Sturgeon54

OK, I think more historical context is needed before watching this film than any other classic I know of. It is as if Altman was acting as a version of Beale from 1976's superior satire "Network" - mad as hell about society of the time (1970) and even the conventions of movies themselves, and not going to take it anymore. Like almost all reviewers here, I agree that the film is only accidentally funny. But then again, so was "Network." Humor implies a bit of levity, and this is instead a purely angry film - it is like an attack, more so than almost any other American film I have seen except for maybe "Happiness" or "Born on the Fourth of July."

First, there's the famous overlapping dialogue, then the other American sacred-cow subjects he massacres - war, authority figures, love, monogamy, religion, homosexuality, sanctity of medicine and its practitioners, communitarianism, shared goals, women's lib, sports, and politics. Finally, Altman throws out the very idea of sustained linear plotting with an established group of characters - allowing the camera to follow characters who appear, play little role in the plot line, and then mysteriously disappear. That is the defining feature of life and war, and it is something which was surprisingly absent from all films of that era.

One also gets the sense that Altman was like a newly-emancipated repressed teen after having had to abide by the strict conventions of television and the studio system on all of his previous work. If one is looking for a similar, but funnier, satire of American culture of the time, watch Norman Lear's "Cold Turkey." That film has aged much better than MASH, but MASH was by far the more influential.

This movie has been seriously underrated by almost everyone except Roger Ebert in his initial review. Surprisingly, it has never received any kind of DVD release. This is one of those movies, released every now and again, that are not only about another era, but actually resemble a film of that era. Audiences never know what to do with them, and consequently they are quickly dismissed or forgotten. Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor," Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula," and many of Cimino's films fit this description, to some extent. In this case, the movie resembles a WWII-era melodrama or even a 1950s Douglas Sirk or George Stevens-style soap opera - including emotional soliliquies, naivete, and occasional overacting.

Accept it for what it is, and you will find an exceptionally well-made, dramatically fluid film about revenge and old-style Latino family loyalty. The 1940s costumes, sets, and photography are excellent, as are Hutton, Hurt, and Leo's performances. In particular, Hutton displays the kind of 1940s pre-war innocence that's perfect for the role. In an era of cynicism, irony, and post-modernist history, such a movie has even less of a chance of finding an audience than when released, but I recommend it for fans of serious filmmaking.

This is some funny stuff. Orson Welles hams it up narrating this anti-progress scare documentary. There are all sorts of bizarre extrapolations of future technological and sociological trends from what people were thinking about at the time (1972), from mass polyamory and perpetual youth vagabonds to genetically-engineered flower children. If only he knew how much less fun the future would be...

What is most entertaining and unintentionally hilarious is the fact that though it purports to predict the future, its production values and techniques are as rooted in the early '70s as you can get - with everything from bad lighting, creepy Moog synthesizer music, and plastic robot costumes, to cheap special effects courtesy of the McGraw-Hill educational filmstrip conglomerate of the time. That period was itself such an abberration that it was probably the worst possible period to use for meaningful predictions. Now, if Welles had said in his narration, "One day, you will be able to watch this film on a small personal computer along with any other film you choose," I might have had some respect.