MovieChat Forums > Daniel (1984) Discussion > Must Be The Only One To Love This Movie

Must Be The Only One To Love This Movie

posted 19 years ago by Tova
12 replies | jump to latest

I must be and I've seen it so many times, found it on Canadian Amazon in VHS as it isn't on DVD. Am I the only one who thought Lindsey Crouse was superb? And Mandy Patemkin was off the charts, especially in the beginning of the movie. The whole New York immigrant Jewish leftist scene reminded me of what certain family members' college years must have been. The Paul Robeson concert, Ed Asner, Tovah Feldshuh, Ellen Barkin, ohmigosh, the movie rocked. Though the Tim Hutton character was weak. I didn't like his voiceovers about torture methods through the ages, but this came straight out of Doctorow's book of the same name.

[–] joshua_carpino 19 years ago

i agree.one of lumet's best and most underated.i especially liked feldshuh and lindsay crouse.i also thought hutton's torture history voiceovers were a nice touch.

[–] ghtx 19 years ago

You're not the only one who loves this movie. I also think it's a great Lumet film. Too bad no one else seems to agree with us.

[–] gressos 18 years ago

No,you're not.Believe me.This movie is too bitter and too disturbing to be loved,but it certainly cannot be ignored,no matter how hard you try.I myself became a DANIEL fan(being a faithful LUMET fan)over the past 7 years.Some films are not meant to please and tickle and this one is an utmost rare case of a major studio release which is unpleasant but real like life(and this has nothing to do with the poliical colour of it).

[–] jonnsteinbeck 18 years ago

did not love it ,,,, yet it is haunting ,,,,,,,,,,,

[–] hawks-bill 17 years ago

It's an intriguing film. My biggest gripe concerns the upbeat ending. The book's conclusion is less optimistic and more emotionally powerful.

[–] TemporaryOne-1 15 years ago

Depends on how you view the ending.

The family portrait of Daniel and his wife and son participating at a protest in Central Park is a parallel to the family portrait of Paul and Rochelle and Daniel at the Paul Robeson concert.

On one side of the coin, Lumet is telling us that the family bond is integral to genuine political activism, and to passing the activism from generation to generation, which means every generation will have a group of truly dedicated people who will rewrite history on behalf of social justice, every generation will have witnesses and history will never be forgotten, history will always be reinterpreted and recomposed and reenacted. thanks to each generation learning from the past generation and remaining connected to each other.

On the other side of the coin, perhaps Lumet's parallel portrait means Daniel is repeating the 'sins' of his past generation, Daniel is repeating the radicalism that destroyed his family, which will in turn destroy his new family, that radicalism is a destructive force.

[–] tripmixx 16 years ago

I just ended up here by doing a search for my name, and this movie was made the year I was born too. I have to see it now.

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 14 years ago

I wanted to like this movie, but I just couldn't. All the while I was reading the book, I was imagining what a great film could be made from it, and... this isn't it.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

[–] Alfriend 14 years ago

For me, there's far more to appreciate in this haunting and powerful film than there is to criticize. As with most Lumet films the acting is great for the most part and very moving. It seems the type of hysteria that caused the murder of Ethel Rosenberg is a recurring theme in our country since it's earliest days. Sidney Lumet had a great deal of courage to make this film during what was in many ways a resurgence of many of the same threads that were quite similar to the darker aspects of the early 50's.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]