I saw this movie about 3 months ago, and ever since, i have just been bewildered by it. Alan Arkin delivers a truly amazing performance as a deaf and mute man living with a southern family. It is a very moving picture, yet EXTREMELY underrated. I recommend it to all.
shareThis movie is one of the best kept secrets of American cinema. Arkin's performance is phenomenal. It's a beautiful film.
shareYes....it is vastly underrated.....and not even on DVD format at all !?!?
I rented the download from the MovieLink website.
http://www.movielink.com/commerce/home/Home.jhtml
I'd also like to point out that the novel is adapted from, by Carson McCullers, is well worth reading.
shareI just 'finished' the book this morning... I quoted 'finished' as I really did not read all of it, but had to skip vast amounts of it just to get thru it... so, obviously I did not like it that much, yet somehow it got under my skin.
I was drawn into the story of Mick, John Singer, and the New York Cafe owner guy as well, but I could not muster a single care for any of the other characters in the book, nor the story lines... not really sure why... when Bubber shot Baby/The Greek guy died/Dr Copeland got thrown in jail, I just didn't care...
BUT... as I said above, the feel of the novel, and especially the character Mick really got to me, as here I am today looking up stuff on the I-net about it. I do think I might like it much better as a movie (which is rare for me) and look forward to trying to find it for rent, or on tv sometime.
The film did stay with me after I saw as it as a kid.
I cried like a baby at the end.
[deleted]
onebatabata,
I am about to turn 45... so should be 'mature' enough to have gotten into the whole book, but just couldn't... maybe I am not as mature as I should be!
I do still want to see the movie version.
[deleted]
i feel that the book is definitely better than the film. you get more depth from the characters and key characters like Biff Bannon are explained much better rather than just seeing him for 30 seconds in the film. anyone who doesn't give it a chance really should. either that or at least read the cliffs on sparknotes.
that being said, this film is definitely good and i wish it was an hour longer so that more things from the book could have been put into it.
Just saw it. Excellent film. Did Alan Arkin work throughout the movie and they didn't show it for time purposes? I was confused about that, and I haven't read the book.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
My favorite of '68. Arkin & McCann deserved Oscars. Great book as well.
shareFor my entire life, I will never, ever forget the scene where Arkin is running after the bus, desperately wanting to scream to the person on the bus. However, all he could do was "yell" in sign language, running after the bus gyrating his hands in desperate, hopeless fashion. Some movies reach into your soul so deeply and move you like few others - Alan Arkin, by any times' standards, should easily have an Oscar - portraying the depths of lonliness and frustration of his mute state. For some reason, this depth of sorrow reminds me of "Islands in the Stream" with George C. Scott.
shareWhen I was fourteen years old my friends and I would see movies in a Catholic church on friday evenings.
The priest who hosted these films, and subsequent discussions, showed this film and it moved me like no film before it. It was my first adult film experience and it changed my perception of the
power of film. Although I have long since forgotten the name of the priest I thank him for showing this film as well as The Last Summer and for turning me on to Kurt Vonnegut through his discussion on
Slaughterhouse Five.
[deleted]
I don't feel the movie ever captured the brilliance of the book.
The change in time period, in my opinion, is a terrible mistake. Sondra Locke isn't very good as Mick.
Arkin does a nice job with Singer, but the film never really articulates the
relationships he has with the other characters in an effective way.
The book is a brilliant piece of work that I hope is one day made into a much better film.
RRuin
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty."
Edward R. Murrow
[deleted]
[deleted]
It is a great movie, but I too thought Sondra Locke's performance was very put-on and amateur. She was obviously "acting."
The academy makes mistakes in their nominations occasionally. There are a lot of actors that get nominated because of their general appeal. Cary Grant, John Wayne. Etc. Remember Melanie Griffith in Working Girl? Really? An Oscar quality performance? No way. But she was red hot at the time, and very popular. There are quite a few instances of this, I believe.
Good point about Sondra Locke. I've never been impressed with her performances, and this film is no exception. But this is really Alan Arkin's film, and he is terrific here.
As for Academy blunders, I agree that something's really wrong with a system that would nominate Razzi favorite Melanie Griffith, but at least she didn't win for working girl. On the other hand, Robert Benigni did win for "Life Is Beautiful," which struck me as overacted and maudlin. And how can anyone defend the Academy picking Julia Roberts in "Erin Brockovich" over Ellen Burstyn in "Requiem for a Dream"?
But back to "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter," this is a terrific "message" film from an era when such movies truly had an impact. It certainly had an impact on me as a child.
These book-film comparisons are so boring.
______________
Mulholland CineLog: http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/
I don't consider this film underrated or lost. It is considered a classic, and makes appearances at film festivals. It is well known to film people, but maybe not to the general public, as most films more than about ten years old are not, as most audiences don't have an attention span that takes in much of cinema's great history, but just the last "Porky's" or "American Pie" episode...
shareThis was regularly shown on UK tv some 20-30 years ago but now rarely shown.
Its that man again!!