Skunkyrate Gripping story with well-crafted characters

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

chaswe-28402 Did it ? I don't think it did. I might have found out if I'd listened to the director's commentary, with Soderbergh, but I couldn't be bothered. Maybe I'll take it in at some future time. Otherwise it was quite interesting, but terminally puzzling. It didn't hang together very well. More or less a permanent clash of personalities. Difficult to know why they were so cool with each other. Why did Angie try to batter Lee so furiously, with no effect ? Frankly, I needed more clarity. What exactly was it about ? Did Marvin collect his money ? Did he wind up as a part-owner boss of the mob ? Most of the rest of the cast were dead by the end. Similar to Bacon's opinion about his own paintings. Meaningless, unless you find meaning in them. One critic thinks that Marvin was actually dead throughout the entire movie.

Antonius Block Lesson one, don't mess with Lee Marvin. This dude is bad, and ice cold. After getting stabbed in the back (well, actually, shot in the chest) and left for dead, he pursues the money that was owed to him up the chain in an organized crime syndicate. In one fight, he hammers a guy on the ground in the groin. When he's shot at in an underground garage, he calmly takes a couple of steps back behind a pillar, and allows the police to take care of the shooter. He's so direct and menacing in making it clear he's going to be paid, or he's going to kill you. He's a terrific tough guy, and turns in an excellent performance.The film was entertaining, but I'm not sure it ever really broke out of the usual Hollywood formula of a very brave, very tough guy taking on an unseen web of corruption. I was reminded of The Big Heat (1953), which ironically also starred Lee Marvin, and there are many others. After you've heard the premise, you can imagine what's going to happen, and it's got a few plot holes as well. On the other hand, it's well made within this genre, with director John Boorman filming at Alcatraz, using a gritty, stark style, and employing mini-flashbacks to realistically show Marvin's state of mind. John Vernon, ubiquitous bad guy from this era, is solid, and it was nice to see Angie Dickinson, particularly in the scene where she gets mischievous and annoys Marvin. The bit with her wailing away at him while he stands there impassively fit well and made me smile. Less successful is Carroll O'Connor, who is a little harder to believe in the few scenes he has, though it was interesting to see him in role other than Archie Bunker. Overall, a good action 60's action film, but probably a little over-hyped, with the gushings of critic David Thomson leading the way. I'd give a slight edge to Bullitt, from the following year, if you have a choice.

dsmith-25000 Using Alcatraz as a regular drop point (as indicated at start and end of movie) made no sense. The island is only 1.25 miles from San Francisco. The entire city would have seen the landing lights on the island turn on and the helicopter landing and taking off. People would be asking questions, so city/state police and Park Service police would be investigating.I suppose its nice for the viewer to imagine the open question about whether Walker gets the cash that is left behind. Or what happens to Chris' (Sister-in-Law & lover to Walker) character. Although I prefer to clear up loose ends.Overall, a lot of dead bodies left around for police to ask questions about.

allyatherton A gangster is on a revenge missionStarring Lee Marvin and Angie DickinsonScreenplay by Alexander Jacobs, David Newhouse and Rafe NewhouseDirected by Donald E WestlakeThis is a below average thriller with a disappointing ending.The whole thing is too artyfarty for it's own good and the constant use of pointless flashbacks does nothing to further the tension or plot. The acting throughout is as wooden as a park bench. The plot didn't really go anywhere and didn't keep my interest. The whole movie was just trying to be too arty and clever and that got in the way. I haven't watched many films from this era in the sixties so I don't really know if this was a common thing at the time.The ending left me frustrated and so did most of the film. I can't really find anything good to say about it at all.6/10