Reviews

Watch it for a radiant Julie Christie, who was never more lovely or charming.

Watch it for nice shots of Venice looking wonderfully seedy and decrepit.

But what the the director was trying to do, I am not sure. He is one of those artists that Criterion and others always praise as a genius. Gimme a break.

So many elements thrown into the mix, suggesting the supernatural and Lord knows what, and in the end it all amounts to a big fat zero.

For example, little things, like the bishop looking all mysterious and distrubed, and suddenly waking in the middle of the night as the climax nears. But that's just another red herring. One of many.

Just an OK movie to kill a rainy afternoon. But a masterpiece? No. Not even as good as Hitchcock at his worst.

I know how you feel: wow! Marlon Brando and, and, wow, just so many big names from that era and people who were not yet big but were on the way, and a well-known director and a screenplay by no less a talent that Lillian Hellman! What could possibly go wrong?

Everything.

I stumbled on this one on Criterion and wondered how it is I don't remember ever having heard of it.

Turns out there is a reason for that. Some movies are better forgotten. They just were doomed from the start. This is one of them.

But Marlon Brando! Redford and Jane Fonda!

Yes, it is too good to be true.

It is simply a mess.

Let's just move on....

I finally re-watched this because Criterion Channel made it available.

Saw it originally on City TV from Toronto way way back in the early 80s when they showed it -- not making this up -- with SUBTITLES. Because the original movie is spoken I guess in authentic Aussie and honestly you could not understand hardly a word. Incredible.

I am guessing they spent a lot of money, once they know they had a huge hit on their hands, to clean up the soundtrack and re-dub the voices.

Watching it now I can't believe this thing became a cult hit and spawned a fracnhise. It is just so awful. Essentially a movie made by thirteen-year-old boys for other thirteen-year-old boys. Cars! Cars with big engines! And motorcycles! Fast motorcycles! So cool!

When I read the other reviews here that rave over this thing like it is a masterpiece and gush over how it is so "incredible" and "awesome" I know the reviewers are saying more about their mentality than the movie itself.

Didn't Star Wars come out the same year? A real cultural turning point. Movies for grownups went out the window.

The only two cool things about this mess are:

1. There is no long boring exposition explaining the state of the world or Australia (heck I don't know that they ever mention that this is Australia--is it?) they simply put up a text that says "In the not too distant future..." or some such thing. Minimalistic.

2. The "Halls of Justice" sign they repeatedly show is pretty much an exact replica of the famous metal arch over the gates of Auschwitz, only with the words changed. Why they did this I don't know. Read what you will into it.

And oh boy is Mel ever young. He looks like a baby. The ripped Mel of later years would be able to pick up this kid and break him in half without trying.

... Too little James Mason. The star is absent for long stretches, barely present because he has been wounded. The odd man out unfortunately is almost out of the movie. My only complaint. Otherwise what's not to like? The thing is a masterpiece.

Carol Reed clearly had a thing for European cities + night + rain. The long night sequence is reminiscent of The Third Man all the way. And Mason is supported by a fine cast.

What surprised me was how abstract the thing is: no one makes fancy speeches about oppressed, suffering Ireland. Politics is left out of it. It is all about people and their many different reactions to the fugitive odd man out.

Starts slow and looks predictable: a repressed girl is trapped in her dreary life in a starchy WASPy small town surrounded by small-minded bigots and a big city playboy is going to romance her and melt her and liberate her etc etc and there will some good laughts along the way.

Ho hum.

But wait! It's not that simple!

And we'll leave it there so as not to spoil it.

Dunne and Douglas have great chemistry and the supporting cast is excellent.

(Actually, this starts out feeling a whole lot like _Ninotchka_, where you have stone-faced heroine being courted by Douglas the smart-aleck Parisian playboy.)

This movie is a hidden gem.

Probably because only true movie lovers even recognize the names of the two stars and the writers and directors. That is just the way it goes today.

Beautiful brilliant series destroyed.

Not going to dissect this disaster.

Either you get it or you don't.

Sad.

Farewell Morse.

Oh now machine says my review is too short. Harrumph! They want to obfuscate the truth well I shall not let them I will speak out against this sacrilege because someone must fight back, someone must care and some of us do care and we want the old Endeavour the real thing not this cheap rip off clearly done only for the money and foisting upon us cheap thrills and bizarre plot twists and not one little bit of this thing was believable and Thursday and Morse would never be in conflict like that Minimum character limit met.

What was in the air in the 60s? Zeferelli's Romeo and Juliet. Blue Oyster Cult's Don't Fear the Reaper. And Elvira Madigan. "Stay Beautiful, Die Young" was Blondie later, but that's the basic emotion.

And helpfully, you know when you should feel an emotion, because they suddenly play the Mozart or Vivaldi or whatever else.

Ridiculous story of two idiots. Instead of simply enjoying a nice fling, they destroy their careers, in his case also abandoning a wife and kids. And then he figures out that as a broke Aristocrat and deserting cavalry officer, there are not a lot job openings for the likes of him.

At one point he even makes a little speech that any hippy would dig, about how people change and you should just darn well be able to do whatever takes your fancy. Like dump your family for a hot blonde. So groovy!

Beautiful film, though. Pia was absolutely gorgeous.

So if you're sixteen, or emotionally sixteen, and in love with love, this is the movie for you!

Saw this on TV when I was little. I loved the little sporty cars zipping around the French countryside.

Watching it many decades later, I still dig the cars. Audrey looks anorexic. The movie jumps around more than anything by Tarantino. Maybe he saw thus and was inspied?

What an unholy mess.

Two great actors wasted.

Oh and watch out for "Jackie." She is so young I completely failed to recognize who it was. She is absolutely stunning and exudes sex appeal like no one's business.

Was ... a thing apart.

If you thought Mickey Rooney as the Japanese photographer in Breakfast at Tiffany's was hilarious, then you will likely enjoy The Great Race.

But if you have an actual sense of humor, don't bother.

I rewatched this on Criterion because I remembered seeing it on TV as a little kid. And being a little kid I loved the cars, and the Prisoner of Zenda bit, and was probably titillated by Natalie Wood's frequent and varied states of undress.

Today the only reason for an adult to spend time on this movie (it feels very long) is the wonderful costumes and sets and color, Lemon's bit as the prince, and Natalie Wood's frequent and varied states of undress.

The level of trust between us just went down several notches.

If this was a project by a bunch of high school kids, it would be charming and forgiveable. But I'm assuming it was done by older people.

Oh, and that ironic ending. If I roll my eyes any harder they will be stuck in the back of my head.