Is this movie a typical example of Altman's cinematic flair?
Sure is. It's as flashy as hell. There's the usual overlapping, aimless dialogue; a scene involving reflections in a window; also great ensemble acting. Credit where it's due.
What about the acting?
Pretty good. Hayden's good, though his character is an irritating bore. Mark Rydell is not bad as a gangster boss, although probably he was just playing himself. He is a director after all. Nina is pretty pretty, for a skinny bird. Elliott is just brilliant. Never better. In every scene. He carries the film, such as it is.
Comedy?
It has moments: the thing with the cat; the thing with the trainee hood; the thing with the guard who likes to do impersonations (I liked his Walter Brennan, but Cary Grant was poor). Elliott was hilarious throughout.
Drama, intrigue, suspense?
Not a lot.
Does it reflect the era when it was made?
Definitely. The half-naked tarts in the neighbouring apartment, doing yoga and making candles, the 'aren't we so cool' condescension to the bourgeoisie, the occasional existential violence.
Character development?
Don't be silly.
Judgement?
I enjoyed it but mostly for Gould's performance and because it was a diverting new take on an old character. But it didn't work for me, and I just want to go back and watch Bogie in The Big Sleep or Dick Powell in Farewell, My Lovely (Mitchum , come to that).
But suit yourself. Makes no difference to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment