They Might Be Giants (1971) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
53 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
And They WERE Giants
patdwyer412 December 2005
I saw this gem of a motion picture on television in the early 70's. I really was no more than a boy when I saw it and yet it touched me in a way that no other film had. For the first time I appreciated a piece of cinema for more than just idle distraction from dull small town Texas life. They Might Be Giants taught me that movies could be art and could elevate as much as they entertain. From that time to this, whenever I am asked what is my favourite film, I always point to this picture. It was done on a very low budget so the story, characters and amazing actors carry it along the streets of New York, creating a world of whimsical romance and serio-comic tension. The relationship between the mad Justin Playfair (a loony judge who thinks he's Sherlock Homes) and Dr. Mildred Watson (obviously destined to become the pschizo's unwilling side kick) builds into a romance that is funny, touching and, by the end, uplifting. It is available on DVD now and is a cherished piece of my extensive collection. 10 out of 10 all the way.
26 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Magical film, full of poetry
SMK-47 May 1999
If you look for flaws in this film you will find plenty. Still, I gave this film a 10 vote because it has overriding qualities which are extremely rare. It is a magical film, full of poetry, it touches you where other films cannot reach. It creates a fantasy world of its own in the midst of modern society, a fantasy world which is utterly implausible and yet so compellingly persuasive.

The cast of this gem is mesmerisingly excellent, all parts I can think of are cast with character actors who on their own have stolen entire films from the stars. The central performance by George C. Scott is majestic, and so is John Barry's wonderful score. The film contains many memorable scenes, but outstanding amongst the lot is the supermarket scene. If I had to compile a list of the ten best scenes ever put to celluloid, this would be included.

36 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Ought to be on everybody's top-ten list.
Wm Lambe9 February 1999
Warning: Spoilers
(Contains spoiler.) I recently did a free-lance graphic-design job for a video store owner. My pay? He had to come up with a copy of "They Might Be Giants" for me. He swore it was the last copy on Earth.

George C. Scott made Justin Playfair/Sherlock Holmes into a great film character. If you pay attention to his delightful patter, you hear a soulful philosophy of life that nails our culture – whether in 1971 or 1999. His rescue of poor Mr. Small made me want to cheer. Joanne Woodward's portrayal of Dr. Watson was brilliant. You could palpably feel the missing pieces of her wretched existence. "Just keep repeating to yourself, "I am adequate!"

This may be one of the all-time best collection of character actors ever put together. Jack Guilford and Rue McClanahan were wonderful… But so was every other actor that appeared. Al Lewis (III) as the messenger, "You were right, Mr. Holmes. My dog did have Pellegra." The clueless march of the crazies en route to the supermarket was heroic. Too few people remember this film. If you get a chance, check this one out.

***Note - I originally wrote this comment seven years ago, but some of the new user comments prompted me to add to it. First, understand that Justin Playfair's condition is totally explained by Rue McClanahan, his sister-in-law. He was a brilliant jurist until his wife was killed. He couldn't cope with a world that allowed such bad things to happen. In an attempt to understand how bad things can happen to good people, he became the world's greatest sleuth in a relentless effort to understand evil. He showed saved newspaper clippings, of innocent people killed by inexplicable accidents, buses going off a cliff, boyscouts attacked, and so on. His one thread that held him to a tenuous sanity was the belief he could always figure it out... and that there were always clues.

He frequented an old movie house that showed old Westerns, where Randolph Scott always wore a white hat and won over the bad guys in black hats. The purest celluloid version of ultimate good over evil. In black and white. He did the London Times crossword puzzle in ink, and could read a person's life with the same exactitude as the original Sherlock. When he rescued Mr. Small, he commented under his breath, "Why can't analysts ever analyze?" The more he studied and investigated the clues, the surer he became that all the clues pointed toward one malevolent perpetrator - the evil mastermind, Moriarity. In the end, he knew he and Watson were no match for him, but that the noblest thing a Man could do was stand up against evil, even if it was a futile gesture. In that acceptance of holding onto good - even in the face of absolute evil - was his salvation.

In an insane world - only the insane are sane.
29 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Forgotten Favorite
dawuud212 October 2005
Being American and inadvertently an avid viewer (consumer) of cinema of all genres and qualities, I have to say that this is one of my all-time, forgotten favorites.

Not being a film student or critic, I fall into that overlooked and easily dismissed category called "the audience" which is humorously described as having no knowledge of art, but knowing with certainty what one likes. As such, I can say, unequivocally, that I like this film.

Most important to me as a viewer, above all other aspects of a film, is the story that is being told. If the story is winning, endearing and meaningful, then all else can be forgiven, production quality, even poor acting. Sans the poor acting, "They Might Be Giants" is just such a film.

I won't bore you with the wealth of meaning and depth of insight that I have gleaned from this wonderful story. Suffice it to say that despite what some have chosen to call its' "saccharine" quality (and what I call its' endearing quality), this story has the metaphysical import that elevates it to the level of a modern-day fable for the Western World.

Because I am unstudied and basically an "illiterate" in terms of Western Literature, the references to Don Quiote were completely invisible to me until now. For this enlightenment, I give thanks to the other reviewers. This comparison rings true throughout the story, and has enriched its' overall meaning for me. However, because I was initially unaware of this now obvious reference, for me the "They" in the title of "They Might Be Giants" referred to the very characters, themselves, all of whom are socially flawed, socially marginalized individuals, all of whom are void of "desirability".

As such, these characters, very aptly portrayed by the cast, although quirky, stand-alone individuals respectively, collectively come to represent the "everyman". The impersonal facelessness and the spirit-killing angst of personal worthlessness in midst of the post-industrial age of "modernity" are the windmills at which our Don Quiote, Justin Playfair, tilts. More importantly, we come to understand that this mask of facelessness may well be hiding individuals of truly gigantic spiritual dimensions and human worth. Our fellow human beings, who we pass, nameless, in the streets, "They Might Be Giants"!
45 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Beautifully-written fantasy fable
Mike-7541 June 1999
James Goldman's most beautiful and literary script, a fragile and delicate fantasy/comedy that delivers on its initial promise. Beautifully acted by Scott, Woodward and Gilford, and with a dozen or more cameos that are truly memorable, this is truly a feel-good movie for the literate and the intelligencia. I would rank it among my top half-dozen.
23 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
If you've never seen this it's worth looking for
johno-216 March 2006
This is one of those films that is so quirky that you love watching it. Certainly not a big budget film despite having two great actors in George C. Scott and Joanne Woodward but it is a fun film. Director Anthony Harvey had an odd career. He only directed nine theatrical feature films and in only his second film he hit a home run with 1968's The Lion in Winter getting seven Academy Award nominations including Best Picture and Best Director for himself. He didn't win in those two categories but that film did win three Oscars. He didn't direct another film for three years until he came out with They Might be Giants which was such a small film and such a departure from his previous big historical epic. George C. Scott turns in an excellent performance here as does Woodward. This isn't a great film but it's fun and interesting and the supermarket scene is a riot. I've seen this a couple of times and would definitely like to see it again sometime. I would give this a 7.5 on a scale of 10.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
great movie
KyleFurr210 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is a really great movie that was a huge flop when it came out and this should be a cult hit but isn't for some reason. George C. Scott plays a man who thinks he is Sherlock Holmes and his brother tries to have him committed so he can receive his money. Joanne Woodward is the psychiatrist who tries to help him but things don't go as planned and Woodward winds up helping Scott with his case. Woodward's name also happens to be Watson and Scott drags her along to find Moriarity. Woodward has no life outside her work and they wind up falling in love. Scott's brother really wants his money and hires a hit man to kill Scott but he doesn't realize that.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Delightful and quirky flick
fhabets15 May 2000
This movie sports many moments of pure magic. This film was my first introduction to George C. Scott, and to my mind, this was his best role ever, even surpassing the work he did in Dr. Strangelove and The Hospital.

And that soundtrack! An excellent score, indeed!
27 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Before there was One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest...
skyboy199925 July 2003
In 1976, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST(1975) was nominated for 9 Academy Awards, winning 5 in all the major categories. But 5 years earlier, another film tackled mental illness (all be it in a different manner) in it's own unique way. This film was THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS(1971). Now many would argue that Cuckoo's Nest was a superior film, and they would probably be right. They Might Be Giants was shot on a miniscule budget, and was cut down for release by studio exec's. In a further insult, the same studio exec's refused to support the Director's bid for a wide release. It's a shame too, because it featured one of the most overlooked comic performances in film history. George C.Scott plays Justin Playfair, a retired judge who thinks he's Sherlock Holmes. And he does it perfectly. Right down to the subtle gestures and mannerisms. In one of films best scenes, Playfair arrives in a local Mental Institution for an evaluation. A struggle breaks out with the patient before him (a mute, who refuses to reveal even his name) and it's up to Holmes to save the day. And Save the day he does. The Dialogue in this scene is brilliant. Some of the best I've ever heard. And it's all Scott. Not only does he get the man to talk, he guesses his name! The supporting cast is excellent as well. Joanne Woodward is the perfect foil as Dr Watson, Jack Gilford as Wilbur Peabody, and the rest of the New York actors are real, and delightfully eccentric. The end of the film with the "March to find Moriarty" is a classic. Listen to the music in this scene, it's great! So if you liked Cuckoo's nest, check this one won't regret it!!
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A fun movie! One of my Top Three All-Time Favs...
radiocycle30 June 2004
This movie is in my Top Ten of all time flicks! Scott was made for this role. No one could have done it better. I'm surprised how many people have never seen this gem. The writing is brilliant, acting superb! All of human emotion can be seen in this little film. OK, I don't quite understand the ending but that really doesn't detract from the whole. I laugh and cry no matter how many times I watch it. Scott is for the underdog and can see human nature as no one else can. Joanne Woodward falls head-over-heels for Justin and realizes the only way she can reach him is through assimilating his reality. It's a romantic comedy that should not be missed.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Magical mystery film.
coop-168 July 2000
Sadly, i saw this film only once, back in the early eighties;it remains unforgettable.An earlier reviewer said that it echoes Don Quixote as well as Holmes;they were right. Scott was one of the greatest actors, and this is one of his finest films. It is rich in humor and fantasy, and it boasts a very good performance by Ms. Woodward to compliment the one by Scott.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
flawed but delightful fantasy/offbeat romantic comedy
Brian14Leonard26 October 1998
They Might Be Giants is one of my two all-time favorite films. It has its problems: it's somewhat dated, the characters are often one-dimensional, and there's one scene that's SO mawkish and dated it makes me cringe (the hippie girl at the phone company). Nevertheless, it's a wonderfully constructed film with terrific performances from George C. Scott, Joanne Woodward, Jack Gilford, and many top-flight character actors. It's also a great look at NYC circa 1970, and has the best supermarket scene I've ever seen. Most of all, it's a fantasy that has firm roots in, and leads back to, reality. And it's quite romantic, too--especially for those who've had little luck in that department.
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Persian Slipper
tedg30 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.

All of us have movies that for some reason hit us at special times, greatly amplifying inherent power. `The Muppet Movie' is one of these for me: deeply self-referential, it is about the creation of itself. This is another. I first saw it at an all night drive-in in 1971, with my wife and toddler son. It was the fifth and last movie on the bill.

Of course, I've seen it many times since. Each time adds to the experience in some incremental way that cleverly avoids deficiencies. Like the best friendships, and similarly this comment will have bias.

I'm an amateur student in reflexive film and literature: that's where the film is aware of its role as a fabricated reality. The best of these add some layers within, where the characters create in the same way that they were created. Most scholars believe this began with `Don Quixote.'

There is another equally novel literary tradition I particularly admire: the detective narrative. That's where the traditional role of storytelling is turned into a contest between writer and reader, each working to anticipate the ending in a way that - within certain rules - flummoxes the other. This actually started with Poe but was popularized in the Holmes stories which supplanted the clever character-based model of Dickens.

Two revolutionary ways of engaging the viewer, both since exploited by clever filmmakers. Here, we have a clever synthesis of the two. And it involves an actor - possibly the best `old style' actor - who appreciates the challenges of separating actor and character.

The treatment (like that of the muppet movie) is disguised as a simple comedy of endearing madness, along the lines of `Harvey.' But there are some amazing constructions here, including that early scene where a man will not speak because he exists in silent film character mode and needs to shifted to `reality' mode. There is a similar notion of shifting from reality to medium in the later sequence where a woman physically speaks to a telephone operator, then calls her. The catch-22 of this situation is just an excuse. The whole story is about looking for clues: shifting things from one reality to another by intervention of character/writer (who is really a judge/scholar). Home base is a library.The trigger for the story is a photograph.

This film isn't seen by viewers as an intelligent construction because of its light hearted treatment, especially the slapstick supermarket sequence. This incidentally starts with a reference to `The Third Man' in the sewer kiosk which would never exist in New York.

I believe that an art form of the future will be to go back to these underappreciated gems and reedit them, or embed them in another project. It makes sense to take a film about shifting layers and add more, Peter Greenaway-wise. The first thing to go would have to be the flippant sound track.

Not convinced this had intelligence behind it? What happens at the end?

This ending is so remarkable that I often go to that very spot when I visit New York, sweetly near the Alice in Wonderland, John Lennon and `the Tempest' memorials.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Maybe this movie is only for lovers of dreams?
bhardy-612 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I've loved this little movie since I caught it in the early eighties on TV, though it wasn't until years later I understood the title. It is a veneer of Sherlock Holmes on a pastiche of Don Quixote. George C. Scott plays a judge who has succumbed to paranoid delusions since his wife's death — he believes he is Sherlock Holmes. Or does he really? As in Quixote, it is never entirely clear if the judge is lost in his delusion or has chosen to retreat into it because the real world is too ugly — in other words, he may know on some level the windmills he tilts at are only windmills, but if looked at another way, they may be giants, after all.

And the role of the private investigator is a pretty good parallel for Quixote's knight errant — seeking to uncover evildoers while also completely obscuring his own mundane origins. Joanne Woodward plays a psychiatrist, coincidentally named Watson, enabling "Holmes" to draw her into his world. She is his Sancho Panza. Also as in Quixote, Holmes is on an apparent quest to thwart the nefarious Moriarty, running into common people who stand in his way, finding out what is troubling them, and solving their problems in a novel way, thereby building a small army of supporters while simultaneously irritating other characters who want things to stay just as they are — the "Establishment" (it was 1971).

I enjoyed the lunacy of the film and Scott's confident, loopy Homes from the beginning — the final "battle" is waged in a grocery store, in which the cops that were supposed to arrest the judge and lock him up in an asylum are completely derailed by Holmes's army, and by his commandeering of the store PA to announce unbelievably low special prices on the merchandise, causing the cops to abandon their pursuit and go shopping. But it was the last image of the film that stuck with me, and kept me thinking about it until it was permanently entered in my brain under Movies I Want to See Again.

Homes and Watson — Scott and Woodward — have evaded their pursuers, and are standing alone in Central Park, late at night. Holmes has warned Watson that Moriarty is very close by, and they can only hope to defeat him if they stand together. Then he lets the mask slip: he tells Watson that he loves her — and she clearly loves him as well — though he is by no means surrendering his identity as Holmes. Then he points out Moriarty coming out of the gloom, the hooves of his horse clopping on the path, and Watson finally can see him too. As the camera fades to black though, the clopping hooves become the ticking of a clock, and the enemy is revealed to be time itself, or mortality, against which the only defense is to remake reality as one sees fit.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Romantic versus The Realistic in the Modern World
theowinthrop23 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
With his roman nose profile and height, and before he put on weight, George C. Scott was a natural looking actor to essay the role of that greatest of fictional detectives Sherlock Holmes. But for some reason he never got the nod to do a film on Holmes or Conan Doyles stories. Instead, he did get to play a pseudo-Holmes: Justin Playfair, the eccentric (some would say cracked) judge who is currently in an asylum and believes he is the great detective. Assigned to help treat him is Joanne Woodward as Dr. Mildred Watson, who first tries to slowly get him back into reality (like Alonso Quijano was supposed to be brought back from being Don Quixote de la Mancha into being a wealthy land owner by his niece and her fiancé). Gradually Woodward begins seeing that far from being crazy, Scott is seeing the world in a different way: Scott is basically letting his imagination look beyond the forms of reality to the hidden side of things. As he says, with a reference to his Cervantes' model (rather than his Conan Doyle model), when Quixote charges the windmills we think him mad, but those windmills might actually be giants, justifying fighting them.

In this film it is the small people versus the proper and more powerful ones that are at the heart of things. Scott and Woodward are soon leading others with a romantic view of life. Jack Gilford gives another one of his sweet, profound performances as a little man who does see himself - as the Scarlet Pimpernel - righting the wrongs of the world. So it goes with many of the characters in the film. The real climax (there are two) is in the supermarket scene, when momentarily the forces of power gain the upper hand over Scott's allies and start rounding them up. Scott turns the tables by basing a counter-attack on their greed: he starts announcing insanely cheap prices for meat, poultry, bread, fruit, etc., that these "realists" cannot pass up. They start grabbing things (and releasing Gilford and the others, who look bemused at the "realists" as they sneak away).

The film's second climax is timed at the conclusion. For Scott/Holmes must have his Moriarty (it is his brother, who is trying to have him permanently committed). Scott and Woodward go for a final rendezvous, and we last see them admiring their adversary as he advances. The film does not show what happens but leaves us wondering if they survive or not. But it is a conclusion that leaves us somehow satisfied for the sake of Playfair and his Watson. Maybe it was only his brother they saw approach, but it could have been Moriarty - just like it could have been those giants.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Parallax View
tieman6426 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Anthony Harvey directs "They Might Be Giants". The plot? George C. Scott plays Justin Playfair, a successful lawyer whose wife has recently died. Unable to cope with this tragedy, Playfair imagines himself to be Sherlock Holmes, the legendary fictional detective. Via this Holmes persona, Playfair hopes to impose logic, order and rationality upon the world. For Playfair, all occurrences now have some "deeper meaning", some "hidden cause", and all "bad things" are the result of, not a malevolent cosmos, but Professor Moriarty, the arch villain of the Holmes novels.

Early in the film, Playfair is introduced to Dr Mildred Watson (Joanne Woodward), a psychologist who hopes to cure the increasingly paranoid Playfair. Believing Mildred to be the Doctor Watson of the Sherlock Holmes novels, Playfair allows Mildred to accompany him on his many bizarre adventures. These adventures find Playfair bumbling about New York City, all in the hopes of deciphering Moriarty's "crime" and "motive". Mildred thinks Playfair is unconsciously seeking to find meaning in his wife's death, and she's right, but she's also absolutely wrong. That "Professor Moriarty" doesn't exist is almost irrelevant. Playfair is correct to conclude that there are "things" everywhere responsible for "bad stuff". That he personalises an uncaring, all-encompassing Nature doesn't necessarily make Playfair insane, but hyper-rational.

Mildred, of course, thinks Playfair is nuts. She likens him to Don Quixote, the fictional character who repeatedly attacked windmills, believing them to be "monstrous giants". Of this, Playfair says: "Quixote thought every windmill was a giant. That's insane. But thinking that they might be...that's not. If we never looked at things and thought of what they might be, why, we'd all still be out there with the apes!" Playfair's speech thus functions as a survival plan; there MAY be giant monsters, and so he MUST test everyone and everything with a hammer.

One such giant is Playfair's own brother (Lester Rawlins), a man who seeks to have Playfair killed. But the film is packed with other subtly sketched "giants". One couple, for example, live entirely indoors, nurturing indoor plants and crops because they "do not like what the outside world has become". A switchboard operator, the poor, the homeless, cops and various other men and women throughout the film, likewise live lives tormented by giants. Mildred, a lonely woman who escapes into psychoanalysis as a means of fleeing the world, is herself a woman living in the shadows of monsters. Everyone in the film is under some form of attack.

Early in "Giants", Playfair admits that he likes Westerns. The genre, he explains, offers moral clarity, clear demarcations and a sense of order and justice which the universe simply doesn't allow. Imposing such "morality" and "law" upon the universe - getting it to "play fair" - becomes Playfair's obsession, but it's a futile quest, especially when nobody believes in the existence of that which he's slaying.

How to get others to believe in, see and thus slay giants becomes the preoccupation of the film's final act. "Does justice ever lose?" Mildred asks, to which Playfair admits that it often does. "There are villains so big, they block the sunlight," he explains, before stating that standing up to such monsters is "what makes humans proud". The film then ends on a series of symbolic notes. Here Playfair assembles a ragtag community of believers and then battles police in a supermarket. This supermarket sequence, a middle finger to materialism and the status quo, was deleted by producers, but its message remains: "they" - the misfits who dare challenge their surroundings and stand up for others - "may be the real giants". The noble few.

And so Playfair and Mildred find themselves standing before a shadowy tunnel as an "invisible monster" races toward him. "Stand closer to me, together in the light," Playfair tells Mildred, as the beast advances. But before our heroes are enveloped in blackness, consumed by the beast, a white light germinates behind Playfair's shoulder. Cooperation, love and belief, then, slays the beast. It's the old adage- when "I" becomes "we", mental illness becomes wellness.

"They Might Be Giants" initially appears to be a quirky 1960s/70s comedy in the vein of "A Thousand Clowns", "Being There" or "Harold and Maude". It's often dismissed as just a kooky comedy about "freedom" and "being true to yourself". In many ways, though, it's closer to the conspiracy thrillers of the 1970s ("Chinatown", "All the President's Men", "Parallax View", "Three Days of the Condor", "The Conversation", "Cutter's Way", "Network", "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" etc). This was, after-all, a period in which faith in family, society, authority, institutions and public figures plummeted, and in which the common man was seen to be at the mercy of a wide range of conspiratorial forces. Literature of the era was likewise deeply conspiratorial. "Anyone not paranoid must be crazy," Edward Abbey would say, sentiments echoed by novelists like Philip Dick ("Funny how paranoia often links up with reality"), William Burroughs ("Paranoia is just having the right information") and Joseph Heller ("Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"). Which is not to say that Playfair isn't crazy, just that he's not necessarily wrong. Someone or something is always out to "get you", and it takes more than one man hunting invisible game to keep men from going insane. Endearingly acted by Scott and Woodward.

8.9/10 – Minor masterpiece. See "Cutter's Way" and "A Thousand Clowns".
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
intentions vs. end results
hchickpea25 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I was a projectionist once, and I showed this film when it had its theatrical release. One aspect of being a projectionist back then was that you got to see certain parts of the films over and over, to the point that you not only could relate scenes and repeat lines, but you began to understand the films in a deeper way than the audiences.

The previous reviews miss enough that I feel compelled to write a review of the film. First, the same author wrote "Lion In Winter," so it is pretty obvious he knew the craft. Second, this started as a London stage play, and according to the admittedly loopy Wikipedia, he didn't like the production and stopped further attempts at mounting the play.

Once you take the concept that it is a stage play adapted for film, some of the oddities of this production become more apparent. Much like the concept expressed in "Shakespeare in Love," where everyone expects and looks forward to the dog in a play, movie audiences expect a romantic relationship and a happy ending where good triumphs over evil, the Hayes code is satisfied, and insipid movies are safe for kids to watch.

The intent of the original work is darker than that, but in order to perceive that you have to look underneath the surface, much as Holmes would do.

Start with the title "They Might Be Giants." Yes, it is an homage to Cervantes, but it is a double-entendre as well. In ignoring the dross of everyday life and focusing on existential topics to the point that the world calls them crazy, the "mentally ill" just might be the giants of humanity, exploring the boundaries of who we are as humans and good and evil. Certainly the Justin (justice) Playfair (play fair) character turning into a Holmsian sleuth represents that. The couple who shut themselves off from humanity for years and were very happy is another exploration of the concepts under consideration. It is only when Holmes goes looking for evil in their world that it suddenly appears.

Who is to say that a person who believes himself to be a silent film star isn't, in some small measure, that person? The entire concept of empathy, as well as the concept of method acting, both require "getting into the head" of the character. Do we not all have a bit of Scarlett Pimpernel in us somewhere? Is expressing that so bad that we need to relegate our lives to being nebbish librarians forever in our existence? On the subject of the varying versions - Many years ago, I worked in a couple of television stations. The movies we showed came in on 16mm film and one of my jobs was to cut the films to fit the time slot allotted. I learned never to trust a televised version of a film as being accurate to the intention of the director. Networks modify film as well, and in some cases they have access to ADD footage as well as clip it.

*Major spoiler here* - The "enigmatic" scene at the end is only enigmatic if you are blind to the modern version of the Hayes code and the inevitable studio interventions which bow to the low common denominators of "How can we maximize the money this makes?" and "Will it upset the audience?" Start with the supermarket scene and descent into "Mad Mad Mad Mad World" slapstick. The duality is that the author did want to show how, when confronted, the "establishment" is a group of enforcers of the status quo, some dressed in enforcer (police) uniforms, and some masquerading as those who would help you become sane, while wielding rubber hoses if you don't follow their instruction. At the same time, the studio wanted a feel good slapstick to lighten up a film with an underlying dark theme. Ergo: chaos in a market, where the materialism of the enforcers of status-quo becomes their temptation and undoing. The most powerful figure in the scene is reduced to saying "My wife will kill me if I don't take advantage of this bargain." The end scene is the most dark of all. Once the reality of the world Holmes has been fighting is shown to be a farce, he has nowhere to go. Death is the inevitable conclusion. The tunnel in Central Park is again double entendre and metaphorical. Tunnel - the passage into the unknown. Tunnel - the accepting of a confined world where there is no escape from whatever comes towards you. There are others that I'll let you deduce for yourself. However... the tunnel was ALSO a metaphor for a RAILROAD tunnel. The horse being heard is a clue to an IRON horse, which is borne out by the comment and visual that they will be in the light (train headlight - also metaphor for truth/God/etc.) and be found close together. He has convinced the analyst to trust him right into death.

There is no way that the film company and distributor would allow a scene of Geo. C. Scott and Joanne Woodward standing in front of a railroad (or more likely subway) tunnel, and being run down by a train. All feel-good aspects of the film (and chances of repeat customers) would be lost. What surprises me is how few people "get" the ending and theme of the film.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Uninspired Comedy
kenjha26 December 2012
A man who thinks he is Sherlock Holmes is treated by a woman whose name happens to be Dr. Watson. It's a whimsical premise that could have turned into a decent comedy, but the script here is far too uninspired and meandering to amount to anything more than a curiosity piece. There are mildly amusing moments here and there but there is too little humor, drama, and action to sustain the narrative. The final act, including a ridiculous scene in a supermarket, is supposed to be hilarious but falls flat. It's a shame the script is so lacking because Woodward and Scott seem to be trying really hard and show great flair for comedy. This was Harvey's follow-up to "The Lion in Winter," making him a one-hit wonder.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A charming film at times--at other times, it's really stupid.
MartinHafer16 March 2012
The film begins in the present time. Scott plays an ex-judge who loses his mind and now believes he is Sherlock Holmes. His greedy brother is bent on having him institutionalized--then he can have access to Scott's fortune. To get him hospitalized, they have him see a psychiatrist (Woodward)--but she is not about to just stick him in an institution. She wants to do a thorough job investigating and decides to go to Scott's home to meet him. But, he's not about to sit still--there is a crime to investigate. And, when he learns that her name is 'Dr. Watson', he KNOWS it's time to act. Along the way, they meet lots of nice misfits and have a grand adventure.

"They Might Be Giants" is a frustrating film. On one hand, George C. Scott has one of his most charming and enjoyable performances. In addition, the basic idea for the movie is quite promising. BUT, on the other hand, the film seemed to have no idea what to do with the plot--and it eventually degenerated into a stupid mess. And, to make things worse, the ending is just awful--and makes you wonder why you spent your time watching--and why two illustrious actors (Scott and Joanne Woodward) would be in such a flawed project. Having attendants from the local mental institution running about with giant nets and rubber hoses(!) and the god-awful grocery store scene stand out in my mind...and not for good reasons! A mess of a film--especially since the first half is so entertaining.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
WHO might be giants?
dfwtvman@aol.com20 December 2005
The thing about a great film is not finding mistakes, and not noting any imperfections, but rather, discovering the heart of the film. This film has heart, integrity, and subtlety, with some of the finest acting you will ever hope to see. This is one of the great ones, which stays with you like that first lingering kiss.

One of the strengths of this "little" film (among the best I've seen anywhere) is that Playfair's/Holmes' "insanity" highly affected me long after I left the theater. It made an indelible mark on my heart and helped to keep important questions alive in my mind. And after all, what, really, is insanity? In TMBG, Scott is Holmes is Playfair, period. You can do the math and the juxtaposition.

It was not just the fine cast of characters who were led out of the dark and into the light by Holmes & Watson, literally and metaphorically, but myself/ourselves, as well. I went willingly into the call of the film, that the evils of our world (usually nameless and faceless in our media-fed society) might be the giants of the title, and are the very giants that WE, ultimately, also have to face directly, bravely, together (not in isolation). The film doesn't suggest how we should fight malevolence, just that we should face it unflinchingly, with verve and courage.

Oh, the layers of this fine film! The fact that this unique film affects us into dialog about "what does the ending mean?" and "who/what are the giants?" and "what is insanity?" and "what is 'normal'?" says something about the power of this film on the thoughtful mind. Like Arlo Guthrie once replied when asked why he became a Catholic: (paraphrasing) it isn't that it provided me with the answers, but rather, it got me to asking the right questions. There's something about the depth of this film that is unusual in most movies, and rarely ever captured so well. Indeed, as other reviewers suggest, as superb as it was, Patton was mere practice for the unparalleled acting in this film; I concur, it is Scott's best. Arguably Woodward's best, too.

Yes, superb acting & great writing created this masterpiece, which compares & contrasts well with a couple other fine films: Alan Bates in "The King of Hearts," and Jack Nicholson in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." This film has one or two moments that show some datedness, but it clearly and simply reflects those timeless issues that will remain unresolved and unresolvable in our on-going battle for triumph over "the dark side." This is Top-10 fare in my list, alongside Kane, Dorothy & Toto, Mr. Smith & George Bailey, Zhivago, T E Lawrence, Zorba, Bates' King (op cit), Rick & Sam, & Skywalker. Love it or don't, but see this film.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Charmed by George C. Scott
Hunter4723 September 1999
I stumbled across this sleeper on cable years ago. I was familiar with Scott's heavy roles, but was absolutely blown away by his portrayal of a charming, self-convinced character who thought he was Sherlock Holmes. The way his face lit up when he met Joanne Woodward's Dr. Watson was one of my favorite movie "moments" of all time.

I am writing this on learning of his passing. While not his greatest movie, it deserves watching almost as much as Patton, The Hospital, Dr. Strangelove, or 12 Angry Men (& much more than Firestarter), if only to see him in an entirely different type of character.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A rarity: a thoughtful movie
Darien-54 October 1999
This is one of George C. Scott's least recognized performances, perhaps because this is a movie you begin to appreciate more days or weeks after you've seen it. The movie challenges our views of reality by juxtaposing Scott's delusions against the range of odd and eccentric people that make up the world we know, or think we know as real. This is the kind of movie I like to own. Rapid and witty dialog and subtleties of meaning and performance that can only be found and appreciated with repeated watchings. If you like Harold and Maude, you'll probably like this one too. One of my all-time underground favorites.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Beautiful, no way trivial.
hettmerj5 December 2004
When I first stumbled on it, on TV, I was enthralled. This film was nothing short of delicious, sensitive, funny, and hinted at a sense of "purpose" that you have to be a little nuts to understand. Exquisitely executed, it was a trip to a way of thinking that all too often we just don't have time for, and probably should. It's a big world, and the biggest part is in our own minds.

What, 10 lines? I am terser than that.



6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Justin Playfair is a cinematic Don Quixote.
MrWatt21 October 1999
Far from being just another one of those charmingly eccentric 70s comedies,this is ultimately a picture which should be recognized first and foremost as one of cinema's all time great meta-Quixotes. Any first hand familiarity with Cervantes´s classic novel enriches the viewer's understanding of this film immeasurably.

We're pointed to the literary work not only by the explicit references to it throughout the film (of which there are more than a few) but by the title itself. Certainly, more than one person has wondered why this movie is called THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS, as there are apparently no giants to be found nor even looked for. It was Don Quixote who, in a deluded attempt to rid the world of evil, imagined he saw giants everywhere. The giant to be confronted in T.M.B.G. is Holmes's arch nemesis, Professor Moriarity. The Holmes here, far more similar to the great Cervantes character than anything to be seen in Conan Doyle, is a frustrated and lonely old guy who tries to rid the world of malevolence by converting himself into a fictional character and imagining perils and plots where none really exist. The strength of both characters (Quixote and Justin Playfair) is their capacity to draw other people, at first unwillingly, into their fantasy world. That accomplished, the reality or unreality of foes becomes largely irrelevant, hence that marvelously ambiguous ending in T.M.B.G.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nonsense with a few good moments
gkergh9 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This film starts well, but each scene becomes more silly than the last. Scott's and Woodward's performances are probably the only likable parts of this absurdity. The philosophical message, dangerous and childish, is that empirical reality may not be any more reliable than a madman's delusions, an idea that gained some traction with the drug-addled 60s and 70s crowds. The comedy doesn't work, and the action is cartoonish. The producers seem to have painted themselves into a corner toward the end and thrown in a slapstick scene in a supermarket, and then a completely meaningless ending. I don't buy the many suggestions that it's really a deep philosophical question at the end. The juvenile text that comes after that final whatever only makes it all the more ridiculous. I guess it's supposed to invite the audience to make up their own minds, but an eye roll would be giving it too much credit.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed