LeonLouisRicci
Interesting but Ultimately and Art Film Showcasing Two Method Actors, John Cassavetes who uses Method Acting as a Whole New Method, and Peter Falk Professionally Playing along with what Writer/Director Elaine May and one Assumes Cassavetes had in Mind.It's All in the Mind and We get to Penetrate the Craniums of Two Small Time 1970's Hoods on the Lam in what amounts to a Couple of Blocks in the Big City. The Character Study takes place in less than 24 Hours and the Two Hour Running Time is a Tense, Claustrophobic, Anxiety Riddled Atmosphere of much Rough Housing and Verbal Sparring.The Two are Not too Bright so the Banter is Raw and Reveals very Little as the Screenplay makes Pretensions to Say A Lot Without Saying much. Words and Phrases are Repeated Endlessly (is there an echo in here?) The Whole Thing becomes an Exercise in Frustration, Fighting, Wrestling, Pawing, Slapping, Ball-Busting, and Betrayal.Ned Beatty Shows Up in the Third Act as the Antagonist as the Conclusion is Opened Up somewhat for Ventilation but the Air has been Sucked Out of this Thing Long Ago and Replaced with Stagnant Carbon Dioxide from the Constant Back and Forth Bickering.Overall much Too Long to Sustain this amount of Close-Up Scrutiny, Watching and Listening to these "Real" Low-Lifers. Worth a Watch for Fans of the Actors and the Cassavetes No Frills Film-Making Format that the Female Writer/Director Emulates and seems to be making an Homage.
drosse67
Viewers familiar with John Cassavetes' directing style will see his influence in this film, but Elaine May wrote and directed it. It is an engaging, highly unusual drama about two childhood pals mixed up with the mob. Don't expect Martin Scorsese or Francis Coppola glitz here---this movie is different. There is a real, uncinematic edge to it. It almost plays like a documentary, or a "reality movie." And the actors--Falk and Cassevetes were good friends and frequently worked together--allow for unique male-bonding (and a dissection of the male sex) that rarely occurs in modern film (another characteristic of a Cassavetes-directed film). Women are basically throwaway characters in many of his films, and that is the case here. This movie will either be an endurance test for audiences, or a fascinating experience. It was the latter for me.
allix-1
Very outdated film with awful, cliché-ridden and mawkish dialog and a very poor construction. In addition, Cassavetes and Falk overact constantly. A pseudo "good movie". It takes no time to discover how catastrophic this intellectual turkey is. The first scene is a total bore, filled with histrionics and hysteric exchanges. The sound is horrible. Camera movements are without imagination as is the building of characters. No poetry, no subtle psychology, no interesting shots. The actors smoke constantly and we see ads for beer beverages. Very cheap, indeed. (one exception : Ned Beattie"s nice and simple way of playing the hit man).
dbdumonteil
Although the director is Elaine May,the style is Cassavetes's.One may think it's a lost work of him.Peter Falk's presence accentuates this impression.The female parts were too small for Gena Rowlands,I guess..An offbeat work,it starts as a thriller with gangsters and maffia,but we soon discover we got it all wrong.It's a psychological drama,a meditation on friendship (how could have we thought sweet Falk ,full of bonhomie ,was a Judas?),on death (the long sequence in the graveyard ) and mainly on this lost paradise,childhood:Falk tells Cassavetes that he often speaks of his child memories with his wife;actually,he'll do that afterwards,at the end of the movie.Childhood again,when the broken watch reminds them of a long gone past that comes back to take its toll. Childhood again,when Cassavetes buys candies.Childhood's memories might explain Falk's ambiguous behavior.Remember James Cagney and his mother in "white heat" .There's a Walsh dash thrown in here.
AD
