(0084) The Conversation

April 14, 1974 | 1 week at #1

Seen by Martin before? Yes

What did I expect? An exceptional, probing character study, rather typical of its time.

What did I get? No Hollywood feature in American history ever wore its seriousness of intent on its sleeve as ostentatiously as Francis Ford Coppola’s The Conversation. Good for us that Coppola’s skills at that moment were developed enough to deliver on his promises — and then some. The quality of The Conversation isn’t really up for debate — one surmises that it may have dated, à la Antonioni’s Blow Up, but it’s far too thoroughgoingly conceived and brilliantly executed for that.

(0083) The Sugarland Express

April 7, 1974 | 2 weeks at #1

Seen by Martin before? Yes

What did I expect? A tense, intelligent study of extreme motherhood.

What did I get? Better than expected and yet not as good as it seems, The Sugarland Express provides early evidence of Steven Spielberg’s otherworldly filmmaking skills while evincing a prosaic, boilerplate maturity that, for most of his career, Spielberg instinctively shunned. If Sugarland bafflingly fails to resonate as it ought, it may be because Spielberg’s impersonation of a cooler, more measured director was an iffy fit all along.

(0082) The Great Gatsby

March 31, 1974 | 1 week at #1

Seen by Martin before? Yes

What did I expect? A droopy adaptation of the Fitzgerald masterpiece.

What did I get? Jack Clayton’s version of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic 1925 novel evinces much earnest endeavor by a great many talented and well-meaning people, but it’s foredoomed by its unaccountably guileless approach. Robert Evans hit on the idea of adapting Gatsby as a means of flattering his then-wife Ali MacGraw and, indirectly, of celebrating the new class of nouveaux riches residing in Malibu — didn’t anyone notice the irony? Pitched at an erudite audience that would probably prefer not to countenance it in the first place, the movie’s main achievement is to remind us how fantastic the book is — and how elusive.

(0081) Blazing Saddles

February 17, 1974 | 7 weeks at #1

Seen by Martin before? Yes

What did I expect? An utterly hilarious and tasteless western parody.

What did I get? Rude, sunny, and not what you’d call ironic, Blazing Saddles ripples with a restless comedic energy that frequently feels something close to musical (it’s also got a lot of good music in it). Arguably the most enjoyable movie of the entire Boffo project, it’s seldom a jot less than fully realized and blazingly memorable. Gleefully, scurrilously anachronistic, Blazing Saddles is properly scattershot and quite sedate in its hilarity. The secret to its hold on us, however, is elusive, as all really great movies must somehow be.

(0080) The Exorcist

January 6, 1974 | 6 weeks at #1

Seen by Martin before? No

What did I expect? An unpleasant, terrifying movie.

What did I get? The strategies employed in The Exorcist are probably unique in Hollywood history — and uniquely successful. Tasked with adapting William Peter Blatty’s relatively sincere (I’m told) novel into the upper middlebrow wigout of the century, William Friedkin left no strategy unconsidered; this constitutes both the movie’s primary strength and its primary weakness. After one viewing, The Exorcist seemed a classic; after three, a disgrace. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Roger Ebert, 1942-2013

Roger Ebert died today.

I was never a big Ebert guy; I always preferred Pauline Kael and, later, J. Hoberman. But Ebert easily won my respect, especially in the last few years. Since this site is about reviewing movies, Ebert is relevant to me by definition.

I can remember watching Sneak Previews on PBS starting when I was about 11 — it was the only TV show around that actually reviewed movies, and that was always very enthralling to me. For some reason I always remember Siskel and Ebert reviewing this talky Jon Voight movie Table for Five as the kind of thing nobody else on TV was interested in doing. I think I preferred Siskel somewhat, but I liked them both. I liked it when they agreed, and I liked it when they disagreed. I appreciated that you could watch, on TV, two men who were clearly experts in their field engaging in an impassioned debate about their area of expertise. The ratio of substance to bullshit was always pleasingly high — and not always easy to find on TV, then or now.

Ebert’s reviews have the great virtue of being to the point, unfussy, clear, and engaging. Ebert understood his own preferences so deeply that

The Year in Review: 1973

Summary: A very strong year, to be sure, and yet — perhaps not quite as overpowering as the myth of the cinema of the 1970s would lead us to expect. Not as strong as 1972, with its four 10s; note that the recipient of that distinction this year is not a movie that is ordinarily singled out to that degree (although, to be fair, lots of people think more highly of several of the other movies here). Plenty of 7s and 8s, though. If the absolute peak of the early 1970s cinema had passed, the gains were being consolidated.

(0079) Magnum Force

December 30, 1973 | 1 week at #1

Seen by Martin before? No

What did I expect? A continuation of the stirring conservatism offered in Dirty Harry.

What did I get? Strange as it may seem, Magnum Force is a Dirty Harry movie designed with liberals in mind. Everywhere Harry looks, he is confronted with versions of himself, only more malign and unbalanced: his bile-spewing old buddy Charlie McCoy, a quartet of eager-beaver rookie cops with crackerjack profiency with their weapons and zealotry in their eyes — and that’s far from all. The movie is carefully engineered to establish the sensible limits that Harry does honor, to present his warrior’s code as something approaching mainstream. Harry represents common sense, but the emphasis here is more on the “sense.”

What’s Your Favorite #1 Movie from 1970?

Hi everyone! I’m back from my extended stay in California and I am gearing up to begin posting new reviews very soon. I appreciate your patience and hope you share in my optimism that the best and most interesting years for the Boffo project are yet to come.

In the meantime, I’d like you to help me out. When I first published the “Year in Review” posts, I included a poll at the bottom of the page with instructions to check off the ones that you personally would rate higher than a 6.5. As well intentioned as this was, I think it was a bit much to ask people to rate movies when even very die-hard movie fans may have seen only a handful of the movies involved.

So I’m rethinking that feature — instead of asking you to select multiple movies that you like, I’d like you to pick a single movie from the bunch, the one you like the best. Radio buttons will force you to choose one and only one movie.

I’m starting with “The Year in Review: 1970″ so that people aren’t confronted with multiple polls all at the same time. 1971 and 1972 will follow shortly; I will let you know when they are ready.

The poll is on the page linked above, but you can also access it after the jump:

Interlude in the Land of Movies, Almost Finished

It’s been almost two months since the last review, for Papillon, went up. After such a long gap, it would be reasonable to wonder if my resolve is holding firm or if I’ve abandoned the Boffo project. I’m writing now to reassure my readers that I have every intention of continuing Boffo in March.

A few days after Christmas I left on a road trip to Los Angeles, where I’ll be staying until about the end of February before the long drive back. I have work to do out here, and I lack my usual movie-watching infrastructure, and I’m also dedicating a lot of time to exploring southern California, so I’m not concentrating on reviews for the moment.

I apologize for not keeping my readers informed about this hiatus. I promise I will be back with my usual vigor in a few weeks.

Thank you for reading and caring.