This is only ranked a 6.6? You have got to be freaking kidding me. That makes no sense at all. This movie has stayed with me for over 20 years. Does anyone agree with me?
shareYes. It's one of those movies I can watch every few years. But then I had to read all that stuff about the Hutton character in real life escaping, robbing banks, getting cought, and getting let out in 2003. Pretty disgusting.
sharea little underrated yesWhen there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
It's underrated because it's not a film (such as Die Hard, Rambo or Green Beret) where an idiot with a lot of special effects help can save other dumb people (folks the audience can relate to) from those evil______________(insert foreign sounding government, religion, or word here).
As George C. Scott says in the film PATTON, "American's are winners." THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN is a film about losers. And the biggest loser in the film is America's reflection in the mirror of national pride. We'd just lost Vietnam to a superior ideologist (Ho Chi Minh). And we'd killed a promising young war-hero president, his brother and our own moral compass, MLK. Since we were all on board as losers, Boyce and Lee were simply par for the course. Today's "Merkins" just don't appreciate movies about folks who question patriotic TV lovin' democracy bringers!
Americans are dominated by their fears these days but have blind spots about morality, mortality and their piggish ways. We're so lucky to be in the United States, but it is frustrating to see us hamstring ourselves by putting recovering alcoholics and drug abusers in our White House.
America will surely destroy itself in this way.
The Falcon and the Snowman is a film about two misguided young Americans. It had a theme song that was the anthesis of "Born in the USA." It was unapologetic towards American espionage tactics and foreign policy strategy of those years and also featured Sean Penn, the current "Hanoi Jane."
Films have to compress and synthesize time while taking shortcuts to help audiences sympathize with the actors. Films are an escape from our workaday lives and also a vehicle for ideas and new perspectives.
"Falcon" arrived while I was in college. Reagan was president... I'd just voted for him the previous fall. I'd decided not to join the military when I saw those Marines getting their body parts airlifted out of Beirut. We were still nationally feelin' like losers and FALCON was a comfortable film to watch in 1985... all the while Ollie (the fraud) North, Poindexter and the usual suspects in D.C. were living the dream of deception and stealing more capital from our national reputation.
So here we are again. Honesty in America is punished while thousands look up to dopers like the Limbaugh and guys who can't handle their drink in the white house. The truth is that losers are okay in America today... and the citizens are starting to figure out that the honest folks are outside the beltway. Thus the appeal of populists such as Mike Huckabee and our own Charlie Crist in Florida.
I have hope for America. If we can be honest, put up with more folks like Chris Boyce and learn from their mistakes while remembering our duty to protect our young impressionable military age people, then we will be able to look in that mirror with real respect someday.
Sorry for rambling on, FALCON has been on my mind for 23 years.
(BTW, the Pat Metheney soundtrack is wonderful and it opened my ears to his music and concerts.)
Very thought-provoking summary. I totally agree. People don't like to be depressed when watching a film and this is a very sad tale that cuts to the chase: no phony special effects, no 'heroes', no 'villains'. Just tells the truth. A sadly forgotten film.
shareThis film is a forgotten masterpiece. It needs to be rediscovered. Next to Midnight Cowboy, it's Shlesinger's best.
Unfortunately, it's a film about losers, as mbarile-2 so eloquently puts it, and americans can only find value in films depicting heroes, ie Iron Man.
Shame, shame, shame...
I agree that this film should be more popular.It's brilliant !
shareI agree. I'm very surprised by the low rating. The performances were outstanding.
A day without a buzz is a day that never was.
Absolutely. When the movie came out, both Siskel and Ebert championed it for he entire year. Both gave it 5 stars and thought it was Oscar worthy
shareYes, this was one of the best films of the decade, top-10 without a doubt. I was, and still am baffled at how this film was snubbed by the Academy.
Cold War attitudes and the political climate in America in 1985 may partially explain this. One has to remember that Reagan has just been re-elected in a landslide, and American political apathy was at an all time high. I remember that many thought this film portrayed Boyce too favorably, and that the film was too "leftist" for the times. Pedestrian films like "Out of Africa" were winning Oscars.
I think there is something to this. It was and always is important to consider that how ever evil and renegade the CIA had become, the things the Soviets were doing were far worse.
That's my minor quibble with an otherwise brilliant film. Performances of Penn and Hutton were superb, and the characterization of the old guard Soviet KGB was very compelling.
"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"
I think Siskel and Ebert (and commenters like you) overrate it a little bit, but I do find it very hard to understand the IMDB rating (I gave it 8/10). Where and why did those people even watch it? I wonder if there was some kind of campaign to go downrate a "left wing" movie or something.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
I was in college when this was released and I remember a lot of apathy towards this film from college kids, even liberal ones. The political climate in the US in the mid 80's made it a bad time to make a film like this. 1979 say, would have been a different story.
I wouldn't be surprised if their were some sort of 'campaign'.
I still think this is a superb film, I'm curious, where do you find fault?
I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout
Fault? I don't know--to me, 8/10 is a high score. To even get a 9 with me (never mind a 10), you are going to have to really blow me away. It's just not quite to that level, not so much that there's anything specific wrong with it.
If you look at the list in my sig, you will see that I have seen a lot of great films. The top 50 there will rate a 10/10 from me; the next 80 (down to #130), a 9/10. So to score better than an 8, you have to be in my top 130 (for now at least). This movie is #331. But that is only one space behind Moonrise Kingdom, a film I adore; and there are several really awesome flicks ranked a little lower--like The Fighter, 25th Hour, Flirting With Disaster, and Que la Bete Meure. It's a good neighbourhood on the list.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
Fair enough, I thought the material was worthy of greatness. Perhaps the '80's' look and feel detracted. The 80's weren't a great time in film or culture, which is not to say there weren't many great films from that decade. This is why I consider it to be one of the decades best.
I adore "Moonrise..." as well.
I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout
[deleted]