Don Movie Reviews

The acting, the directing, the lighting & camera angles, the sound track, and the writing mix wonderfully to make you laugh, remember, reflect, and it gave me a desire to live life to its fullest. During this movie I thought about life & death, love & solitude... and I laughed many, many times.

For a deatail of the plot read the other great reviews of this classic. But I think it's best enjoyed watching with a friend. Guys: watch this movie with a friend and you'll howl at the humor and remember what true friendship is about. Girls: watch this movie with a guy and you'll see what makes us do some of the hair-brained things we do.

There are too many one-of-a-kind scenes to talk about here: sky diving, hitching a ride with a train, planning a wedding, and getting the bride there on time.

This is one of my favorite movies of all time!

Oscar is a classic comedy despite the negative reviews it recieved when it was released. The audience loved it. Well at least I did!

Recommended

A-

Here is Stewart in a perfectly subtle statement on conformity in society and the penalty for those who either conform too much or not enough-and shows that they knew how to make satirical gems way back in the day! This movie is about rigid thinking and and it's effects, both good and bad. Hilarious, too!

You see, Elwood was a man of the world, with brains, personality, and friends- then he met Harvey. Of course, Harvey didn't really change any of this; Harvey just appeared at the moment Elwood really needed him. You see, Elwood had wrestled with "reality" for 35 years, and he was glad to say that he finally won out over it. Perhaps Harvey was his reward for winning out on it. Elwood had been "oh, so smart", and then he had been "oh, so pleasant"- and he came to find that he greatly recommended pleasant over smart. Perhaps this was why Harvey chose to watch out over him. In any case, Elwood spent the rest of his life visiting bars and taverns, taking the time to listen to all classes of people, inviting them home, taking their minds off of their troubles, introducing them to Harvey.... And Harvey is a very useful being to know, for as Elwood points out, he cannot only overcome Time and Space, but any objections.

What is Harvey you ask? Well, Harvey is a Pooka. A Pooka is a mischievous nature spirit known to be fond of rumpots, crackpots- and how are you Mr. ________?

The DVD:
Picture and sound are perfect. The menu is nicely done, with animated stills from the movie. The comments by Mike Massey and the display of shots from the film are somewhat interesting but you can't really call it an explanation of the shots. Various camera perspectives or slow motion would have been more helpful. The trailers are interesting, the picture gallery is very very short. The featurette gives some insights, but doesn't go very deep.

Now the main criticism, the (as it says on the box) "Various audio commentaries": You can't do audio commentaries worse. An interviewer asks one of the commentators a question, eg What was your impression of Robert Rossen? or How was it working with ...? After the question has been answered by that person, the next one is asked the same question. This becomes boring pretty fast, especially because some of the answers are not worth to listen to. Stefan Gierasch, Richard Schickel and Jeff Young give only short statements, making you wonder why they're there anyway. Carol Rossen tells some interesting stories, but you get the impression she has a very subjective point of view that doesn't tell everything. Ulu Grosbard delivers a lot of informations. Paul Newman is the biggest disappointment, because he is rarely asked and all in all says about 10 sentences. This is beaten by Dede Allen, the editor, who most of the time ignores the questions and starts to tell all kinds of stories about herself and her experiences in the movie and editing business. This is definitely the best and most interesting part of the commentary, if you're interested in insider stories about movie making and editing. The bad thing about the commentary is that it never relates to the movie which is running in the background. The commentators don't commentate because they don't see the film. They're simply answering questions, which definitely is not the purpose of such a commentary. You have to ask yourself if complete interviews with the persons would not have been better (since they're obviously done as interviews and are also part of comments in the featurette).

In the end you get to know some facts about the movie, basically nothing about Robert Rossen and a lot about Dede Allen. This could have been really better.

Newman invests his Felson persona with alternating crescendos of charm, punk-alley rage, and grittiness. Felson and his partner Charley (Myron McCormick) hustle pool players for chump change. A few hundred here, a few bucks there, and Charley is satisfied. But not Eddie. Although no one on screen has told him, "You're good, real good, but not so good as The Fat Man," Felson makes it clear that his ego requires that he himself must be the best. It is this drive for a supremacy that Steve McQueen would later follow in THE CINCINATTI KID that introduces the theme that to be the best requires more than raw talent at pool. Fast Eddie has the talent, but in his drive to be the top, he sends out mixed signals that he has the discipline too. Minnesota Fats, the long-reigning champion, has plenty of both. Jackie Gleason as Fats is exactly right as the champion who knows that even for such a winner as himself, he still understands the power politics of who pushes the buttons to stage manage each bout for felt table supremacy. The power behind Fats' throne is Bert Gordon, a gambling entrepeneur who rigs each contest so that for him it is not gambling at all. George Scott as Gordon knows every player who can help or hurt him. Regardless of the outcome of any match, he will always take his cut. Many of the finest scenes of THE HUSTLER have nothing to do with pool, although nearly all of them occur in the dimly lit grunge of seedy pool halls. These scenes examine an inverted father-son clash of egos with Gordon as the vicious sadist father who seeks to browbeat his wayward son and Fats as the sympathetic yet lethal opponent who both understands the demons that drives Felson and exudes emotional support at crucial moments. And then there is Sarah Packard, an alcoholic student/writer who sees in Felson the deeply buried winner that she is sure is there. Piper Laurie as Sarah is perhaps the most complex of the trio who impact on Felson. She nurtures him through his and her own crises, all the while knowing that for him to be the winner he can be, she must pay the price that will validate in his own ideas the belief that he is not the loser that Bert Gordon often accuses him of being.

THE HUSTLER is probably one of the best two or three films of the sixties in that it explores what it is like to reach for that which may be beyond one's grasp. The interplay between those who seek to erode Felson's confidence and those who seek to enhance it suggest that the ability to adapt to changing psychological environments is the key for success. The price as he learns, is that others may have to pay that price for him. THE HUSTLER emphasizes this point better than any other film of that decade--or any for that matter.

At least in the larger U.S. cities 30 years ago, residents had become totally fed up with traditional law enforcement initiatives. It was no longer safe to walk the streets at night. Even more dangerous to do so in public parks. Homes were robbed while people worked during the day. Many of the same homes were robbed again later after insurance coverage replaced the articles previously stolen. Racial animosities, drug abuse, and a widespread contempt for institutional authority all contributed to such problems.

Under Don Siegel's crisp direction, Eastwood and his associates in the cast bring R.M. Fink's screenplay to life (and yes, to death) as they focus on what is obviously an irreconcilable conflict between Callahan and his superiors who include the mayor of San Francisco. Callahan's motto seems to be "Whatever it takes." In some situations, it may take his 44 Magnum, "the most powerful handgun in the world." Callahan has not totally lost faith in his society nor in the importance of the legal system. However, he does feel betrayed. The mayor and even Lieutenant Bressler (Harry Guardino) just don't "get it." This is precisely the same point Jim Malone (Sean Connery) makes to Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) in The Untouchables 26 years later: When orthodox ("by the book") crime-fighting strategies and tactics don't succeed, use others even if they are not (at least technically) legal. Countless other films (such as Magnum Force, The French Connection, and L.A. Confidential) also make the same point.

It is important to remember when seeing this film again, as I did recently, that it portrays elements of an urban society few of us ever experience. Also, that it is a drama, not a documentary. Its primary purpose is to tell a story. The plot focuses on a serial killer named "Scorpio" (Andy Robinson) whom Callahan is determined to eliminate. Even when he eventually does so, questions remain. Don't criminals also have rights? What would happen if all or most other detectives followed Callahan's example? To what extent (if any) should private citizens also be actively involved in law enforcement? I agree with several critics who claim that, with Dirty Harry, Siegel and Eastwood created a new film genre. Its influence proved to be substantial. Each viewer must decide for herself or himself how much social relevance it has retained after 32 years but almost everyone would agree that it has lost little of its entertainment value.

At least in the larger U.S. cities 30 years ago, residents had become totally fed up with traditional law enforcement initiatives. It was no longer safe to walk the streets at night. Even more dangerous to do so in public parks. Homes were robbed while people worked during the day. Many of the same homes were robbed again later after insurance coverage replaced the articles previously stolen. Racial animosities, drug abuse, and a widespread contempt for institutional authority all contributed to such problems.

Under Don Siegel's crisp direction, Eastwood and his associates in the cast bring R.M. Fink's screenplay to life (and yes, to death) as they focus on what is obviously an irreconcilable conflict between Callahan and his superiors who include the mayor of San Francisco. Callahan's motto seems to be "Whatever it takes." In some situations, it may take his 44 Magnum, "the most powerful handgun in the world." Callahan has not totally lost faith in his society nor in the importance of the legal system. However, he does feel betrayed. The mayor and even Lieutenant Bressler (Harry Guardino) just don't "get it." This is precisely the same point Jim Malone (Sean Connery) makes to Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) in The Untouchables 26 years later: When orthodox ("by the book") crime-fighting strategies and tactics don't succeed, use others even if they are not (at least technically) legal. Countless other films (such as Magnum Force, The French Connection, and L.A. Confidential) also make the same point.

It is important to remember when seeing this film again, as I did recently, that it portrays elements of an urban society few of us ever experience. Also, that it is a drama, not a documentary. Its primary purpose is to tell a story. The plot focuses on a serial killer named "Scorpio" (Andy Robinson) whom Callahan is determined to eliminate. Even when he eventually does so, questions remain. Don't criminals also have rights? What would happen if all or most other detectives followed Callahan's example? To what extent (if any) should private citizens also be actively involved in law enforcement? I agree with several critics who claim that, with Dirty Harry, Siegel and Eastwood created a new film genre. Its influence proved to be substantial. Each viewer must decide for herself or himself how much social relevance it has retained after 32 years but almost everyone would agree that it has lost little of its entertainment value.

Yes, it's a silly, pointless movie... but it is so much fun!