The story of the cinema is written in bold opinions...
..And they're really not. Deer Hunter was a polarizing film when it came out, and some of its politics, and hints of xenophobia and misogyny are undeniably troubling (if not as clean-cut as some of the accusations of "fascism" try to make them out to be). It may be an Anti-Vietnam film, but its a very problematically conservative one, and that can leave a bad taste in one's mouth. It's also a lot less complex than either of Cimino's following films (even the MUCH inferior Salvatore). It's undeniably powerful though, and that's it's strong point.
Heaven's Gate has been hated since it came out, but its always had its defenders, and that group has been growing more and more as more people actually watch the film versus buying into its "legend". It was a debacle, and Cimino is an egotist, so in a way, the mess it became was unavoidable, but removed from its backstory, the movie is good, and I still don't believe the critics in America have ever given it a fair shake. They had the knives out for it beforehand, and ever since, the myth of Heaven's Gate as "the worst film ever" far overpowers any reality about the merits and genuine flaws of the film. However, I'm solidly convinced the movie will eventually be critically reevaluated, and it will enter annals of wrongfully treated masterpieces like Peeping Tom or Magnificent Ambersons. Granted, there's a long line... what with films like The Devils or The Victors not even on DVD yet. And that's of course if the cinema doesn't continue its downward slide into oblivion before it happens.
Year of the Dragon is a mess, but its always entertaining, and there's a genuinely complex and intelligent movie buried beneath those layers of overcooked macho pulp, which at the film's finer moments are clearly visible. And that pulp is deliciously done, so the film remains infinitely more watchable than Deer Hunter or Friedkin's film. And while Rourke could do Dean (see Rumble Fish), he was always much more in line with classic tough guys like Robert Mitchum or Charles Bronson in his persona. Perhaps someone like John Garfield would be a better point of comparison, in his ability to go from tough to sensitive. And he's at his best in the movie. And John Lone is just as good, and should have been a big star.
And considering their critical reputation, I don't think its bold to criticize Friedkin's later films, as they are all clearly flawed. Cimino's films are too, but at least the flaws are clearly part of Cimino's ambitious Tolstoy-esque vision; I don't think you could remove the flaws from his movies without also destroying the parts that are genius (Ariane in YotD being one exception). The flaws in Friedkin's films, however, are obvious enough that they can't be as easily forgotten.
Sorcerer suffers in comparison to the much superior Wages of Fear. When Friedkin sets out to make the original story his own, the film works beautifully. However, he relies on the original for most of the actual transport, and he simply can't beat Clouzot at his own moves. The bridge scene is the one inspired moment, but the rest is fairly unimaginative retreading, and considering the scenario is open to so many possibilities a director could take it, it's unfortunate.
I still believe Cruising was once a great film, and the few words I've heard Pacino say about it leads me to think I'm right. The film should have been, and was at one point, mainly a character study of a latent homosexual with the murders as a backdrop. The final film, however, is a high-class slasher film, albeit an atmospheric and well done one. The mythical lost footage would go a long way in saving it, but it seems it doesn't exist, and if it did, Warner wouldn't touch it.
To Live and Die has a lousy first hour, even if still manages to be entertaining. The worst example being Turturro using the "kid in a hospital schtick" to get away. Friedkin could have easily thought of a more clever and genuinely convincing way to for him to get away, and come away with a fresher and more thrilling moment, but as it is it's telegraphed from a mile away and tiresome. That's the problem with the first hour in a nutshell, down to the terrorist opening and soon-to-retire partner, and too-edgy-by-half touches like the bungee jumping and Wang Chung soundtrack. Thank god for that ending, because its the only place the film shows any balls.
I don't recall anything disagreeable about Rampage, its quite underrated, but its still only a good film, not a great one.
Even with the French Connection and The Exorcist, after repeated viewing, I find myself prefering the non-Friedkin sequels. Even Exorcist II despite being narratively incoherent and failing at being a "sequel" to the first one, works brilliantly as a collection of atmospheric set-pieces. If it was directed by Dario Argento or Lucio Fulci, and released simply as "The Heretic", it would be a cult classic by now. Now that's a BOLD opinion.
reply
share