The subject matter feels a bit too lightly treated and the technical elements of the film are rather ordinary, but 'Rabbit, Run' has some good ideas, especially in regards to detaching from and trying to escape unhappiness. James Caan is good in the lead and the supporting cast is strong, with Arthur Hill and Jack Albertson particular highlights, plus another solid performance in the same year from Carrie Snodgress of 'Diary of a Mad Housewife'. It is the acting and the occasional good idea that keep this film alive, and it might not be a brilliant piece of cinema, but it does have enough good about it to be a satisfying watch.
14 Reviews
did this instead of MASH
SnoopyStyle3 September 2023
Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom (James Caan) and his pregnant wife Janice Angstrom (Carrie Snodgress) fight constantly. Life has not turned out well for the former high school basketball star. He reconnects with his strange struggling coach Marty Tothero (Jack Albertson). Marty and him go on a double date and he's introduced to Ruth Leonard (Anjanette Comer).
This is based on a John Updike novel. It's hard to get inside the character. The script is too loose. I don't know why he undresses and sleeps in front of his former coach. Does that indicate some sort of abusive relationship? I don't know. The movie doesn't expand on it. It's a very 70's movie where the character is aimlessly searching for something he doesn't know. It's a muddle. The filmmaking is weak. Updike was writing against the backdrop of 50's white Protestant middle America. The movie should play that up. This still has Jimmy Caan and that could save it. He did this instead of MASH. This guy is wandering in the wilderness of his life and it's not compelling.
This is based on a John Updike novel. It's hard to get inside the character. The script is too loose. I don't know why he undresses and sleeps in front of his former coach. Does that indicate some sort of abusive relationship? I don't know. The movie doesn't expand on it. It's a very 70's movie where the character is aimlessly searching for something he doesn't know. It's a muddle. The filmmaking is weak. Updike was writing against the backdrop of 50's white Protestant middle America. The movie should play that up. This still has Jimmy Caan and that could save it. He did this instead of MASH. This guy is wandering in the wilderness of his life and it's not compelling.
Rabbit, Run from that Soundtrack!
mackjay216 July 2010
An almost satisfying movie experience. The seldom seen film version of John Updike's novel has equal parts of good and bad. There are scenes that suffer from poor editing and dramatic continuity, especially for instance the first time Rabbit goes to Ruth's apartment, the scene feels rushed as though something was cut out to keep it moving and it loses coherence. A few other scenes are like this. I would guess the film might have been much longer, but it was cut down for unknown reasons. All the performances are good. James Caan has a challenge with Rabbit and he rises to it, you can't despise him for his actions and can almost understand his feelings. Same goes for Janice (Carrie Snodgress, very good) and certainly Ruth, played by the excellent Anjanette Comer. Jack Albertson deserves special mention for his sad characterization. Technically the film is uneven, with some pedestrian direction alongside some beautifully shot and staged scenes. The Reading, PA location is used very well and it's a strong part of the film.
The absolute, single WORST thing about this film is the soundtrack. Godawful, uninspired late sixties rock in place of film music. In 1969 I can assume the producers wanted the film to be 'hip' with current musical styles, but the songs and singers are so dreadful they nearly ruin the film for me. Not only is the music beyond terrible, but it often surges loudly into a quiet scene, adding nothing but irritation. The actors make and save this film. It's worth seeing for them. In finely played supporting roles are familiar faces from TV: Carmen Matthews, Don Keefer, Josephine Hutchinson, and Arthur Hill of course is excellent as always.
The absolute, single WORST thing about this film is the soundtrack. Godawful, uninspired late sixties rock in place of film music. In 1969 I can assume the producers wanted the film to be 'hip' with current musical styles, but the songs and singers are so dreadful they nearly ruin the film for me. Not only is the music beyond terrible, but it often surges loudly into a quiet scene, adding nothing but irritation. The actors make and save this film. It's worth seeing for them. In finely played supporting roles are familiar faces from TV: Carmen Matthews, Don Keefer, Josephine Hutchinson, and Arthur Hill of course is excellent as always.
A film that arrived a decade late
MidLebowski28 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
One of those times when the film completely loses the spark of the novel on which it's based. John Updike's wonderful prose descriptions and inner dialogues made Rabbit's "run" a framework for the angst and aimlessness of a young adult whose best days are behind him. Instead, now the story is about how James Caan cheats on his wife.
The movie version came out in 1970, ten years after the novel, and ten years too late for the plot to make sense: the sexual revolution of the 60's robs the story of its tension. By this point, Updike had already written the sequel, Rabbit Redux, taking his protagonist up to the moment.
Updike fans may want to see the movie as a curiosity piece, but I wouldn't recommend it.
The movie version came out in 1970, ten years after the novel, and ten years too late for the plot to make sense: the sexual revolution of the 60's robs the story of its tension. By this point, Updike had already written the sequel, Rabbit Redux, taking his protagonist up to the moment.
Updike fans may want to see the movie as a curiosity piece, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Some films age well, others...well...Rabbit Run
Limeginger28 June 2017
Some films pass the test of time. Others feel incredibly stale, dated, and stultifying. This film, I would wager, felt stale as soon as it hit the theatres. James Caan's and most of the other actors' acting is stiff, forced, and one dimensional, and the screen adaptation of a worthwhile book also is awkward and artificial, in the way that films that don't pass the test of time are.
As another reviewer remarked, the film was made 10 years too late--the mores and morals of the year 1960 had already completely shifted by 1970, so the film doesn't even make sense, and the film making and directorial style feel unpleasantly anachronistic.
As another reviewer remarked, the film was made 10 years too late--the mores and morals of the year 1960 had already completely shifted by 1970, so the film doesn't even make sense, and the film making and directorial style feel unpleasantly anachronistic.
Why isn't this film revived?
alanjj11 August 2014
After I read Rabbit Run and Rabbit Redux, I wanted to see how many Updike novels had been made into movies. His writing does not seem cinematic. I was surprised to find that, in addition to The Witches of Eastwick, Rabbit Run had, in fact, been made into a movie. And starring one of the leading actors of the late 60's, early 70s, James Caan, as well as Carrie Snodgrass, best known for Diary of a Mad Housewife. Also, in a major role, Jack Albertson, later renowned for Chico and the Man.
Rabbit Run, the movie, is unfairly neglected. The central role of Harry Angstrom is fully realized by James Caan as a guy you sympathize with and despise. The events of Harry's life are played out to suitably tacky late-60's pop music, and filmed in John Updike's hometown of Reading, Pa. Reading looks even sadder than Updike described it, but the gritty streets work well for the story. They are unpleasant and dangerous and claustrophobic, and if you were to live there, in this small industrial city walled in by high hills, you might feel like you're trapped, like Rabbit was.
James Caan was somewhat unique among actors of that time: I think of Dustin Hoffman and Elliot Gould as being the icons of the era, the not-really-handsome lovable Jewish schmos. James Caan is a Jewish schmo, but he's also a hunk, with broad shoulders and a big chest and a seductive face. He's conventionally sexy, and women fall for him easily, but he still is an outsider, he's got issues, lots of issues, just like Dustin and Elliot. A super-schmo.
There was one scene in the book, which I will NOT reveal here, that was harrowing and an amazing display of the author's power with his pen. That scene translates frighteningly to the screen, although I thought the filmmakers could have gone much further in depicting the horror. If ever a remake is made, THAT scene should be full-out Grand-Guignol.
It's a satisfying flick, and it makes you long for the sequel that was never made. I read elsewhere that this film never even opened in New York, the studio thought so little of it. If the éminences grises of the Film Forum or Anthology Film Archives or Film Society of Lincoln Center are reading this, please consider reviving this film, and giving it a proper New York opening.
Rabbit Run, the movie, is unfairly neglected. The central role of Harry Angstrom is fully realized by James Caan as a guy you sympathize with and despise. The events of Harry's life are played out to suitably tacky late-60's pop music, and filmed in John Updike's hometown of Reading, Pa. Reading looks even sadder than Updike described it, but the gritty streets work well for the story. They are unpleasant and dangerous and claustrophobic, and if you were to live there, in this small industrial city walled in by high hills, you might feel like you're trapped, like Rabbit was.
James Caan was somewhat unique among actors of that time: I think of Dustin Hoffman and Elliot Gould as being the icons of the era, the not-really-handsome lovable Jewish schmos. James Caan is a Jewish schmo, but he's also a hunk, with broad shoulders and a big chest and a seductive face. He's conventionally sexy, and women fall for him easily, but he still is an outsider, he's got issues, lots of issues, just like Dustin and Elliot. A super-schmo.
There was one scene in the book, which I will NOT reveal here, that was harrowing and an amazing display of the author's power with his pen. That scene translates frighteningly to the screen, although I thought the filmmakers could have gone much further in depicting the horror. If ever a remake is made, THAT scene should be full-out Grand-Guignol.
It's a satisfying flick, and it makes you long for the sequel that was never made. I read elsewhere that this film never even opened in New York, the studio thought so little of it. If the éminences grises of the Film Forum or Anthology Film Archives or Film Society of Lincoln Center are reading this, please consider reviving this film, and giving it a proper New York opening.
All of these characters are looney toons.
mark.waltz11 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Having been rising up in film since the early 60's, by the beginning of the 70's, James Caan was beginning to catch on. it's too bad that this film has some of the most unlikable and underdeveloped characters because it is a very funny view of infidelity and other amoral behaviors that were part of cultural rebellion around this time. He's an unhappily married man with a drunken pregnant wife (Carrie Snodgress) and picking up prostitute Anjanette Comer while out with his college basketball coach, Jack Albertson.
A quickie turns into an overnighter and that turns into a continued affair that begins to take a serious turn when Caan must leave her to go to the hospital where Snodgress is having her baby. There's also the Reverend Arthur Hill's wife Melanie Johnson who makes a play for him, his interaction with the various people he meets along his journey. Unfortunately, it's a one way trip from which the viewer ends up car sick.
On the plus side, the veteran cast of older actors try to instill some grace and humor into this, and while I did find myself laughing at a lot of the absurdities of the script, I felt like I needed a shower afterwards. Nydia Westman, a veteran supporting player since the 1930's, is memorable as an old lady whose garden he visits regularly, and Josephine Hutchinson and Henry Jones are Caan's supportive parents. Carmen Mathews as Snodgress's mother could have played the role as more of a harpy in her dealings with her son-in-law, but she comes off unscathed.
This does have an early 70s feel to it which gives it a sense of nostalgia and the music helps as well. But ultimately, there's no real point to it other than to get out some sexual aggression (with Erich Segal's script), and the younger women come off unfavorably stupid and Albertson and Caan aren't exactly likeable either. Since there's no one really to root for here, it's best to just view this as a period piece and for the character actors who probably ask for more money to utter such filthy dialogue.
A quickie turns into an overnighter and that turns into a continued affair that begins to take a serious turn when Caan must leave her to go to the hospital where Snodgress is having her baby. There's also the Reverend Arthur Hill's wife Melanie Johnson who makes a play for him, his interaction with the various people he meets along his journey. Unfortunately, it's a one way trip from which the viewer ends up car sick.
On the plus side, the veteran cast of older actors try to instill some grace and humor into this, and while I did find myself laughing at a lot of the absurdities of the script, I felt like I needed a shower afterwards. Nydia Westman, a veteran supporting player since the 1930's, is memorable as an old lady whose garden he visits regularly, and Josephine Hutchinson and Henry Jones are Caan's supportive parents. Carmen Mathews as Snodgress's mother could have played the role as more of a harpy in her dealings with her son-in-law, but she comes off unscathed.
This does have an early 70s feel to it which gives it a sense of nostalgia and the music helps as well. But ultimately, there's no real point to it other than to get out some sexual aggression (with Erich Segal's script), and the younger women come off unfavorably stupid and Albertson and Caan aren't exactly likeable either. Since there's no one really to root for here, it's best to just view this as a period piece and for the character actors who probably ask for more money to utter such filthy dialogue.
The 'New Hollywood' Take On An Eisenhower Era Novel
SweetWilliam639 March 2017
Strong performances, especially James Caan at the height of his career, save this film from being a complete disaster. The problem is that the 1950's themes (Updike's novel is set in 1956) seem out of place framed within the 'New Hollywood' of American film making in 1970. Choppy editing and a heavy 70's electronica soundtrack distract from what would otherwise be a fairly strong representation of the new wave of film making (Midnight Cowboy, The Graduate, Bonnie & Clyde) portraying a harsher and more critical view of middle class America. Caan's portrayal of the selfish and immature 'Rabbit' is sympathetic and charming. He is surrounded by a supporting cast that portray hapless, stupid or unlikable people who interfere in his efforts to find fulfillment. These characters are one dimensional and serve only as a means to justify the angst and frustration of the protagonist. (A recurring plot device in the American 'New Wave' cinema.) Worth the watch for fans of Caan or films of that era.
Early starring role for James Caan, who's the only good thing in the picture
moonspinner557 May 2016
Jack Smight directed this unexciting adaptation of John Updike's book about a feckless husband and father in small town Pennsylvania, married to a pregnant, alcoholic drudge, who bolts from his responsibilities. Although new to the screen, James Caan does quite well in the central role, turning this flaky material (dotted with shockable language, which was new at the time, and talk of sexual kinks) into an acting showcase. Caan gives his Rabbit a sense of humor bourn of desperation and an edge that isn't so much angry as it is internally combative. Updike, the ultimate girl-ogling, horny heterosexual, doesn't allow his characters to have much fun, and this dampens the movie as well. Smight blamed the poorly-received results on producer-screenwriter Howard B. Kreitsek, who reedited Smight's final cut, and threatened to remove his name from the credits. "Rabbit, Run" isn't terrible but, aside from Caan's casting, it isn't anything memorable or dynamic. Carrie Snodgress is poorly-used as Rabbit's wife, though Jack Albertson (in the basically unplayable role of Rabbit's former basketball coach) gets stuck with the worst of it. *1/2 from ****
Entertaining
aimless-467 October 2023
The year 1970 gave us James Caan in "Rabbit Run" and Michael Douglas in "Adam at Six A. M.". Films with such remarkably similar themes that you have to wonder what the typical young man was thinking during those years and whether it was unique to the times.
Both films center on their title character, Harry 'Rabbit' Angstrom and "Adam" Gaines, who if they aspire to anything aspire to seeing the world in their respective rear view mirrors. Basically making a case for not getting trapped by an easily defined life. While Adam is ambitious and more cerebral about the whole thing, Rabbit just lets life take him in any random direction and then dodges any responsibility or consequence that might complicate his life. There is a lot of Kerouac's Dean Moriarty character in Rabbit, at least with regards to living in the moment and showing little remorse for any wreckage he leaves behind.
"Dean features prominently as a hero. An incredibly flawed hero who tends to abandon those who love him and feel no remorse whatsoever at his poor judgment and horribly timed actions. But a hero nonetheless".
Where Adam anticipates situations and avoids getting trapped in the first place, Rabbit is too wrapped up in himself and his immediate gratification to avoid getting trapped. Adam might fall for a manic pixie dream girl if one came into his life who meshed well with his ambitions. But no manic pixie dream girl would want Rabbit and the more dimensional and imperfect women he meets and recklessly commits to end up simply cramping his style.
Carrie Snodgrass and Anjanette Comer play his main love interests. Both give excellent performances as women tortured by their association with Rabbit. He can't give them what they need in these unequal relationships and neither seems equipped to successfully deal with life on their own. This lack of independence is off-putting to many female viewers who blame author John Updike - who wrote the 1960 novel on which the film is based - for creating such shallow female characters. This is a fair criticism as far as it goes but such people do exist and a story is not necessarily sexist just because its focus is a certain female or human type.
I think this is Comer's best performance. Her typical character is weird in a restrained way and not especially accessible or relatable to a male viewer. But Ruth Leonard is quite likable and earthy, a very regular person. She is Updike's counterpoint to Janice Angstrom (Underwood). Updike is saying that Rabbit is almost sympathetic in his aversion to his wife and his horrible marriage, a put upon hero with somewhat understandable flaws. But his advance and retreat behavior with Ruth is simply inexcusable.
Both films center on their title character, Harry 'Rabbit' Angstrom and "Adam" Gaines, who if they aspire to anything aspire to seeing the world in their respective rear view mirrors. Basically making a case for not getting trapped by an easily defined life. While Adam is ambitious and more cerebral about the whole thing, Rabbit just lets life take him in any random direction and then dodges any responsibility or consequence that might complicate his life. There is a lot of Kerouac's Dean Moriarty character in Rabbit, at least with regards to living in the moment and showing little remorse for any wreckage he leaves behind.
"Dean features prominently as a hero. An incredibly flawed hero who tends to abandon those who love him and feel no remorse whatsoever at his poor judgment and horribly timed actions. But a hero nonetheless".
Where Adam anticipates situations and avoids getting trapped in the first place, Rabbit is too wrapped up in himself and his immediate gratification to avoid getting trapped. Adam might fall for a manic pixie dream girl if one came into his life who meshed well with his ambitions. But no manic pixie dream girl would want Rabbit and the more dimensional and imperfect women he meets and recklessly commits to end up simply cramping his style.
Carrie Snodgrass and Anjanette Comer play his main love interests. Both give excellent performances as women tortured by their association with Rabbit. He can't give them what they need in these unequal relationships and neither seems equipped to successfully deal with life on their own. This lack of independence is off-putting to many female viewers who blame author John Updike - who wrote the 1960 novel on which the film is based - for creating such shallow female characters. This is a fair criticism as far as it goes but such people do exist and a story is not necessarily sexist just because its focus is a certain female or human type.
I think this is Comer's best performance. Her typical character is weird in a restrained way and not especially accessible or relatable to a male viewer. But Ruth Leonard is quite likable and earthy, a very regular person. She is Updike's counterpoint to Janice Angstrom (Underwood). Updike is saying that Rabbit is almost sympathetic in his aversion to his wife and his horrible marriage, a put upon hero with somewhat understandable flaws. But his advance and retreat behavior with Ruth is simply inexcusable.
An Accurate Filmization Of A Dull Book
boblipton6 September 2023
James Caan sells artificial stone facing for homes. His is married to Carrie Snodgrass with a son and a daughter on the way. Miss Snodgrass sends him out for cigarettes, and he moves in with Anjanette Comer.
It's half a century since I read the John Updike novel this was based on and found it a dull affair. To that extent, this is a good film version, because I found it dull. The characters are uninteresting, none of them very good at what they do. That is, I suppose the point of the novel. It came out in the 1960s, the post-war exuberance was fading, and Updike made a mantra of excoriating failure to the general applause of his colleagues on The New Yorker. Updike's pursed-mouth disapproval satisfied the literary lions and critics of the day, at least until he came out in favor of the Viet Nam War.
It's half a century since I read the John Updike novel this was based on and found it a dull affair. To that extent, this is a good film version, because I found it dull. The characters are uninteresting, none of them very good at what they do. That is, I suppose the point of the novel. It came out in the 1960s, the post-war exuberance was fading, and Updike made a mantra of excoriating failure to the general applause of his colleagues on The New Yorker. Updike's pursed-mouth disapproval satisfied the literary lions and critics of the day, at least until he came out in favor of the Viet Nam War.
A good movie
bdctunes5 July 2017
Good acting with humor here and there. Maybe some of the drama was underplayed as another reviewer stated, but the film held my intention. I watched half the film last night on TCM, my hearing isn't the best and I struggled with the audio. I went to watch the rest of the film today and TCM removed it! Bummer! Being engrossed in the film, I decided to rent it from Amazon. The Amazon version had subtitles, which for me was a huge help. I thought the soundtrack was good. I liked the music, and felt it served the film. Serious issues, drama with humor taking the viewer back to 1970 with James Caan.....Not a good as "The graduate", but kind of in that category.................
"I guess I'm playing it by ear."
classicsoncall11 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This was just one awkward movie that probably didn't fulfill the vison of John Updike's novel of the same name. James Caan stars as the title character, a nickname he earned when he was the fastest player twenty years earlier on his high school basketball team. Trapped in a loveless marriage with a pregnant wife, Harry Angstrom (Caan) runs off to see his former coach (Jack Albertson) for some consolation and advice. The first about-face in the story occurs when Coach Tothero seems to want to convince Harry to return to his wife, but the next day, takes him out on a double date - with a hooker no less!! That was just a major head scratcher for me. Caan's character proves to be virtually mindless when he falls in love with Ruth Leonard (Anjanette Comer), despite her obvious profession. Their very unconvincing love scene back at Ruth's apartment was terribly staged, it looked like both were going through their motions without emotion. Very strange. Made even stranger when in conversation later on, Harry asks Ruth - "Are you really a whore, honey"? Yet the conflicted Harry returns home to his wife (Carrie Snodgress), assisted in some measure by the local Reverend Jack Eccles (Arthur Hill). The reverend sets Harry up with some part time work as a gardener for an elderly widow, who ironically had a husband she talks about with the same name 'Harry'. It makes you wonder if the actress (Nydia Westman) made a mistake, and the filmmakers just went along with it. At least that's what I thought.
Feeling remorseful, Harry returns to his wife after two months just as she's about to have their second child, with no good-byes to Ruth. A stunning tragedy occurs after the baby is born, as Janice Angstrom's alcoholism overtakes her mobility and reason, and she suffers an accident from which there is no recovery. Unwilling to face the reality of his involvement in the tragedy, Harry runs back to Ruth, and in her own hasty judgement, states that she would like to marry Harry. It's the ending here that really didn't click for me, as Harry runs off with a soundtrack in the background that seemingly celebrates his freedom from responsibility, almost as if he were the hero of the picture, instead of the miserable cad that he turned out to be.
Feeling remorseful, Harry returns to his wife after two months just as she's about to have their second child, with no good-byes to Ruth. A stunning tragedy occurs after the baby is born, as Janice Angstrom's alcoholism overtakes her mobility and reason, and she suffers an accident from which there is no recovery. Unwilling to face the reality of his involvement in the tragedy, Harry runs back to Ruth, and in her own hasty judgement, states that she would like to marry Harry. It's the ending here that really didn't click for me, as Harry runs off with a soundtrack in the background that seemingly celebrates his freedom from responsibility, almost as if he were the hero of the picture, instead of the miserable cad that he turned out to be.
rabbit run
mossgrymk22 September 2023
A good Anjanette Comer performance as a sassy hooker and location shooting in gloriously gritty Reading Pennsylvania in the late sixties are the only things that stand out in this muddled, dull adaptation of a great American novel. Scenarist/producer Howard Kreitsek founders on the same rock that did in Ray Bradbury when he tried to adapt "Moby Dick", and that wrecked the Ravitches when they attempted to bring "The Sound And The Fury" to the big screen, which is that an interior novel, where the characters' thoughts are what principally matter, simply does not lend itself to a MOTION picture where, by definition, action is paramount. In other words, enjoy Updike's memorable book and avoid this very forgettable film. Give it a C.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
