Why its here:
I was very interested in having my kids see a Dustin Hoffman film, and this one had the duel benefit of being Robert Redford's brainchild and dealing with the Watergate investigation. It is interesting to note that the film was originally rated R for its strong language. The producers appealed that rating and it was dropped to a PG. (There was no PG-13 at the time). The story is thematic and very intelligent and, yes, there is a fair amount of very strong language, but this film is so good that I would never encourage people to stay away for this reason.
Specs:
Over 2 hours; rated PG (originally R for language)
Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
A winner! this gets a 8.5 and is the first film to break into our top 10 list since 1963's Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.
More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film held us spellbound. It is an incredible slice of history -- not just because of the Watergate events, but because of its stunning exploration into what it meant to do investigative journalism in the pre-computer era.
The surprise here is that Nixon is not in this film at all. The resignation of key figures in Nixon's administration hardly enters the film. In most ways, anyone who watches expecting to learn more about Watergate will be disappointed. The film is really not so much about Watergate, as about the slow painstaking research that went in to building a piece of journalism that (ultimately) resulted in the downfall of Nixon's presidency. If that doesn't sound like compelling filmmaking, well, then, I'd probably agree with you! as would most other reasonable people. But, the thing is, it IS.
The story here is all about its bits and pieces of story -- layers of denial, and intrigue, and character, choices, ethics, persistence and, of course, politics. It is beyond fascinating. Of course it could never have been half so good were it not for the skill of its director, the stellar performances of Redford and Hoffman, and the profoundly capable supporting cast. I recently read Roger Ebert's review of the film and loved his comment, "[w]ho'd have thought you could build tension with scenes where Bernstein walks over to Woodward's desk and listens in on the extension phone? But you can."
What makes this film incredible for modern audiences, in a way its contemporary ones could not have fathomed, is that the work of Woodward and Bernstein has now gone the way of the dinosaurs. This is not what the press does anymore, nor how they do it. The film managed to capture a moment of time at exactly the perfect moment. It preserved, at its apex, the perfection of a certain craft. And it is worth watching for that reason alone.
Iconic Image:
Read our reviews, recommendations, and commentary on classic movies. All with an eye toward family viewing.
Showing posts with label Robert Redford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Redford. Show all posts
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Sunday, May 25, 2014
The Sting (1973)
Why it's here:
To see Paul Newman and Robert Redford in an iconic buddy picture. The theme of con men in the 30s was sure to be a winner as well.
Specs:
2 hours; rated PG -- see parent cautions near the end of this review
Our family's average rating on a scale of (1-10):
8.38
More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a fantastic film. The story - on which I don't want to give too many plot details away - is very clever and well thought out. There are twists and turns that keep you guessing about who to trust as good-natured con men work together to take down a crime boss/banker who murdered their friend. Your attention will be riveted until the very end.
The period details are beyond compare and lead to an almost perfect envisionment of the 1930s era. The score, with which everyone is familiar -- (The Entertainer enjoyed a huge comeback in popularity at the time of the film's release) -- features ragtime classics that are not actually from the era, but a good 20 years prior; still the score was inspired as it suits the overall elements of the picture and adds enormously to its charm. Newman and Redford are such an engaging team, and the supporting cast is exceptional. Particularly notable are Robert Shaw as the bad dude the con men target and Harold Gould as Kid Twist, another of the con men.
I would highly recommend it, but with one big caveat: there is a scene in a strip club that is bound to be objectionable for many, if not most, parents, including myself. I knew about the scene and pre-watched to decide what to do. Ultimately, I thought the film too good to be missed and just talked about the scene first. It occurs in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, when Redford's character has come in to some money and goes to the club to see his girlfriend. She wears nothing but pasties and a g-string and dances provocatively in front of a group of rowdy men. The scene goes on for long enough that there is no chance of it being missed or going over anyone's head. She also walks up and talks to Redford for a bit before covering up. Anyone considering watching this film with kids should be aware of it and make up their own minds. Note that the scene could be fast forwarded without missing out on any plot details that matter.
Also, along these lines, later in the film, it becomes clear that Newman lives in a house of ill repute and that his girlfriend is the madam. The good news with all of this, is that the facts of the situation are played with enough subtlety that it probably will go over most kids' heads. As long as I'm giving the rundown of this stuff, I may as well mention that Redford is also seen going to a female character's apartment late at night and is still there in the morning. Honestly, I don't remember their tryst very much, so I don't think it was very provocative. (Also, by the way, the overall level of tension and violence is not bad or over the top given that criminal activity is referred to throughout. The mood is generally pretty light and there is almost no gore; through there is the murder in the beginning of the film that sets off the whole chain of plot events and another fairly shocking shooting later in the film.).
Iconic image:
To see Paul Newman and Robert Redford in an iconic buddy picture. The theme of con men in the 30s was sure to be a winner as well.
Specs:
2 hours; rated PG -- see parent cautions near the end of this review
Our family's average rating on a scale of (1-10):
8.38
More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a fantastic film. The story - on which I don't want to give too many plot details away - is very clever and well thought out. There are twists and turns that keep you guessing about who to trust as good-natured con men work together to take down a crime boss/banker who murdered their friend. Your attention will be riveted until the very end.
The period details are beyond compare and lead to an almost perfect envisionment of the 1930s era. The score, with which everyone is familiar -- (The Entertainer enjoyed a huge comeback in popularity at the time of the film's release) -- features ragtime classics that are not actually from the era, but a good 20 years prior; still the score was inspired as it suits the overall elements of the picture and adds enormously to its charm. Newman and Redford are such an engaging team, and the supporting cast is exceptional. Particularly notable are Robert Shaw as the bad dude the con men target and Harold Gould as Kid Twist, another of the con men.
I would highly recommend it, but with one big caveat: there is a scene in a strip club that is bound to be objectionable for many, if not most, parents, including myself. I knew about the scene and pre-watched to decide what to do. Ultimately, I thought the film too good to be missed and just talked about the scene first. It occurs in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, when Redford's character has come in to some money and goes to the club to see his girlfriend. She wears nothing but pasties and a g-string and dances provocatively in front of a group of rowdy men. The scene goes on for long enough that there is no chance of it being missed or going over anyone's head. She also walks up and talks to Redford for a bit before covering up. Anyone considering watching this film with kids should be aware of it and make up their own minds. Note that the scene could be fast forwarded without missing out on any plot details that matter.
Also, along these lines, later in the film, it becomes clear that Newman lives in a house of ill repute and that his girlfriend is the madam. The good news with all of this, is that the facts of the situation are played with enough subtlety that it probably will go over most kids' heads. As long as I'm giving the rundown of this stuff, I may as well mention that Redford is also seen going to a female character's apartment late at night and is still there in the morning. Honestly, I don't remember their tryst very much, so I don't think it was very provocative. (Also, by the way, the overall level of tension and violence is not bad or over the top given that criminal activity is referred to throughout. The mood is generally pretty light and there is almost no gore; through there is the murder in the beginning of the film that sets off the whole chain of plot events and another fairly shocking shooting later in the film.).
Iconic image:
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Barefoot in the Park (1967)
Why its here:
Robert Redford and Jane Fonda are enough of a reason. But add a funny Neil Simon play, and this one is not to be missed.
Specs:
1 1/2 hours. Color.
Our family's average rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
8.0. We all gave it an "8"!
More about the film and our reaction to it:
We were all highly charmed by this film about the challenges of a young married couple. Their personalities are quite different, but they are passionate about each other. It feels very much like a play turned movie (which, of course, it is), with most of the action taking place in the newlywed's apartment. Although the story has depth and heart, it also has enough silly comedy moments that it appealed to everyone. In particular, the mother/mother-in-law and the telephone installation/repair guy gave us a lot to laugh at, is did the recurring joke about the many flights of stairs needing to be scaled to reach the apartment.
Both lead actors here show why they deserved stardom. They are not just beautiful to look at, but overflowing with charisma and interest. Their performances, and an excellent supporting cast, really make this film great.
Iconic Image:
Robert Redford and Jane Fonda are enough of a reason. But add a funny Neil Simon play, and this one is not to be missed.
Specs:
1 1/2 hours. Color.
Our family's average rating on a scale from 1 - 10:
8.0. We all gave it an "8"!
More about the film and our reaction to it:
We were all highly charmed by this film about the challenges of a young married couple. Their personalities are quite different, but they are passionate about each other. It feels very much like a play turned movie (which, of course, it is), with most of the action taking place in the newlywed's apartment. Although the story has depth and heart, it also has enough silly comedy moments that it appealed to everyone. In particular, the mother/mother-in-law and the telephone installation/repair guy gave us a lot to laugh at, is did the recurring joke about the many flights of stairs needing to be scaled to reach the apartment.
Both lead actors here show why they deserved stardom. They are not just beautiful to look at, but overflowing with charisma and interest. Their performances, and an excellent supporting cast, really make this film great.
Iconic Image:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)