KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

hchickpea I was a projectionist once, and I showed this film when it had its theatrical release. One aspect of being a projectionist back then was that you got to see certain parts of the films over and over, to the point that you not only could relate scenes and repeat lines, but you began to understand the films in a deeper way than the audiences.The previous reviews miss enough that I feel compelled to write a review of the film. First, the same author wrote "Lion In Winter," so it is pretty obvious he knew the craft. Second, this started as a London stage play, and according to the admittedly loopy Wikipedia, he didn't like the production and stopped further attempts at mounting the play.Once you take the concept that it is a stage play adapted for film, some of the oddities of this production become more apparent. Much like the concept expressed in "Shakespeare in Love," where everyone expects and looks forward to the dog in a play, movie audiences expect a romantic relationship and a happy ending where good triumphs over evil, the Hayes code is satisfied, and insipid movies are safe for kids to watch.The intent of the original work is darker than that, but in order to perceive that you have to look underneath the surface, much as Holmes would do.Start with the title "They Might Be Giants." Yes, it is an homage to Cervantes, but it is a double-entendre as well. In ignoring the dross of everyday life and focusing on existential topics to the point that the world calls them crazy, the "mentally ill" just might be the giants of humanity, exploring the boundaries of who we are as humans and good and evil. Certainly the Justin (justice) Playfair (play fair) character turning into a Holmsian sleuth represents that. The couple who shut themselves off from humanity for years and were very happy is another exploration of the concepts under consideration. It is only when Holmes goes looking for evil in their world that it suddenly appears.Who is to say that a person who believes himself to be a silent film star isn't, in some small measure, that person? The entire concept of empathy, as well as the concept of method acting, both require "getting into the head" of the character. Do we not all have a bit of Scarlett Pimpernel in us somewhere? Is expressing that so bad that we need to relegate our lives to being nebbish librarians forever in our existence? On the subject of the varying versions - Many years ago, I worked in a couple of television stations. The movies we showed came in on 16mm film and one of my jobs was to cut the films to fit the time slot allotted. I learned never to trust a televised version of a film as being accurate to the intention of the director. Networks modify film as well, and in some cases they have access to ADD footage as well as clip it.*Major spoiler here* - The "enigmatic" scene at the end is only enigmatic if you are blind to the modern version of the Hayes code and the inevitable studio interventions which bow to the low common denominators of "How can we maximize the money this makes?" and "Will it upset the audience?" Start with the supermarket scene and descent into "Mad Mad Mad Mad World" slapstick. The duality is that the author did want to show how, when confronted, the "establishment" is a group of enforcers of the status quo, some dressed in enforcer (police) uniforms, and some masquerading as those who would help you become sane, while wielding rubber hoses if you don't follow their instruction. At the same time, the studio wanted a feel good slapstick to lighten up a film with an underlying dark theme. Ergo: chaos in a market, where the materialism of the enforcers of status-quo becomes their temptation and undoing. The most powerful figure in the scene is reduced to saying "My wife will kill me if I don't take advantage of this bargain." The end scene is the most dark of all. Once the reality of the world Holmes has been fighting is shown to be a farce, he has nowhere to go. Death is the inevitable conclusion. The tunnel in Central Park is again double entendre and metaphorical. Tunnel - the passage into the unknown. Tunnel - the accepting of a confined world where there is no escape from whatever comes towards you. There are others that I'll let you deduce for yourself. However... the tunnel was ALSO a metaphor for a RAILROAD tunnel. The horse being heard is a clue to an IRON horse, which is borne out by the comment and visual that they will be in the light (train headlight - also metaphor for truth/God/etc.) and be found close together. He has convinced the analyst to trust him right into death.There is no way that the film company and distributor would allow a scene of Geo. C. Scott and Joanne Woodward standing in front of a railroad (or more likely subway) tunnel, and being run down by a train. All feel-good aspects of the film (and chances of repeat customers) would be lost. What surprises me is how few people "get" the ending and theme of the film.

MartinHafer The film begins in the present time. Scott plays an ex-judge who loses his mind and now believes he is Sherlock Holmes. His greedy brother is bent on having him institutionalized--then he can have access to Scott's fortune. To get him hospitalized, they have him see a psychiatrist (Woodward)--but she is not about to just stick him in an institution. She wants to do a thorough job investigating and decides to go to Scott's home to meet him. But, he's not about to sit still--there is a crime to investigate. And, when he learns that her name is 'Dr. Watson', he KNOWS it's time to act. Along the way, they meet lots of nice misfits and have a grand adventure."They Might Be Giants" is a frustrating film. On one hand, George C. Scott has one of his most charming and enjoyable performances. In addition, the basic idea for the movie is quite promising. BUT, on the other hand, the film seemed to have no idea what to do with the plot--and it eventually degenerated into a stupid mess. And, to make things worse, the ending is just awful--and makes you wonder why you spent your time watching--and why two illustrious actors (Scott and Joanne Woodward) would be in such a flawed project. Having attendants from the local mental institution running about with giant nets and rubber hoses(!) and the god-awful grocery store scene stand out in my mind...and not for good reasons! A mess of a film--especially since the first half is so entertaining.

Charles Herold (cherold) I love this movie. I'm not sure I can claim that, objectively, this is a great movie. It's a very good movie, with an interesting story, terrific performances by George C. Scott and Joanne Woodward, excellent, witty dialogue with some wonderful lines ("I think if God is dead he laughed himself to death.") But still, it's a rather slight movie, parts of it (mostly what I'd call the "reality parts" are under drawn and some might not care for the way the tone floats from very slapstick to thoughtful and back again. And it is an absurd portrait of psychiatry.But so what? This movie is exactly the kind of movie I like. The idea of being able to wander randomly and find a series of fantastic characters and situations is terrific (and very New York, where it takes place, although I didn't know that the first time I saw the film, before I'd ever been there). I love the way Scott's version of reality dove tails with actual reality (although as I say this is not always fully developed). I love the good hearted-ness of this movie and it's suggestion that sometimes there really is more than the brain can imagine. I love the ending, which is thoughtful, and the score, which has a quiet melancholy. I love the Sherlock Holmes deductions and the quirky characters.I love this movie.

MARIO GAUCI I started out my mini Paul Newman marathon with two projects he did behind the camera and in which he didn’t appear but instead highlighted his wife’s acting talent. The effective lead here is actually Newman’s own co-star from THE HUSTLER (1961), George C. Scott, as a lawyer who had a nervous breakdown after his wife’s death and which resulted in his taking on the persona of Sherlock Holmes! This quirky, amiable but not entirely successful comic fantasy allows Scott to again show his considerable (but often neglected) skills at comedy which had served him so admirably in Stanley Kubrick’s DR. STRANGELOVE (1964). Joanne Woodward is Dr. Mildred Watson, the psychoanalyst who takes Scott under her care and whom he (given her surname) mistakes for his genial literary companion and is soon off in search for his eternal nemesis Professor Moriarty in modern-day New York! The cast also includes Jack Gilford, Al Lewis, Kitty Winn and a debuting F. Murray Abraham as various misfits and oddballs who join Scott and Woodward in their Quixotic quest for the invisible evil mastermind.The film’s unsatisfactory and enigmatic conclusion (a slapstick supermarket chase involving Scott, Woodward, Gilford et al and the N.Y.C. Police is followed by a ‘supernatural’ encounter between Holmes, Watson and an unseen Moriarty in a tunnel) makes the whole affair somewhat pointless…except perhaps to imply that a retreat into one’s imagination is necessary if one is to survive the real madness that is modern civilization. In any case, executive producer Newman must have been impressed by THE LION IN WINTER (1968) since he engaged three of its major crew members for this one – director Harvey, screenwriter James Goldman (who adapted his own play for the screen) and composer John Barry (who contributes a nice moody score). The film’s running time was originally 88 minutes but it was subsequently lengthened to 98 for TV screenings; the version I got, then (that is the one also available on the now-OOP Anchor Bay DVD), runs for 92! In the end, I was hoping to like this more than I did – and it’s just as well that I opted not to purchase the DVD (which contained an Audio Commentary featuring Anthony Harvey and noted film restorer Robert A. Harris).