Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Claire Dunne One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

HollywoodVixen90 I watched this film for the first time ever today and I fell in love with it!! I read the book a few years back and it's become one of my favorite books. I was so thrilled when I learned that there was a movie adaptation of the book. This is one film that definitely does justice to the book. This film perfectly captures the way I imagined everything while I was reading the book. It is a perfect visual presentation of the book. Alan Arkin did a fantastic job as John Singer. He was absolutely perfect for the role. He was exactly the way I imagined Singer would be. I really wish he would have won an Academy Award for this role because he truly deserved it. Sondrs Locke also did a wonderful job as Mick Kelly. To be honest all of the actors fit their roles perfectly. I highly recommend you watch this film, especially if you've read the book because this film truly brings the book to life.

dougdoepke A deaf mute comes to a Southern town, touching the lives of those he meets.Singer is something of a mystery man. We know little about him, where he comes from, who's in his past, or what his attachments are, (except for the simple-minded Spiros and the fact that he's an engraver). In that sense, he's more like an idea than a man, maybe one of those mythical western heroes of the past. But instead of a six-gun to right wrongs, he communicates goodness in odd mute fashion, something like a silent universal conscience. That is, of course, until the end when we're reminded that he was more than an idea, after all. But the movie's real dramatic center is young Mick (Locke) trying to find herself amidst stifling surroundings. That scene of her sitting alone on the concert hall stairs, transfixed by the strains of Mozart is a sublime moment lifted by both the great music and Singer's mutely understanding gaze. In a sense, I think, he's been hearing those same sublime chords for some time, despite the physical deafness. Later, when the two communicate wordlessly with the recording, Mick enters a liberating world she will only come to appreciate graveside. And it's not surprising that a triggering event would come from her thoughtlessly brushing him and his music aside following a romantic interlude with her first boyfriend.But Singer's impact is not limited to the personal. His wordless ability also crosses racial lines as portrayed in getting an embittered Dr. Copeland to get beyond his prejudices. Again Singer opens up a better world, this time for the doctor, by using a different language, i.e. signing, in order to communicate with one of the doctor's deaf and dumb patients. As a result, the proud black man bends toward the goodness that Singer communicates. And, by doing so, he establishes the means for reconciling with his estranged daughter and son-in-law. The scenes of their reconciliation are among the most touching of the film.Frankly, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the rotund Spiros (McCann) gobbling down the goodies like there's no tomorrow. That he's also simple-minded, of course, lends these scenes their peculiar pathos. He's Singer's one conversational partner, and watching them rapid fire their signing puts the audience on the outside, for a change. Whether intentional or not, it's a shrewd move to make us experience something of what Singer routinely experiences in being closed out of normal conversations.These are the three main vignettes making up the movie. In each case, the other person experiences a sense of isolation and loneliness that can only be bridged by opening up through communication; and, as the movie shows, there are many such languages for bridging the gap. And though Stacy Keach's down-and-out drifter is given less screen time, when he looks longingly through the windowpane at others enjoying themselves in the diner, his isolation speaks volumes.Of course, the central irony occurs at the end, when Singer too finds himself alone now that the others no longer need him. He who has built so many bridges to others is thrust back to his own island. Bridges, we find out, are no good unless they go somewhere, and now, for the silent Singer, they don't.The cast is uniformly excellent, especially the big-eyed Locke, whose skinny, almost-pretty teen-ager looks totally unlike the Sandra Dee's, Annette Funicello's, of the time. It's that, plus the fact she seems totally unselfconscious in a really difficult role. Arkin's also effective, as the mute Singer. Still, I hope they weren't paying him by the word. And even though he had no dialog to learn, he did have segments of sign language to master, no easy task, I'm sure. Add to them the leonine Percy Rodrigues, an impressively strong and dignified presence, and it's an apt cast both visually and artistically.The movie is a superb adaptation from a Carson McCullers novel. I'd be surprised if its downbeat subject matter made any money. Still, the movie deals powerfully with a common experience in such a way that makes us contemplate what some folks call the human condition. And that's a noble achievement for any movie.

froberts73 Let's talk first about the last, a non-Hollywood ending, but effective as was the entire beautiful, sentimental movie.The several stories in this excellent adaptation of the McCuller novel tie well together making the film as a whole one of the finest sentimental journeys ever put on screen.The atmosphere is letter-perfect. It is storytelling at its very best, and, oh, the acting is superb. No wonder Sandra Locke was nominated for an Academy Award. I don't know who won it that year, but I do know it should have been Miss Locke.Alan Arkin, as usual, is top notch in what must have been a difficult role. He is thoroughly convincing. Matter of fact, all of the performers were remarkably convincing.Chuck McCann who, I think was a comedian, certainly should be mentioned as well as, well, as everyone else.I had the pleasure of working with Stacy Keach when he was in the North Carolina Outer Banks doing a story with his brother, James, about the Wright Brothers. Both were great to talk with, and he was excellent in this film.This movie will grab you at the beginning, and it won't let go. It is a must-see. Keep the tissues handy.

denscul This film is powerful, sensitive, meaningful and memorable once you watch it. I have it on tape, and usually if I get to pick a film, I pick one that makes me laugh, not one that tells me a story about real life. At my age, I don't need that. Carson Mc Cullers as a writer can find the depths of a character's soul, and the film captures most of her talent. If you are looking for a remarkable film, this is one of the best. But I would suggest that the best place to find something serious can be found in a novel, written by an artist and not a hack turning out pulp fiction. A film unfortunately is restricted to roughly two hours, and thus at best can only be a short story. A single short story, to my knowledge has never won a noble prize for literature. The cinema has an art advantage no other art form has, except for the restriction of time limited to the limits of the human body to sit for more than two hours. A book, you can always put down, and return at your leisure.