Sunday, August 11, 2013

THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED: ACTUAL FOOTAGE!


Ages ago I wrote a long blog post about the legendary unreleased film The Day The Clown Cried.


Jerry Lewis starred and directed in this film, which will never see the light of day for many reasons.  One, they just ran out of money, and two, it's stunningly WRONG.  The Day The Clown Cried is about a clown that entertains jewish children as they are led to the trains heading to Auschwitz.

Yeah.

Only a handful of people have ever seen the existing film, one of whom was Harry Shearer.  Shearer basically confirmed every film geek's wildest dreams when he said: 

"With most of these kinds of things, you find that the anticipation, or the concept, is better than the thing itself. But seeing this film was really awe-inspiring, in that you are rarely in the presence of a perfect object. This was a perfect object. This movie is so drastically wrong, its pathos and its comedy are so wildly misplaced, that you could not, in your fantasy of what it might be like, improve on what it really is. 'Oh My God!' – that's all you can say."

Lewis owns all the right to the movie, and he will never release it.  For years he would get enraged if people would even bring it up, refusing to discuss the topic.  Recently, however, he was asked about it at a press conference, and he actually commented.  "No one will ever see it because I'm embarassed by the poor work.  It was bad." was his reply.

So here we sit, 40 odd years later, still having never seen the film.  Today on Aint It Cool News, however, they have posted a youtube clip that has honest to god actual footage from the film, including behind the scenes clips (and as a bonus, Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin visiting the set).  This may be as close as we ever get to the film, so take it all in, kids.  Maybe some day we'll get to revel in the wrongness that is The Day The Clown Cried.

Shyboy

Sunday, June 23, 2013

YOU'RE GONNA NEED A BIGGER BOOKSHELF


Shockingly, there once existed a world where the ability to see any movie at any time was not at the touch of your finger. Yes, even before the VHS vs. Betamax intergalactic war. You may ask: "How did you even survive?”, “Did you just stare into nothingness?” and “Was there a good pants salesman nearby?” Well, for those times when we weren’t able to watch a movie on one of the three available channels and we didn’t have money for a matinee movie, we read books (no, not books on the history of slacks) but books on movies. Each successive trip to the Blue Earth County Library, I would always check to see if some new book on movies, Hollywood or one of my favorite actors would be available, and if not, I would just check-out (for the nth time) one of the huge coffee table books on, for example the history of United Artists or MGM. At the time, I was just fascinated with motion pictures and never really gave thought about ‘who, why or what’ were specifically and creatively behind the making or storytelling of these movies.

Within the last 30-40 years there has been an amazing output of books specifically focusing on a certain genre, film, director, writer or a particular behind the scene artist that were involved with film(s). For a film geek it’s wonderful to be able to delve into the back story, creative impulse or philosophies that went into making one of your favorite films, even if its a personal critical essay. It’s the ‘devil (god) in the details’ that is so delicious about these thorough works.

One of my favorite ongoing series of books is the ‘BFI Classic Film’ collection:

They describe there series as thus:

BFI Film Classics is a series of finely written, illustrated books that introduce, interpret and celebrate landmark films of world cinema. Each volume offers an argument for the film’s ‘classic’ status, together with a discussion of its production and reception history, its place within a genre or national cinema, an account of it’s technical and aesthetic importance, and in many cases, the author’s personal response to the film. The BFI Film Classics series now includes titles previously published separately in the BFI Film Classics and the BFI Modern Classics Series.

This series - which has two categories: ‘Classic’ and ‘Modern’ - appeals to me not only for the vastly different perspectives and wildly varied interpretations that the authors have, but mostly for the hardcore and thorough attention to detail. It is similar to the work that Criterion does with their films, only in book form. They are fun to collect and savor for their unabashed geekiness to the format. Coincidentally, some of the same people that have worked on the Criterion editions of DVD’s have worked on some of the BFI books, including: Geoff Andrew for Three Colors, Gary Indiana for Salò, Anton Kaes for M, Simon Callow for Night of the Hunter, James Naremore for Sweet Smell of Success and Michael Wood for Belle de Jour.

While some film studies books can be dry in their analysis of the subject, the BFI series is wildly diverse in presentation, ranging from the shot by shot analysis in Vampyr, which is helpful in understanding how Dreyer's complex image technique works, to Jaws with its stream of consciousness scene by scene examination.
 
As an example, there is this passage from Jaws:  The scene in the schoolroom where the citizens trying to decide how to handle the shark problem, and we cut to the back of the room showing a school chalk board and Quint (Robert Shaw) sitting in front of it.


Here is how BFI author Antonia Quirke in one paragraph describes the scene:

“At the back of the schoolroom sits a man with a mouth full of biscuit. ‘You all know me, how I make a living’ he says. They do. Although they look at him as though he were a thing of legend. A creature of tar. Shaw elides his words with the occasional chew and makes the islanders an offer. He knows the skin and fat of this town, a place on which nature has always played a spendthrift game. Watch how Shaw sits and addresses his audience, his legs crossed, his hands very relaxed upon the absolute geography of his body..... Watch how he leaves the room with a stare that steals the glitter from the light through the window, and a smile so remote, so courteous. He’s a worker in a schoolroom by a blackboard on which he has drawn a shark with its jaws around a stick man. He is the reality instructor.”


Beside the joy of reading another ‘perspective’ on a movie, I really dig the creative attention to the front covers of these books. Some examples that are noteworthy:









I found this excellent BFI Book Collector blog that covers each release for both the ‘classic’ and ‘modern’ releases:  


It’s a great, up to date info site on upcoming releases, out of print releases and where to find individual books to complete your collection plus variant cover comparisons of 1st, 2nd and each succeeding edition.  The initial editions primarily used familiar ‘screenshots’ for the covers. In the last few years, they have been updating versions with more art inspired covers as seen here with the 1st and 2nd edition of ‘Vertigo’, ‘Wizard of OZ’ and ‘Vampyr’:






 I would show you the three different ‘Exorcist’ covers but I am just too scared! You will have to search them out yourself.

Here is the latest downloadable BFI catalog.  Check out that sweet cover!

Here is the ‘complete list of titles’ (periodically updated), including upcoming releases:

Bottom line:  These books are just cool.

Personally, I enjoy reading the specific BFI book right after watching its companion movie. I have read that others like to consult the book while they are watching the movie. Obviously there are numerous ways to enhance and enrich the viewing experience of movies we all love.  The best part is to be able to better share (geek out!) with our friends about them. BFI books are a great start.

~Scooter Polanski

I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW RICKY JAY DOES IT


I spent my last day of vacation in the Twin Cities going to record stores and seeing movies.  The first movie was Before Midnight, and I loved it.  If you're a fan of the first two films in this series, then you will be pleased with how this one turned out.  I went to it at The Uptown, which wasn't as disappointing as the last time I went, but it was still overpriced and it still has those stupid reserved seats.

The second film I went to was Deceptive Practice: The Mysteries and Mentors of Ricky Jay.  I first discovered Ricky Jay through his appearances in Boogie Nights and Magnolia, and then later on discovered that he is a legendary magician.  Not like a David Copperfield theatrical guy, but a master of close up magic.  He can do things with a deck of cards that will make your head spin.

I'm posting a couple of TV specials he did, as well as some random clips.  Watch and be amazed.  I don't know how he does it.

Shyboy

P.S.: The third film was Now You See Me.  Meh.


JUNE BRINGS THE FU TO GRIND-FU



GRIND-FU CINEMA 
presents
STREET FIGHTER
and
RETURN OF THE STREET FIGHTER
 
Saturday, June 29th @ 7:00pm
Wiecking 220 Auditorium
on the campus of State University, Mankato
 
FREE! FREE! FREE! FREE! FREE! FREE!

Join us on Saturday, June 29th as Grind-Fu Cinema brings it all back to the beginning!  We're showing the first double feature we ever screened, but with a twist!  This time around you can see Street Fighter and Return Of The Street Fighter in the ORIGINAL JAPANESE with SUBTITLES!  As fun as the terrible dubbing was, these films are even more badass in their original form.  Sonny Chiba mops the floor with all comers, and no body part escapes his butt kicking wrath.  If it's attached to you then it is fair game, and the odds are good that it'll go flying across the room, followed by the rest of you.


Did we mention that Grind-Fu Cinema is FREE?  Cuz it is.  Grind-Fu is always free.  So bring your friends, bring snacks and treats, and dress in layers (because the temperature is notorious in the theater) for a night of amazing martial arts action.

I'm the new boy in town! Where can I go?

BRAD PITT ZOMBIE MOVIE - MY THOUGHTS


Let me just say right from the get go, the Brad Pitt Zombie is great but Max Brook's book World War Z is better. I absolutely love the book, and I have read enough about the nightmares surrounding the film's production to be concerned with what was going to hit the big screen. Before seeing World War Z yesterday I told myself not to expect a literal translation of the book's story line - not even a little. With that bit of mental preparation behind me I was ready to be disappointed, but I wasn't at all. This film is not to be missed if you have even a passing interest in zombies.

 

I think you can easily compare this situation to The Walking Dead series. What started as a fantastic graphic novel and story was the inspiration for a truly entertaining TV show. They have strayed drastically from the original, and yet I cannot complain about the end result. Tim and I had the pleasure of interviewing Max Brooks about his book several years ago when it was released, and at that point he was already in a bidding war for the book's rights and expressing concern about what the Hollywood machine would do to his story. I  distinctly remember discussing the idea of doing World War Z on HBO in a serial format, and at this point I don't see why that still couldn't happen. The movie and the book World War Z are just so completely different, and so it is a relief to think an option like that could possibly still exist.


I will go see this movie again. It is scary, intense, and full of twists and turns. I found myself sitting on the edge of my theater seat on more than one occasion. There is a lot of action in the film, all of which feels real and not over the top unbelievable which tends to happen in "blockbusters". There are of course special effects for the zombie hoards. Initially I was turned off by what I'd seen in the trailers - zombies scaling the great walls of Israel. It looked cheesy to me, but in the context of the movie it works. The zombies are rabid in nature - biting machines with a single objective of feeding, and so the massing wall of zombies is not so inconceivable. In the end this is the story of one family's experience in the zombie apocalypse. The book detailed numerous family and individual's stories, and that is the primary difference. The films ends in a voice over narrative that explains this is just the beginning, setting up the possibility of more films. I for one would like to see what happens next. 

Shelley

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

WHO WANTS TO SEE A MESSED UP MOVIE AS MUCH AS I DO?


The last film the Grind-Fu gang ever saw at the legendary Oak Street Cinema was Crispin Glover's WHAT IS IT?  It was a pretty legendary night for us in many ways.  First off, it began with Mr. Glover himself delivering a reading from several of his manipulated books accompanied by a slideshow.  This was very entertaining, and his performance was exactly what one would expect from him.  Then came WHAT IS IT?

To say that WHAT IS IT? is a difficult film is to put it mildly.  It was easily one of the most challenging films any of us had seen up to that point.  It's hard to explain what is going on in it, so I won't bother.  But it was unsettling and funny and flat out weird.

Was it offensive?  That's up to the viewer, but a large section of the audience that night was very offended, and they didn't try to sugar coat it during the Q&A that followed the screening.  Many in the audience were openly hostile towards Mr. Glover, and he treated their position with respect and did his best to defend his work.  What's more, audience members were openly hostile with other audience members, and at times it seemed like a fight was going to break out.

Whether or not Crispin Glover successfully defended his film is also open to discussion.  I personally felt it was deliberately provocative and without higher purpose, but I do believe he feels strongly that his film is in some ways empowering.

Afterwards he signed copies of his books, and he was very gracious and took time with each person in the very long line waiting for him.

Why am I bringing this up?  Because next week Crispin Glover will be at the amazing The Heights Theater in Minneapolis for two nights, and he's screening the first two films in his "It" trilogy.  What sucks about this?  I WILL BE ON VACATION AND NOWHERE NEAR THE THEATER!  It's up to you guys to go to these screenings and report back on how it went!

Monday, June 3rd - IT'S FINE!  EVERYTHING IS FINE!


I haven't seen this one before, and I'm pretty sure this will be it's first ever Twin Cities screening.  If it is half as provocative as WHAT IS IT? it will make for and interesting discussion afterwards.

Tuesday, June 4th - WHAT IS IT?


If you go to this, please let us know what you think, and PLEASE let us know how the Q&A goes.

Advance tickets are available for both screenings.  If you've never been to The Heights before, well... well, maybe these aren't the movies to introduce the theater to you.  But it's a beautiful and historic theater, and it offers a truly unique movie going experience.

GOOD LUCK!

Shyboy

WHAT YOU GET WHEN MICHAEL CIMINO IS GIVEN A BUDGET

By Scooter Polanski

I am not sure how to categorize ‘Thunderbolt & Lightfoot.’ Is it a ‘road movie?’ a ‘heist movie?’ A buddy comedy? or just an update on the classic american western. In the end, you could simply say it’s a combination of all but what always brings me back to one of my favorite ‘genres’ is that a road movie is usually so much more with it’s ability to combine elements of alot of movie themes. For instance, you could categorize ‘The Wizard of Oz’ as a road movie. In fact, a book could probably (or already has) been written about road movies from every decade (everything from ‘Gun Crazy’ (1949) to ‘National Lampoons Vacation’ (1983) but for my money, ‘Thunderbolt and Lightfoot’ is a worthy cousin to movies like ‘Easy Rider’, ‘Two Lane Blacktop’ and ‘Vanishing Point.’


“With friends like that, you don’t need enemies.”

‘Thunderbolt and Lightfoot’ stands out for me for a few reasons but mainly the cinematography and it’s use in the environment and it’s complementary use IS the rhythm for me.

 
We start out with a very wide pan shot of a wheat field with a church at it’s edge, ‘Thunderbolt (Clint Eastwood) is the first character we are introduced to (as a preacher?!) reciting Isaiah 11:6 "And the wolf shall lie down with the lamb…" Either he is playing against type or something is ‘off.’ A lone black car rumbles in breaking up the pastural setting; just the sound and the look of the character exiting tells you that something just does not ‘belong’ in here. Especially when the car driver walks into church, pulls out a gun and starts shooting at ‘Thunderbolt.’ A quick ‘cut’ to our second main character, ‘Lightfoot’ (Jeff Bridges) walking across train tracks (did he just get off a train?) doesn’t register until he comes upon a a used car lot (with ‘cowboy’ in silhouette with him--western icon-) and Lightfoot immediately ‘assumes’ a fake limp (obviously duplicity surrounds both our main characters and as we will see, all of the main protagonists.)

 
What follows this scene and scenes throughout the movie impress me every time I watch it. All the set pieces are connected with the gorgeous beauty and vastness of america (the endless good/bad ‘opportunities?’) Every road these characters take ‘leads’ to the choices that they inevitably make together. In alot of ways, this is the classic western--the sweeping vistas with cars traveling down open roads with dust kicking up behind them could be just a modern update on the western stage coach scenes that John Ford perfected in Monument Valley. Just iconic. All great american road movies are singularly unique in the way they look and why I never tire of them.

 
Lightfoot steals a car (under his guise as a ‘cripple’) and goes for a joy ride; a joy ride that intersects with the ‘start’ of both characters journey. Back at the church, the assassin has chased Thunderbolt’ out of the church into a beautiful vista of a wheat field.

 
As He is trying to escape, Lightfoot is barreling down the road in his direction. Without getting into details, Lightfoot hits the assassin and picks up Thunderbolt. What I love about this scene is the aftermath and the one shot of the dead assassin lying among the wheat. There is no way the actor just ‘fell’ like that; from what I have read about Cimino, the angle of the body, the placement of the gun and most likely the symbolism of the wheat were very carefully laid out for this shot. It’s a simple shot but for me, let’s me know that this film is what separates an ok, forgettable film to a great movie.


Thunderbolt and Lightfoot’s first conversation is telling one about who and what these characters are and why we begin to be intrigued by them and curious to follow them:

(Lightfoot): “I thought you were the heat!”
(Thunderbolt): “Do I look like heat?!”
(L): “You look like one crazy son of a bitch for a preacher, I’ll tell you that. Who is that
guy back in the wheat?”
(T): “An old friend.”
(L): “With friends like that, you don’t need enemies.”
(Thunderbolt gives him a puzzled look)
(T): “Which way are we heading?”
(L): “WE?!!”
(T): “All right, which way are YOU heading?”
(L): “South.”
(T): “South is all right with me.”
(L): (change in tone) “You must like my driving.”
(T): Oh I love it. Ever thought of doing it professionally?”
(L): “What?”
(T): “Driving.”
(L): “Why?”
(T): “You got blue eyes. All great race champions have blue eyes, it’s a fact.”
(L): “And all preachers drink like fish. That’s a fact!”
(T): “What’s your name boy?”
(L): “Lightfoot.”
(T): “You Indian?”
and this response is such a ‘key’ to why Jeff Bridges represents the true soul of this movie:
            (L): “No. Just American.”


This the first time we hear the song “Where Do I Go from Here” by the great Paul Williams--a song with lyrics like: ‘landscapes changed’, ‘burned bridges’ ‘nowhere for a fool to go’ and inevitably the plaintive plea (or subtext for both characters and audience) of ‘finding the way home.’


Another long wide shot showing a road with seemingly no ‘end’ but an imposing mountain in the far distance (future?) Simple shots/simple characters we have watched yet this is what separates the films that are lasting: there are no ‘throw-away’ shots; they always have a clear vision, a ‘reason’ for every action, of who the characters are, how they are essential to the arc of the story but most importantly the ability to visually tell that story. You can see glimpses, visually, in ‘Thunderbolt and Lightfoot’ of what Cimino really had in his head; when you watch the jaw-dropping western vistas in ‘Heaven’s Gate’ you can trace the rudimentary ideas starting here with his ultra-wide shots.


Another great aspect of 70’s movies is they always featured fine supporting actors but more importantly, GREAT character actors (alot of times the ‘fondness’ for certain character actors will make a movie in addition to just being a great ‘comfort’ to see them appear.) There is a suggestion that ‘character’ actors are just ‘one trick ponies’ i.e. they only do ‘one’ character or one ‘type’ of character; I could not disagree more; to me they add the ‘depth’, the ‘shading’, the missing piece that complete the canvas. If you want to talk about a ‘one trick pony’ actor, watch any Kevin Costner film. Or to put it another way: picture a cage match between Kevin Costner vs. Ed Lauter....case closed! ‘;-)

ANYWAY, interspersed throughout the movie (and the blogpost) are a handful of these great actors and they just really add to the scenes and the overall richness of this movie.


“Hey, where there is smoke there's fire”

After stealing another car, Thunderbolt decides this is his ‘stop’ to get out...
(L): “You don’t know a good thing when you see it.”
(T): “....Kid, you’re ten years too late.”

Disenfranchised drifters (outlaws)--Thunderbolt as the old veteran and Lightfoot as the naive young gun (in fact, later in the movie he is referred to as ‘Billy the Kid’)--clearly nomads, drifting from one ‘opportunity’ (or guise) to the next, one step ahead of lawlessness; all on a clearly recognizable, grainy, awesome, iconic environment of 70’s celluloid!


Another small scene that seems innocuous but is an example of the little things that really make-up the whole of the movie---the truckers roadside diner (reason #125 why the Blu-Ray edition of this movie is far overdue--HD 'frame by frame' feature to read the name of the truck stop and the motel sign across the highway--how else is a fansupposed to find all of the filming locations??!)

The film was shot around Great Falls, Montana. Thunderbolt disguises himself as a preacher at St John’s Lutheran Church in Hobson, south-east of Great Falls (sadly it is no longer there). Lightfoot steals his first car in Choteau. They go via Sun Canyon Road Diversion Lake near Augusta. In the film they catch the ‘Idaho Dream’ down the Snake River; in reality the boat was the Sacajawea 2, moored at Gates of the Mountains Marina in Helena. The bar and telegraph office were located in Great Falls also. Lightfoot met a hammer-wielding motorcycle girl on Ulm Bridge. Red finds out just how vicious the department store guard dogs are at in Fort Benton. The old one-room schoolhouse (when they finally find it) is south of Great Falls on Interstate 15 near exit 240. 


Back to the diner and reason #378 why Jeff Bridges was nominated for an Oscar for his performance here:
Waitress: "What will you have?"
Lightfoot: (flirtatious) "Four scrambled eggs…..very loose…..bacon, toast, coffee and
american fries……you got american fries?"
Waitress: "yes"
Lightfoot: (close-up with serious look) "American fries."

Just another example how a small scene but a key scene propels this character driven movie and really that is 70's movies at their best: real people in very familiar situations (well, maybe except robbing an armory or something!) but as with all of the great 70’s films, it all starts with the written character---Lightfoot, at least from the outside at that time would seem like a hippie i.r. as an example of how the young people had 'lost' the 'american way' and the ideals-- but in many ways, He is the quintessential American of the time: disillusioned, adrift just trying to find his way and hoping to pick the right ‘road’.

I found this quote in a comment section on a review of the movie and thought it echoed some of the same sentiments: it’s nothing less than Life. When Lightfoot asks Thunderbolt "What do we do now?" He replies “When you're not sure what to do it's best just to drive around a while”. YES! When Lightfoot says at the end "We made it" Thunderbolt says "For the time being". And that IS the movie, it's ups and downs and all the ups and downs all our real lives is only "for the time being". That's the greater depth of this movie

"A rolling stone gathers no moss"

Lightfoot finally learns of the origin of 'The Thunderbolt'. By the meeting of two more key characters Red Leary (George Kennedy) and Eddie Goody (Geoffrey Lewis)

 
and the explanation of a previous heist of the Montana Armory that He and Red were a part of that went awry in it's aftermath.

"Beggars can't be choosy"

Thunderbolt takes Lightfoot to the one room schoolhouse where He had hidden the cash from the previous heist but in the years since, it has been replaced by a modern school--the only reason I highlight this exchange is because at the end of the scene, Lightfoot looks up at the school yard flag pole, chuckles and taps the hollow pole a few times in rhythm (ok, six to be exact) and we hear that distinctive 'ping, ping' sound--whenever I pass a flag pole, ideally in a school yard…..tragically, (just as accepting a teaching post in Australia)….I do the same thing. See, you just never know how 'profoundly' a movie can affect you ;-)

So far, this movie has been meandering down the 'road' until arriving at the third act. This is where the movie really picks up momentum, not only in its clear straight direction to the inevitable end but the interaction of the four main characters. I like how Thunderbolt repeats his 'opening' scripture from the beginning of the movie "And the wolf shall lie down with the lamb." Signaling the beginning of the end:

Goody: "Is that a poem?"
Thunderbolt: (gravely) "It's a prayer."


"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer"

The four main characters all have good chemistry together and play off each others strength; I mean Clint is Clint which is always solid (you know what to expect--He IS a 'movie star' as opposed to a working actor) which is what brings us to the always excellent George Kennedy and reliable Geoffrey Lewis. Lewis is really the conscious of the crew, which I suppose makes sense: when he dies the group disintegrates. Kennedy is solid in his role as Red Leary; he does not forget a slight, ever, whether 'real' or 'perceived' and plays a sociopath with intensity that even makes the audience uneasy--although you need to compare his continuous simmering fury throughout the film to a scene when Lightfoot gets back from a job a tells the crew about the naked lady that appeared at the patio door; Kennedy is outstanding.


Another welcome addition is the duo play between Lewis and Kennedy---they have a great, natural comedic touch between them:



I am not sure how audiences nowadays would react to the plans/preparations of the heist; it's so simple/direct and frankly mundane but tight in it’s pace--I wonder if modern audiences would expect or demand a more complex, Rube Goldberg type robbery or infiltrations ala Mission Impossible? I would hope not. They would be missing what this movie is about; not the Macguffin of the heist and I hate to repeat myself but the brilliant direction and character driven plot along with set pieces and places that hardly 'exist' anymore i.e. a beer pool hall , a downtown department store, drive-in theaters, telegraph office. They are small things but still give you that authenticity which unfortunately movies have lost or are poorly recreated. As mentioned before, when you find films that you 'return' to, you just want to soak it up. That's why the tendency for filmmakers nowadays to 'remake' classic/cult films is on one hand, abhorrent but on the other hand, I think I understand why they do it: they love these films so much, they want to literally 'immerse' themselves, in a way, to try to recapture, whatever 'IT' is about how that movie made them feel in the first place and each succeeding time - (if I had unlimited disposable cash and some talent as a filmmaker, it would be a hard 'drug' to turn down.)

"Red Headed women are bad luck"


The actual heist seems like an anti-climax to the movie (although the actual set-ups in the Home Invasion scenes are intense, life-like & brutal yet with that edge of style that is too often copied as 'cool'--we get the full on rage of Red that has been simmering since we were first introduced and this in turn either kills or maims half the crew; of course all moral judgements have been tossed aside with Red & Goody's road trip ending abruptly. We are only left with our original two main characters ; I don't want to give the ending away but we are left feeling happy at some sort of redemption for our characters but this is early 70's remember; filmmaking at it's humanitarian best or worst depending on how cynical you are.


With Cimino, it's a question of 'what if?' He followed this up with the even better 'The Deer Hunter' (1978) then the financial disaster (but very underrated film-- plus the critics of the time did it no favors) of 'Heaven's Gate' (1980)--whether the backlash and the succeeding label as a 'box office poison' director from the Studios led to his demise or he was just a brilliant director that burned out too fast (although, I would make a strong case for 'Year of the Dragon' (1985) as very worthy addition to his oeuvre) we will never know. He just never built upon his early brilliance but then again, if you start your career directing Eastwood, Bridges, DeNiro, Cazale, Walken & Streep--where do you go from there? I will take what I can get.

The unique rhythm of the individual road movie is what always resonates with me and is what compels me to keep ‘returning’ to this genre and each individual ‘journey’ again and again; it’s a trip I am always available to go on and one I never tire of making.





Of course, if none of the above has convinced you to give this film a chance, maybe my friend Edgar Wright can sway you??!: