It doesn't hold up today

Nietzsche said that there were no facts,only opinions.of course that was just HIS opinion.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I enjoyed this movie more 20 years ago than I do now. It's not really an Eastwood vehicle or his style. In interviews he stated he obviously had some power over it's making but never wanted to do more than 3 takes on any scene. He has said it became more of a Bridges vehicle which bares itself to be true by Bridges Academy nomination but Eastwood didn't like the movie himself, it didn't flow correctly and also felt it wasn't promoted correctly. When I'm in the mood for an old Eastwood film this one isn't one that comes to mind. It's not that it's a bad movie, it just is a little flat. Notice pretty much every movie after this one that Mariposa and Eastwood produced were completely controlled by Eastwood, usually directed by him. He directed 3 of his movies prior to this one. He severed all ties to United Artists because of this film.

Many of these comments are inaccurate.

First, Eastwood never stated or indicated that he did not like the movie. To the contrary, he has praised it (see the 2003 documentary A Decade Under the Influence), and he severed all ties with United Artists because he felt that the studio failed to market Thunderbolt and Lightfoot properly and that it thus did not become as big of a hit as it should have been (although it was still a pretty big hit, among the top twenty grossers of 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_in_film#Top_grossing_films_.28U.S.. 29).

Second, Eastwood enjoyed working with Michael Cimino so much that, according to Cimino, Eastwood actually offered him a three-picture deal. Cimino, knowing that he wanted to make movies such as The Deer Hunter and Heaven's Gate, turned down the offer, but he and Eastwood still worked together on projects later on, projects that never came to fruition. See page 311 of Richard Schickel's Clint Eastwood: A Biography.

Third, Eastwood never said that he saw the film as a "Bridges vehicle." Eastwood did allow Bridges to 'steal' a number of scenes, he enjoyed what Bridges was doing, and he proved very happy when Bridges received an Academy Award nomination, for never before had an Eastwood movie received an Oscar nomination of any kind. But one of Eastwood's virtues as an actor had long been his ability to create space for other, more manic or vocal performers to deliver mesmerizing and spontaneous performances, such as Eli Wallach in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Jessica Walter in Play Misty for Me, and Andy Robinson in Dirty Harry. Bridges very much fit the pattern.

Fourth, I don't see how there are problems with the film's "flow," except for folks who are expecting a more tightly constructed, conventional genre piece, which was never the goal of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (quite the opposite).

Fifth, Eastwood possessed as much control over this film as any of the other Malpaso productions that he did not direct. Yes, Cimino possessed an individualistic and idiosyncratic voice of his own, as would certainly be affirmed in the years ahead. But since Cimino was a writer realizing his own vision and directing his own script, and since Cimino proved to be a creative, competent, decisive director, Eastwood granted him the freedom to realize that vision. Again, Eastwood liked Cimino and Thunderbolt and Lightfoot so much that he wanted Cimino to be by his side in the years ahead, offering him a three-picture deal. Presumably, Cimino would have directed the Malpaso productions that Eastwood chose not to direct himself (or that Don Siegel did not direct), such as The Enforcer (1976) and Every Which Way but Loose (1978), both directed by James Fargo, and Any Which Way You Can (1980), directed by Buddy Van Horn. But, again, Cimino knew that ultimately, he wanted to make his own movies under his own auspices.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It's not really an Eastwood vehicle or his style.

There are a number of aspects in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot that allow it to fit quite comfortably into Eastwood's oeuvre.

1) He plays a drifter, in some ways known by a moniker, on the fringes of society.

2) He plays a drifter in the wide-open spaces of the West. Indeed, there is a bit of a 'modern Western' element to the movie, emphasizing Eastwood's interest in the region even when not playing in an actual Western.

3) The film is largely about social detachment and tenuous social connections.

One could see Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974) as a bit of a bridge between the Old West drifters that Eastwood had often played to that juncture of his career and the 'loose ends' characters that would gently roam the rural back roads of Western America a few years later in Every Which Way but Loose (1978), Bronco Billy (1980), Any Which Way You Can (1980), and Honkytonk Man (1982).

reply share

add reply

formatting help