevens) goes through enough abuse from him, she takes a liking towards Myra, while Ellie is away on business.

Ellie meets the private detective, and falls for him. Then the sister bonding begins to break slowly between them. When Diana began to comfort Myra, she takes it to a whole new level. And in that case, Myra wasn’t cool with it. She berates and exploits her hard and fast. It was funny when she said, “You’re Disgusting!” after Diana shot herself. Ellie wanted to have a better life, but her greed just got the better of her. A very classic movie, with a lot of humor to go along with. A little exploitive to say the least. 2 out of 5 stars

Bank Shot (1974)

Bank Shot is a 1974 film directed by Gower Champion and written by Wendell Mayes. It was loosely based upon Donald E. Westlake‘s novel of the same name, which was the second book of his Dortmunder series. The film stars George C. Scott, Joanna Cassidy, Sorrell Booke, and G. Wood.

Vincent Canby of The New York Times was mildly amused: “It’s not a great movie. It’s not worth taking a taxi to see. Yet there are many less invigorating ways to waste one’s time. … The intensity of Scott’s performance is highly comic. His Walter Ballantine has the discipline, self-assurance and narrow vision of the true fanatic. So, too, do most of the other characters in the film… Gower Champion, who has had more success as a Broadway director (Hello, Dolly) than as a maker of films (My Six Loves), seems to have had a great deal of fun with first-rate actors doing Bank Shot — grace of a work by someone who knows exactly what he’s doing.

Funny, Funny, Funny

Author: richard winters (rwint) from Chicago, Illinois
5 April 2004

8 out of 10

Completely wacky story involving seven nutty people who decide to rob a bank that is inside a mobile home. They do so by stealing the entire building only to find that trying to open the safe is even tougher.

This is the type of comedy that works because although it is built around one gimmick it doesn’t just stay dependent on it. Everything is offbeat here. It really is just one laugh after another and it comes at a extremely fast pace. Nearly every scene is diverting and some of it even memorable. It shows a good handle on the absurd with just the right balance of the irreverent particularly with the police and other authority figures. Scott’s escape from his prison camp is good example of all these ingredients. He uses a stolen bulldozer to crash through the gate while the police chief tries to ‘chase him down’ while driving nothing more than a flimsy little golf cart. It all makes for one of the most unique chase sequences you will ever see.

Of course the actual heist of the bank building is still the best. The innumerable and frustrating attempts at trying to open a most difficult safe comes in at a close second. There are also a lot of other fun ironic twists.

Scott is not necessarily the best person for the part of the cunning and audacious criminal mastermind. He looks very old, grouchy, and tired here. He has your grandfathers big bushy eyebrows and talks with a very strange lisp. Yet he is also at his crumudgeon best and the film makes the most of it. Cassidy with her infectious laugh and very sunny disposition makes for a terrific counterpart. James though probably stands out the most in a over the top caricature of the hard nosed police sergeant. It’s the best role of his career and a part he looks to have been born to play.

If the film has any faults it is the fact that it tends to be too one dimensionally silly and at points seems almost cartoonish. A little more tension here and there wouldn’t have hurt. It also goes by way too fast and the ending isn’t very satisfying. Still this is a solid comedy that should appeal to anyone with a good sense of humor. It is also fun for the whole family.

Zany heist caper, with agreeably oddball characters and rib-tickling situations.

Author: Jonathon Dabell (barnaby.rudge@hotmail.co.uk) from Todmorden, England
3 August 2006
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The caper movie was all the rage in the 1970s, especially after the 1972 film The Hot Rock had shown critics and audiences just how good a well-thought-out caper film could be. The Hot Rock was based on a novel by Donald E. Westlake, and it is another Westlake novel that provides the inspiration this time around, as Gower Champion takes to the directorial chair for Bank Shot.

Criminal genius Walter Ballantine (George C. Scott) is approached while doing time in a desert penitentiary and asked to participate in a bank heist. First he needs to bust out of jail, which he does with a little help from a bulldozer and sexy lady-crook El (Joanna Cassidy). El is just one of a team of villainous oddballs with whom Ballantine will be carrying out his next villainous project. The others include Al G. Karp (Sorrell Booke), Victor Karp (Bob Balaban), Herman X (Frank McRae), and Mums (Bibi Osterwald). Their plan is to rob a bank and, after careful planning, Ballantine comes up with the ingenious idea of stealing the entire building. It seems that the bank in question is a rather small building, rather like a portable wooden home or caravan. With incredible audacity, the team of criminals steal the building one night by putting it on wheels and disguising it so that it appears like a trailer home.

Having booked their new “house” into a trailer park while the heat cools, the gang of misfits seem to have succeeded with their brilliant robbery. But there’s a final twist in store as obsessed cop Bulldog Streiger (Clifton James) – a long-time nemesis of Ballantine’s – refuses to give in without a fight….

Bank Shot is a short, snappy and frequently very funny film. Scott proves himself a surprisingly capable comedian in a role that is far removed from the likes of “Dr. Strangelove” and “Patton” (the latter of which had earned him an Oscar). In fact, the whole cast sizzle in this wacky film, most notably Clifton James as the persistent cop whose goal in life is to nail Walter Ballantine whatever the cost.

What really helps the film is the fact that the heist is so unique and unusual – no mere robbery here, but the very clever and very amusing concept of the crooks stealing the entire building. It’s just outrageous enough to add a delightfully zany edge to the proceedings. The film is tightly paced and runs for a mere 80 minutes or so, which may sound somewhat brief but actually works in the film’s favour, making the events move along with urgency rather than dwelling on superfluities. Wendell Mayes deserves credit for this, having done a splendid job of adapting the Westlake novel for his screenplay. There are occasional shades of heavy-handedness, such as a silly final sequence in which Scott is cast adrift in the Pacific Ocean, but these misjudgements are few and far between and do not particularly ruin one’s enjoyment of the film.

Strenuously daffy…

5 March 2011 | by moonspinner55 (las vegas, nv) – See all my reviews

Incarcerated thief–with a colorful rap-sheet of offenses–is tipped off by a former crony about a little bank near Los Angeles just waiting to be robbed; he breaks out of prison and surveys the bank in question, deciding it would be better to make off with the entire mobile building rather than just the safe. Scrappy adaptation of Donald E. Westlake’s novel (a follow-up to his similarly-themed “The Hot Rock”, itself filmed in 1972), this half-assed comedy-caper is poorly photographed and directed, but does benefit from energetic supporting players and some mild laughs in the opening. It falls apart after an hour or so, with George C. Scott (sporting exaggerated eyebrows and a peculiar, Ed Wynn-like speaking voice) badly miscast in the lead. *1/2 from ****

Zany heist caper, with agreeably oddball characters and rib-tickling situations.

Author: Jonathon Dabell (barnaby.rudge@hotmail.co.uk) from Todmorden, England
3 August 2006
*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The caper movie was all the rage in the 1970s, especially after the 1972 film The Hot Rock had shown critics and audiences just how good a well-thought-out caper film could be. The Hot Rock was based on a novel by Donald E. Westlake, and it is another Westlake novel that provides the inspiration this time around, as Gower Champion takes to the directorial chair for Bank Shot.

Criminal genius Walter Ballantine (George C. Scott) is approached while doing time in a desert penitentiary and asked to participate in a bank heist. First he needs to bust out of jail, which he does with a little help from a bulldozer and sexy lady-crook El (Joanna Cassidy).

El is just one of a team of villainous oddballs with whom Ballantine will be carrying out his next villainous project. The others include Al G. Karp (Sorrell Booke), Victor Karp (Bob Balaban), Herman X (Frank McRae), and Mums (Bibi Osterwald). Their plan is to rob a bank and, after careful planning, Ballantine comes up with the ingenious idea of stealing the entire building. It seems that the bank in question is a rather small building, rather like a portable wooden home or caravan. With incredible audacity, the team of criminals steal the building one night by putting it on wheels and disguising it so that it appears like a trailer home. Having booked their new “house” into a trailer park while the heat cools, the gang of misfits seem to have succeeded with their brilliant robbery. But there’s a final twist in store as obsessed cop Bulldog Streiger (Clifton James) – a long-time nemesis of Ballantine’s – refuses to give in without a fight….

Bank Shot is a short, snappy and frequently very funny film. Scott proves himself a surprisingly capable comedian in a role that is far removed from the likes of “Dr. Strangelove” and “Patton” (the latter of which had earned him an Oscar). In fact, the whole cast sizzle in this wacky film, most notably Clifton James as the persistent cop whose goal in life is to nail Walter Ballantine whatever the cost. What really helps the film is the fact that the heist is so unique and unusual – no mere robbery here, but the very clever and very amusing concept of the crooks stealing the entire building. It’s just outrageous enough to add a delightfully zany edge to the proceedings. The film is tightly paced and runs for a mere 80 minutes or so, which may sound somewhat brief but actually works in the film’s favour, making the events move along with urgency rather than dwelling on superfluities. Wendell Mayes deserves credit for this, having done a splendid job of adapting the Westlake novel for his screenplay. There are occasional shades of heavy-handedness, such as a silly final sequence in which Scott is cast adrift in the Pacific Ocean, but these misjudgements are few and far between and do not particularly ruin one’s enjoyment of the film.