Reviews written by registered user
|8 reviews in total|
Wonderful ! A movie which, via a striking realism and burning issues (abortion) approached frontally, regenerates the charming power of the best Hollywood cinema, power reduced by the end of the golden age of Hollywood studios. Indeed, the movie starts as an intimist drama before ending as a romantic comedy without that ever the spectator perceives the transition. It is because some "clichés" are themselves dramatic impulses since "love with a proper stranger" may be summarized as the confrontation between love as the ideal formated by fairy tales and Hollywood, and love as generally binding social reality (marriage). The movie is no more and no less only the story of a young independent woman (some would say a "modern" woman) which is going to try to find its way between the weight of the family traditions and her teenager's images which she knows outmoded but which she cannot get out of her head. Robert Mulligan's style is perfectly appropriate and it is a bit raw and optimistic; it is a perfect synthesis between experience of the new waves (filming in the street, the audacious ellipses which revitalize the story, the mature representation of the sexuality) and clichés used aptly (the sequence in the cab :very Hollywoodian ). Thanks to this inspired composition, the film-maker succeeds to create miracles such as, the loving feeling rising within both characters in the central sequence of the film,. Furthermore, the Elmer Bernstein's slowly lyric music matches smoothly with the Mulligan's frames of the movie. Finally, it would be improper to finish this chronic without speaking about both leading actors.Steve McQueen is surprising in this cast against type of a man overtaken by events.He is at his best, a bit boyish and so handsome and charming. Natalie Wood is just radiant. As I hope to have convinced you of it, the movie is excellent, but Natalie is so beautiful there The performances of both actors justify an attentive look on this film inequitably underestimated and little-known.
Great film -Robert Redford has a way of drawing in the audience and Faye Dunaway is more vulnerable than ever, her best role since Thomas Crown. No vulgarity in the love scene just a great sensuality. Both stars have shown an outstanding performance ! Top-notch screenplay - 70's films are definitely the best ones in terms of storytelling and screenplays. Sidney Pollack does also a great job as a director and delivers an efficient thriller that you can watch over and over again.I agree with some reviewers who think that it is one of the Redford's best. The supporting cast is also excellent. Maybe the directors nowadays should watch more often 70's films to be more inspired.
What an enjoyable movie ! Robert Redford and Jane Fonda are just marvellous, a well matched couple. Robert Redford as the groom is a young buttoned-up attorney and Jane Fonda is the free spirit and the vivacious young bride. They're really fun to watch. Very good performances from both actors as well as from the supporting cast (M.Natwick and Charles Boyer). It's a good film, pleasant to watch with a perfect timing, a very good dialog and funny situations. The acting ability of Jane Fonda and Robert Redford, young actors at that time is impressive in particular in the quarrel scene in which Corie tells her husband Paul that "he's extremely proper and dignified" and ends up by saying to him that he's a stuffed shirt etc. A MUST SEE movie
This film is a masterpiece in lots of ways. First of all excellent screenplay and an amazing supporting cast (Allen Garfield as Redford's ad man and Melvyn Douglas as Redford's father). Robert Redford plays Bill Mc Kay a young lawyer, son of Governor John J. McKay who becomes a candidate for senator. Mc Kay is very sympathetic and handsome too. Robert Redford is really incredible in this film, as an idealistic young lawyer torn between principle and ambition. Bob is definitely one of the talented actors of our time. This film has also a timeless message and should be shown before every election. What is also really very interesting in this film is how Bill Mc Kay evolves and how the political machine changes him. Finally we realize particularly at the end that he's no different from Crocker Jarmon his opponent (the debate scene is brilliantly performed by both actors Robert Redford and Don Porter).Indeed, what Bill Mc Kay stands for, his priorities, his principles will be sacrificed just to get elected as he realizes that he can win. Michael Ritchie does a brilliant job as well directing this film A MUST SEE movie that deserves a sequel.
The movie is mainly faithful to the novel. On the surface, "The Great Gatsby" is merely a story about a boy who has a crush on a girl. But looking deeper, it's the nature of the crush that gives the novel its complexity. The Great Gatsby is also a story about identity, the American dream, second chances, and most of all, the impossibility of repeating the past. It is true that the film is sometimes slow but it is glossy and nicely detailed maybe too much. The roaring twenties are realistically and stunningly described. Despite some reviews, I think that Robert Redford offers an interesting take on the mysterious millionaire Jay Gatsby. Not only he's good looking (as always) but also enigmatic, mysterious and even aloof. As for Mia Farrow as Daisy Buchanan, it is really a question of point of view. In the novel, Daisy has a natural flighty flirtatiousness and in the film Mia Farrow appears more fragile but she portrays well the character. Honestly, I don't know many actors who could play perfectly well these 2 roles because it depends on how you perceive the characters.Bear in mind, the director of this film decides upon the way of playing these 2 characters on a base of Francis Ford Coppola's screenplay. I guess both Robert Redford and Mia Farrow had to capture these 2 complex characters who are not easy to play and the novel is also complex.It was a big challenge to make a movie of this great novel and the result is generally good even though there are some weaknesses in the way of directing this movie and the actors. Probably too academic film making. The costumes and facilities are great. I do think it is a film that is worth seeing.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I do like this movie even though there are sometimes some weaknesses not that obvious. The film finely moves by cutting between the fugitives and their pursuers, sometimes enforcing clear contrast, occasionally suggesting direct or ironic similarity (for example, the sheriff and the lady doctor engage in mutually humiliating sexual combat; Willie Boy and his girl make love) by means of sound bridges and parallel visual compositions. The Director A.Polonsky uses the wide screen as space to be meaningfully filled, and one is aware of carefully considered effect, in particular in the desert landscape, to a degree quite unusual in movies those days. Polonsky's messages ; tied to the white-Indian conflict, and they are delivered in a script that is not dialog so much as a series of one-line monologues, to which characters may react but almost never effectively respond. With a moral victory or defeat registered every few minutes, the film is sometimes quite in danger of mistaking text for texture. Lucklily, the danger is most of the time avoided. The movie lives most brilliantly on a third level, not unrelated to the action or the allegory, but much deeper, more mysterious, more fully felt. Let's not forget it is mainly a chase movie, concerned with clues and tracks, all signs must be read. And because the film focused on questions of personal identity, all signs are even more relevant. But the nature of the signs changes in the course of the movie, becoming always more intimate, elusive, meaningful, impenetrable. Near the end, these signs include a scarecrow, a hand print, a dead girl's body,a ritual fireimages, in context, of exceptional resonance. The four principal actors are excellent. Robert Redford as Sheriff Cooper "Coop"(pretty as ever and gives a fine performance) and Robert Blake (very convincing as Willie Boy) meet physically only twice during the film, but they form a superb ensemble. Susan Clark as Dr Arnold brings charm and humanity to a schematized and sometimes melodramatic role. Finally, Katherine Ross as Lola, whose character is the least accessible of all, suffers and finally submits without giving in to pathos or easy stylization. In short, a film to be seen with a careful attention.
It is quite rare to see such a chemistry between two actors. It is true
that Redford and Wood knew each other before having enjoyed playing
together in the 1965 film Inside Daisy Glover. Robert Redford and
Nathalie Wood became close friends afterwards and I heard that he was
Nathalie's best man when she got married.
Anyway, Redford and Wood have a great chemistry in this movie. Redford is once again and as always very handsome and calm. Nathalie Wood is absolutely stunning and very generous in her acting. You can almost feel her pain when her mother begged her to stay with a rich and lonely older man for just a bit of time in her life. This is a good movie. Syndney Pollack did a great job as well directing this film. A must see. Redford and Wood are both fascinating and they both give an excellent performance.
Indecent proposal is an interesting film maybe no the best but still a
very good film. First of all, unlike mentioned in some reviews I don't
think Robert Redford was miscast because according to some reviewers
that he was too handsome for the role so any woman would sleep with him
anyway even for free. The interesting thing for me : Yes Robert Redford
is devastatingly handsome even aged in his fifties in this film but
Diana and David are very much in love but totally broke and they need
the money desperately.
Why it is interesting ? because I think that Robert Redford as John Gage should be able to have all the women he wants without paying anything - The main point is that John GAGE wants Diana and no one else : something clicked inside him when he first saw her in the shop.It was not only a sexual attraction but also a strong feeling for her. The fact that he is handsome is interesting because you feel at the beginning of the film that David could be jealous of John Gage not only because of his money but also because of Gage's looks and great presence. David is aware of that and I believe is worried that Diana could be attracted to him as well from a romantic point of view. And he's right because Diana is attracted to John GAGE maybe not consciously at the beginning but she is later in the film when she realizes that he is a real gentle man looking for love. Actually she would like to hate him but she can't.
That's why it is hard for Diana to talk about her fateful night with . John Gage when David asked her. If John Gage was portrayed as a bad-looking,rough guy, it might have been much easier for Diana to do it for money no risk then to feel attracted to the guy or to fall in love with him because it would be just sex and - that's all -no feelings involved.
No risks at all so no interests, no suspense in the film.The film wouldn't be as interesting as it is. As for John GAGE,we know that he wanted to prove to David and Diana that everything could be bought, even people but he also realizes that feelings cannot be bought as he wanted Diana to love him like she loves David. It's an interesting film from different point of views.