MovieChat Forums > Three Days of the Condor (1975) Discussion > Maybe it was a good film in the 70s, but...

Maybe it was a good film in the 70s, but now...

posted 13 years ago by chet19
25 replies | jump to latest

Man, it started off nice and mysterious and gets you into it, but then it falls apart. Fast. For some reason, Hollywood continues to show us kidnap victims who end up falling in love with their captors. To make matters worse in this film, Faye had a loving boyfriend awaiting her on vacation, and Robert's girlfriend had just been murdered a few hours ago...perfect time for a kidnapper and his victim to have consensual, unfaithful sex.
Then there's the evil murderer Max Von Sydow. He is such an evil character that at the end, he gives Robert a ride to the depot and hands him a gun. Wow, if only all movie villains were so nice at the end. So I guess that means the true villain was the CIA guy Atwood who had hired Max. Nothing like the climax of a movie where the bad guy (who we barely saw the entire movie) gets killed (not by our hero, but by an intermediary quasi-bad guy). Way to go Robert! Way to get revenge for your girlfriend's murder by...well, by doing nothing. Wow. Awful awful plot twists ruined an other compelling beginning.
Oh, and if you're a CIA director and you sense there is an intruder in your home, just go downstaris, unarmed, in a bath robe. Great spy he musta been.

[–] Picasner 13 years ago

Where do I start? Kidnap victims falling in love with their captors is called "Stockholm Syndrome," and it's very real. For Redford, it was probably more of a release of tension. Very believeable to me.
Von Sydow was NOT a villain, he was a paid assassin. His goal was money only. As he says to Redford in the end, "I have no contract on you. They didn't know you'd be here. I knew you'd be here." He also admired the way Redford, an amateur, handled himself. There was no personal involvement here.
Actually, Redford was completely responsible for bringing downthe plot and the plotters, by surviving and determining the who the top man was, even if he didn't know why until the end. and didn't do the actual lilling. He was definitely lucky a number of times, but if he wasn't, it would have been a very short movie.
The CIA director was not a field man and didn't think like a spy. He was strickly an administrator.
I hope this helps you to see the movie in a different light.

[–] gtbarker 13 years ago

At least you could be bothered to start Picasner, I really couldn't be bothered - some comments are just so out of whack there is absolutely no chance they will ever see sense.

[–] chet19 12 years ago

Von Sydow was NOT a villain. Oh you're right. He didn't murder a room full of of loyal and innocent CIA employees. I guess heroes do that, not villains.

[–] Picasner 12 years ago

I never said he was a hero. I said he was a paid assassin. He's not a "good" guy, but he personally seems to be likeable. He does bad things, but he's not a villain in the true sense of the word. There is no personal animosity in anything he does.

[–] yandoblu 12 years ago

I liked it until he slept with Faye, then it seemed to just drag and drag.
I kept thinking, "Kill yourself, Redford, you're obviously
up against something much bigger than yourself, just count yourself
lucky that you got some Dunawaye coochie."

[–] wwestar 10 years ago

I found it a bit silly when I first watched it in the 80's, the crazy idea that the USA was working on a plan to invade the middle east to secure and control oil.... What a ridiculous idea. Can any of you imagine the USA doing something like that?

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 10 years ago

Even the concept is impossible to believe . . . total insanity . . .

[–] PrometheusTree64 10 years ago

Heh.

Which indeed is why the film is, if anything, prognosticative.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

[–] olasnah-97-475221 9 years ago

Never! Crazy talk!

[–] kevin-bergin 10 years ago

Kidnap victims falling in love with their captors is called "Stockholm Syndrome," and it's very real.

But not for Faye's character. Oh well, it was Robert Redford.

By the way a nice guy hit man is still a bad guy.

[–] jinazaki 10 years ago

Remember the context of the movie: Until 1981 assassinations by and on behalf of the US were allowable and doable. It took an Executive Order to explicitly prohibit that.

So Cold War era killings like that were not commonplace but definitely within the realm of "doing business".

Good or bad or neutral, it depends on your perspective.

[–] Picasner 10 years ago

Why not for Faye's character? It became clear after a while that choosing her was completely random and that he meant her no harm. As his story became known, she became more sympathetic towards him. And Redford's character was a likeable guy.
As for the hit man: Bad job, not a bad guy. History is rife with outlaws who were likeable people who did bad things. It was also obvious that he operated under his own set of "morals" since he could have easily killed Redford but didn't, since, "I don't have a contract on you." John Wayne once said in a movie, "There's no reason to kill her. Had he a reason, he'd kill her." (True Grit) I'll bet the CIA would have been happy to have him kill Redford and leave him there because it would tie up some loose ends.

[–] leader-7 10 years ago

I'd have slept w/ Redford then too, with my husband in the same room. It's REDFORD.

just sayin'

*****************************************

[–] Picasner 10 years ago

Bravo, leader-7

[–] leyenda61 10 years ago

I'm watching it now. A out 30 minutes into it & I'm enjoying it. Never woulda heard of this if people hadn't drawn out similarities that CA:TWS had to it.

-- Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop®

[–] Owlwise 9 years ago

Let's not forget it was made in the 1970s, with a 1970s sensibility toward sex, much more open & easy-going -- even in this situation. Besides, the film is a 1970s political thriller (i.e., psychological, moody, intelligent) with a European arthouse tone, which also influences the attitude toward sex.

And as someone else said, c'mon, it's Redford in his prime! :)

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 9 years ago

As with fine wine . . . this superb movie simply ages splendidly, on and on . . . I'm always finding something new about the story . . .

[–] Owlwise 9 years ago

Yes! And it's astonishing to see how much emotion & character is conveyed by wordless scenes concentrating on their faces -- shades of loneliness, longing, despair as well as of fear & tension stretched to the breaking point. The plot continues to fascinate; the stark cynicism of the government agencies supposedly protecting us but really protecting themselves & their agendas remains all too true; and it works equally well as an existential dilemma shrouded in shadows, doubt & loss. It makes quite clear the fact that Something Is Wrong ... in fact, that Damn Near Everything Is wrong ... and that hasn't changed in the decades since, sad to say. The only thing that has changed is the inability to makes films of this high caliber these days.

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 9 years ago

Yes, today the film would've been ruined . . . back then though they still knew how to do a great film . . . there are a lot of "silent" sequences in this film . . .

[–] holtor 9 years ago

> Von Sydow was NOT a villain, he was a paid assassin.

LOL. Well, I guess if people are murdered in a professional way, they are ok with it.

[–] darryl-tahirali 8 years ago

To make matters worse in this film, Faye had a loving boyfriend awaiting her on vacation,

Where is the evidence that Kathy has a "loving boyfriend"? I think the indications are that the relationship is tension-filled, or else they are going through a bad patch, and that he may even be abusive, or at least domineering.

------------------
"The past is never dead. It isn't even past." -- William Faulkner

[–] kcott44 8 years ago

Well, I'm not going to lie, I was extremely disappointed with 3 Days of the Condor but I still thought it was a decent film and at the end of the day, I could say I liked it as a whole. There are a good amount of problems, the musical score is horrendous, the sex scene between Redford and Dunaway is cringeworthy, and Dunaway's character as a whole really hurts the film as she is such a pointless character and was only added as a love interest. Her character really hurt the film's pacing as well. However, this film does have things going for it, a couple of great scenes stick out. The scene with Redford and Sydow in the elevator is great and suspenseful and the epic scene with Redford and the mailman are stand outs. I also liked the ending as well.

I do think the film is a little bit overrated but it is a solid enough film with mostly good performances and a couple of stand out scenes. 6/10.

[–] rogueforte 8 years ago

Agree that Dunaway's character hurt the film. Maybe if they'd had someone less attractive and without a boyfriend. It would have made it much more believable how she would sleep with Turner so quickly and eventually come to his aid, then be able to end the relationship. In fact, maybe even have her be a high-priced call-girl like, say, Jane Fonda's character in 'Klute'.

[–] BigRich 8 years ago

Then there's the evil murderer Max Von Sydow. He is such an evil character that at the end, he gives Robert a ride to the depot and hands him a gun. Wow, if only all movie villains were so nice at the end.

Very similar to what happened between Eddie Morra and the man in the tan coat in Limitless (2011)

_
Every person that served can be called a veteran, but not every veteran can be called a Marine.

[–] cthulhulurks 8 years ago

Thats why its a good flick and bornes ultmatum is a steaming pile of dung

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings