I get why this is admired but admit it leaves me a little cold. Not a lot, a little. Maybe it's overlong - almost two hours. It does build but occasionally the same beat got hit. Maybe I felt it was overpraised. I dunno.
It is well made. Beautifully shot. Location work. It was lucky in many ways - the right movie at the right time, the right amount of sex and violence - but Warren Beatty and co worked hard for that luck.
It has many old fashioned values - exciting new stars, gangsters, Depression era criticism - updated in new ways - sex, violence, social issues (Clyde is impotent).
Faye Dunaway is stunningly good. Every film Warren Beatty made between this and Splendor in the Grass flopped. I wonder if perhaps because Beatty isn't really a star - he's handsome, charming, all that, but doesn't have great drive. Splendor was Natalie Wood's film. This is Faye Dunaway's story. Her character goes on the biggest journey: bored country girl (flashing a naked back at the beginning), going along with Clyde for kicks, enjoying it, then doubting it, falling for Clyde but frustrated by his ability to not make love, wanting to give up... On contrast Clyde's character remains more constant: part-shy, part-braggart (he does develop the ability to get an erection).
Gene Hackman is very good. Estelle Parson's yelling may get on your nerves. Denver Pyle's Frank Hamer is perhaps too much of a buffoon. Gene Wilder's performance is excellent. The extras are terrific.
1 comment:
Great reaad thankyou
Post a Comment