Reviews (13)

All Time Family Favorite
Light of Day is a movie that the whole family can watch and enjoy together. It is one of my all time favorites because...1. I love Michael J. Fox, 2. I love Joan Jett, 3. The loving brother/sister relationship is very believable and touching throughout the movie, 4. A happy ending.

A Drama That Rocks
This is one of my favorite movies. I like Joan Jett's music, but also think the plot revolving around the brother & sister relationship is a good one. I would recommend this movie to people who like rock n' roll and dramas that aren't too sappy. Would LOVE to see this re-released on DVD!

impressive.....(by Michael of Montreal)
Michael J. Fox and Joan Jett were fantasatic together as brother and sister in a struggling band called the Bar Busters.

I recommend this movie for anyone who is into rock and roll....and also who likes drama films. i thought the songs in the movie were excellent and they also have the movie soundtrack for it, which im going to buy. One more reason why I love this movie is because its taken place in the 80's. The 80's rule !!!!!!!

Not for everyone
A low key entry from usually over-the-top writer/director Paul Schrader ("American Gigolo", "Blue Collar" "Hardcore"). "Light Of Day"'s deliberate pacing and naturalistic perfomances may be a turn-off for those who crave bombast and action. However, viewers with patience will be rewarded. Michael J. Fox and Joan Jett are quite convincing (and touching) as the brother and sister trying to escape thier dreary Midwest blue-collar life by becoming weekend rock stars , and the great Gena Rowlands is fine as the guilt-tripping mother. The late Jason Miller (recognized by most as the young priest in "The Exorcist") is good as the ineffectual father. The bar band scenes are quite realistic, and several of the songs are memorable (one penned exclusively for the film by Bruce Springsteen) but once again anyone expecting a rock musical will probably be disappointed by the emphasis on family melodrama instead of the usual backstage antics.

One of the most terrible movies I've ever seen
I originally saw this in a double-feature with "Some Kind of Wonderful" and would have left the theatre had I not wanted to see the other film. This is a terrible movie. The wonderful and lovable Michael J. Fox is miscast here as a troubled youth and Joan Jett is painful. Save yourself the time. Get something else. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Writer-director Paul Schrader is best known for dark examinations of the human soul; he wrote Taxi Driver and wrote and directed such austere character studies as Mishima and Affliction. So it's not surprising that when he made a comedy it turned out to be a little off kilter. What may catch fans off guard is the sweetness and gentle rhythms of Touch, adapted from Elmore Leonard's novel about an unassuming faith healer. Down-on-his-luck evangelist Bill Hill (Christopher Walken) discovers Juvenal (Skeet Ulrich), a former monk with a gift. Hill swiftly enrolls his former assistant Lynn (Bridget Fonda) to get close to Juvenal and discover if his healing touch is for real. After witnessing Juvenal's power--and the stigmata that accompanies it--Lynn feels drawn to and frightened of the low-key healer, who slowly courts her as he in turn is wooed by Hill and a number of other religious and media vultures, culminating in a confrontation on a talk show hosted by Gina Gershon (Showgirls). Touch features quirky cameos by Janeane Garofalo, John Doe, and Lolita Davidovich, but the real juice of the movie comes from the likeable, assured, and surprisingly subtle performances of Ulrich and Fonda; their chemistry gives them both a relaxed sexiness that some of their other movies lack. Despite being a bit miscast, Walken comes up with some surprising and very funny moments of mischief. The movie also gets a boost from a crackling soundtrack by Dave Grohl of Nirvana and the Foo Fighters. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Just A "Touch" Off Center
A sometimes amusing but somewhat dark satire of faith, miracles, fundamentalism, and media exploitation is served up by writer/director Paul Schrader in "Touch," adapted from the novel by Elmore Leonard. Laced with subtle humor that seems somewhat contradictory to the serious subject matter, this is a film that is quite interesting without being too compelling. After seven years in South America studying to be a monk, a young man returns to the States and the anonymity provided him by his work as a counselor at a Catholic rehab clinic. Far from your normal, would-be cleric, however, Juvenal (Skeet Ulrich) has a unique gift: he can heal people by touching them, at which time he exhibits the stigmata. It's something he cannot explain, and somehow manages to take in stride. Inevitably, word leaks out about it, and scam artist Bill Hill (Christopher Walken) is right on it when it happens. Currently an RV salesman, he is an ordained minister and former evangelist who once performed fake healings and had a huge, blue neon cross above his "church" that could be seen for miles from the interstate. And he sees great things in Juvenal's future, and a lot of money for himself. First, however, he must get close to the stigmatic, while sidestepping a friend of Juvenal's, one August Murray (Tom Arnold), a Catholic on a quest to revert the Mass to Latin and do away with guitar masses altogether. For help, Hill turns to his assistant, Lynn (Bridget Fonda), who must try to gain access to the elusive Juvenal; together, they concoct a plan to get her into the clinic, where she can make contact and put him together with Hill. To tell the tale, Schrader put together an excellent cast and seemingly has all the ingredients for a successful project; somehow though, it all comes off as fairly lackluster, but interesting nonetheless. Ulrich does a good turn as Juvenal, capturing the sincere ambiguity of the character's view of his own ability to perform miracles, and makes it convincing with his grounded approach and by underplaying rather than trying to make him into something more enigmatic than he really is. He makes it a very real study of how someone would possibly react upon being visited with the wounds of Christ. Walken does a passable job as Hill, but there's not a lot of depth to his performance, and for a character that should have been quite flamboyant, he seems rather subdued. Fonda, too, gives something of a one-note performance as Lynn, who is likable enough, but tends to come off as uninteresting. Tom Arnold comes away with the most memorable performance, playing the obsessive August in a straight forward manner that makes him convincing and humorous, while making you take pause to reflect about what kind of a guy this really is and wondering how many people like him are actually running around loose in the world today. The supporting cast includes Gina Gershon (Debra Lusanne), Conchata Ferrell, John Doe (Elwin), Janeane Garofalo (Kathy), Anthony Zerbe (Father Donahue), and Paul Mazursky (Artie). There are a lot of nice touches to this movie, and though it may not be one of Schrader's best, "Touch" is entertaining and somewhat thought provoking; one of the problems is that there are times when you don't know whether to laugh or simply ponder, which comes from the light approach to what is essentially a pretty heavy-duty subject. All in all, it's a decent movie and well worth a look; this is the kind of film that videos were made for.

Some good laughs...and Christopher Walken!
"Touch" is a funny movie with off-beat casting, such as Christopher Walken as a Televangelist and Skeet Ulrich as the recipient of Stigmata, not to mention Tom Arnold as the head of the Ultra-Conservative Catholic "Gray Army". Music by Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters makes for a great soundtrack as well. This movie provides some good laughs and is as off-beat as another film by Paul Schrader..."Get Shorty."

Interesting...
This is not the kind of movie which is destined to break box-office records.

I'm going to start in a pessimistic sort of way, by saying that almost every character in the film is a caricature of some sort. There's Christopher Walken as a money-vampire who looks at a miracle and starts making plans to exploit it. There's Tom Arnold, the religious fanatical - enough said. There are Gina Gershon and Janeane Garofalo in supporting roles as an incisive talk show host and a cynical newspaper reporter, respectively. And then somehow, caught in the middle of all this is a shy, confused, tender young man with the power to heal.

Juvenal (Skeet Ulrich) is not one of the booming, preaching images that many people have come to associate with saints. We don't learn how he got his powers - which makes sense, because he doesn't know either. He is not flawless; he is attracted to women and does not necessarily agree with the philosophies of the church. And rather than being a pure white winged angel with a golden touch, he bleeds profusely from the marks of the stigmata as he performs his miracles.

We meet him as a woman named Lynn (Bridget Fonda) is roped in by money-grubbing Bill Hill (Walken) to try to find out if Juvenal is for real. He sees through her straight away, remarking casually that she was going to tell him that she had a tumour in her breast. Their relationship blossoms, which angers church leader August (Tom Arnold) who would prefer Juvenal to remain pure and holy.

We could perhaps have done without some of the supporting characters. Wonderful as Gina Gershon is, especially as you watch her accent become suddenly cultured when the cameras switch on, both her and Janeane Garofalo's characters would probably not have been missed. I'm not sure whether to recommend this film or not. If you're looking for a raucous comedy or a big-action thriller, this isn't the one for you. I loved it - but rent it first, and make up your own mind.

A Refreshing Look at God, Faith, Love and Media
Don't be fooled by the subject matter - an ex-monk, who can heal the sick by touching them, but suffers stigmata each time, gets caught up in a whirl of religious fanatics, big-business evangelists and ratings-hungry media - this is a sweet and touching romantic comedy! Leave it to Paul Schrader to find a way to do some heavy soul-searching without getting heavy-handed, yet always remaining quirky as we know him from his dramas. A wonderful supporting cast (Christopher Walken, Tom Arnold, Janeane Garofalo, Lolita Davidovich and Gina Gershon) adds color and texture to the story without detracting from the quiet chemistry going on between Skeet Ulrich and Bridget Fonda. When Ulrich says without grandeur that he believes in God and miracles, you don't even think twice about it - you believe every word he says at face value. A rare performance.

I finally found what I was looking for and Love it!!!
I have been looking for this movie since I saw it on a cable channel some time ago. I was looking for a movie titled "Hands", I had no idea it was called "Touch". A perfect title for a perfect movie. I love Skeet Ulrich in all his performances. Just one date. :)~ I enjoyed the way that Skeet had to portray a "Holy" man and yet he wasn't a "Holy" man. This leads to the idea that "The Powers that Be" could use anyone at anytime. The movie offered hope and faith. This is a must see if you haven't!! ... Read more

Description

An acclaimed and auspicious biography of an infamous and brilliant Japanese author who performed ritual seppuku in 1970. ... Read more

Reviews (39)

A biopic that is even more impressive than its subject
Most biographical films of artists (Immortal Beloved, Amadeus, etc.), even if they are well made, hardly live up to the greatness of the people they describe. This film is a notable exception, one which outdoes its subject. Mishima was an accomplished writer, one whose works deserve to be read, but no single work of his stands out as an unquestionable masterpiece of world literature. This film, on the other hand, is without doubt one of the masterpieces of world cinema.

The film is broken down into interlocking "modules": those which depict Mishima's life and those which recreate episodes from his books. The literary recreations are done in a highly stylized manner which captures (and at times, outdoes) the mystery and poetry of the original texts. The biographical segments feature a fine sense of both drama and poetry. They capture the essence of Mishima's passion in a way that even he himself was unable to do.

The score by Philip Glass is one of the finest film scores ever written, and it turns the film almost into a kind of opera. It is far superior to any of his other compositions.

I was born a few years after Mishima committed suicide, but I am friends with two people who knew him personally, both of whom have excellent taste in both film and literature: they both recommend this film highly. The film may take some factual liberties, but it represents the fundamental nature of the man with infallible accuracy.

Whether your interest is great cinema, great literature, Japan, or Mishima himself, do yourself a favor: see this film.

Great Movie--Lackluster Transfer!
In both the running commentary and in the DVD production notes, it is revealed that the participants involved with "Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters" felt they were producing a film "no one would see." How odd that a film that felt it had no audience, turned out to be an exceptional and popular film about a writer's life and work.

What sets Mishima apart from others in this genre, is that Paul Shrader focused solely on the themes that appear in both Mishima's personal life and within his writings. This is not a tell-all exploration of a known celebrity, rather it is an in-depth analysis of a man's core beliefs that motivated both his direction in life and his writings. Broken into three distinct styles, the film covers Mishima's past (black and white), present (documentary color) and novels (stylized color), resulting in a concise, deep, and through exploration that neither hails or condemns its subject.

All aspects of the film production are exceptional. From the spot on performances of Ken Ogata (it is eerie how he physically captures the essence of Mishima) and the supporting cast, to the incredible & luxurious sets of Eiko Ishioka, and the atmospheric music of Philip Glass. There is much to admire within this film and if you haven't seen it, you should.

Warner has previously released this film on VHS and Laserdisc and now presents it on DVD. Surprisingly, this film with no audience, has a lot of amenities to make it a worthwhile purchase. Paul Schrader, the film's director, provides a thorough and insightful running commentary, further illuminating Yukio Mishima's life as well as chronicling the production. Additionally, the Japanese audio track features the original narration that was done by Ken Ogata. (When first released in Japan, his narration was replaced.) As for the picture, the transfer leaves a lot to be desired, appearing to be a rehash of the original laserdisc transfer. It's a shame that such a visually potent film lacks a proper transfer to DVD.

[On a odd note, in the original release Roy Scheider provided the narration to this film. However, despite a listing on the end credits, it appears that the narrator on this DVD is NOT Roy Scheider. I did an A/B comparison with the laserdisc and there is a distinct difference from the Laserdisc to the DVD. If anyone has any information on this oddity, I would be interested to hear from you.]

Fantastic
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. Directed by Paul Schrader. Produced by Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas. Made in 1985. Cost $4.5million to make, filmed entirely in Japanese with all Japanese actors, never released in Japan. Grossed $500,000. Beautiful film that tells three separate stories. One is a black and white re-telling of Mishima's life. Another is a color re-telling of Mishima's last day. And the third consists of three re-tellings of Mishima's novels. The novel re-tellings are shot like very elaborate stage plays in lavish colors and designed by Eiko Ishioka, who designed costumes for Dracula, The Cell, and the new Houston Rockets jersey.

Long story short, I bought this film sight unseen and I cannot stop thinking about it. The music haunts me (in a pleasant way), and the images and the ideas of Mishima have been playing in my mind. I had read two novels of Mishima's, so I was familiar with him and his work.

Here is a man, arguably the greatest postwar author Japan has had, who wrote 35 novels, over a dozen plays, several operas, a ballet, over 400 short stories and essays, directed and starred in a movie he wrote, and starred in a few more. And in 1970, at the age of 45, after creating his own army, committed suicide after a vein attempt to incite revolution in the Army. Oh, he was also a body builder.

Just like the deafness in Beethoven, it is the army building and suicide that everybody obsesses about when they study Mishima. It is true for the last decade of his life he tipped to the right in political views to the point of fervent fanaticism, but he still managed to balance his passion with his desire for beauty and existence. In the end he hoped to unify it all in one swift moment that is death.

Known to go out on the town or host cocktail parties with the who's who of Tokyo and the literary world of the 50's and 60's, Mishima never drank and rarely took to debauchery that personifies the tragic novelist. Instead he possessed a phenomenal work ethic. At 11:00pm, whether on the town, or the host of a party, people knew it was time for Mishima to head home, or for the party end. He had work to do.

Even while cramming for exams as a teenager, Mishima would stay up until dawn writing. His one passion at that age. And for the last twenty years of his life, at midnight, he would go to his study and write. No distractions, silence would guide his thoughts.

Most of this I got from reading a biography I just read of him, but the film touches upon it very nicely. And it is the quotes about his personal development that make some of the best lines from the film (in an optional English narration on the DVD.)

"Every night at precisely midnight I would return to my desk and write. I would analyze why I was attracted to a particular theme. I would boil it into abstraction until I was ready to put it down on the page." I think I just miss quoted (as I will again later), but I got it close enough. Even on the last night of his life he followed this work ethic. In his entire writing career, he never missed a deadline.

He was a weak kid. Pale, young looking for his age. Sheltered by his grandmother. His one release was writing. In a scene that was objected to by his widow, the film shows him at a gay bar. He is criticized by a man for being "flabby". This scene and the implied homosexuality resulted in his widow preventing the release if the film in Japan.

The following scene concludes with Mishima thinking: "All my life I had suffered under a monstrous sensitivity." And that, "What I lacked was a healthy body; a sense of self."

"I saw that beauty and ethics are one in the same. Creating a beautiful work of art and being beautiful oneself are inseparable"

Mishima took up body building in the mid 1950's and kept it up until the end of his life. Unlike the average tale of the forlorn, drunk, self-hating author, Mishima was obsessed with health and the prevention of the decay of the body.

The reputation of famous authors of Japan are that of chain smokers who drink and write. It is this lifestyle that gives them their writing will. I have found two Japanese authors who buck this trend. One is Mishima and the other is Murakami Haruki, who is in his fifties right now and is possibly the most popular author in contemporary Japan. He too follows a strict ethic of exercise and writing.

I will point out some other aspects of the film I find interesting. Apparently Lucas and Coppola were miffed that Yoko, Mishima's widow, would only allow scenes that were documented as happening. Seems fair to me when making a biopic. All quotes in the movie spoken by Mishima are actual words Mishima wrote.

Though one issue I do have is that Ogata Ken, the actor who plays Mishima, doesn't really look like him. Mishima was just more handsome. His face was tough, but the eyes were the eyes of a poet. And he was more muscular for the last 15 years of his life. But considering the controversial nature of Mishima and his reputation, it was hard to find an actor as willing as Ogata, so I should not be so upset.

Plus Paul Schrader made a comentary track for the DVD release that is full of good tidbits.

Beautiful things they are my enemies
Perhaps Paul Schraeder should have kept Mishima's words in mind when he wrote and directed this disaster of an art movie.

The central concept of the movie is an abomination. Imagine telling the life of Shakespeare, or any other writer, by intercuting three of his plays or books into his life-story? Imagine 15 minutes being given each to Richard III, The Merchant of Venice and Midsummer Night's Dream. Each of Mishima's books highlighted in the movie is a full work of art in their own right. To shoehorn them into this movie is a travesty. To try to use them to tell Mishima's story is weak storytelling. To hide it in glitsy visuals is even worse. It almost works in the Runaway Horses section, but by that time, we have been bored into submission and any morsel of entertainment is gladly welcome.

I had heard so much about the wonderfully stylised sets but they looked like a school play, with the acting in the Golden Pavillion segment at almost at the same level. Each of the book sections has zero character development and we have very little idea why the characters are motivated. This is compounded by the strange choice to film the book sequences in Japanese -- they could easily have been done in English. Arty talk may sound good, but it is empty of meaning when taken out of context. Shrader seems to mistake art for a good story and Mishima was popular primarily because he was a good storyteller.

Ken Ogata is miscast -- he looks nothing like Mishima whatsover and is too old for the role. The actor who was the lead in the Runaway Horses section looks much more like Mishima. Mishima's character suffers from lack of character development. We see what he does but there is very little explanation of his motivation. The flashbacks skim over his life and give no insight. We never see him interact with anyone in a meaningful way. We never see any challenges he faced. There is a total lack of dramatic tension because his character have not been built up. Shrader says on the commentary that Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver and Mishima are similar characters but then he lets us think that Mishima acts the way he does because he is Japanese.

Roy Shneider or not, the narration is a joke. I almost laughed out loud when I heard it. Why is an AMERICAN doing the voiceover? It looks and sounds ridiculous and completely jars with the visuals. When I first started watching I mistakenly had the narration off and was reading the English subtitles -- much better. The tone of the narrator was enough to send anyone to sleep. And the words, even though they are Mishima's, are preposterous in the context of a movie. The whole thing plods along at such a tedious pace, not helped by the score, which like all Philp Glass, sounds pretty but has no tension.

If you like pretty colors then perhaps you can forgive the book sequences, but the use of black and white is misleading as many of the events depicted are close to the last day (for example the parade on the roof of the National Theater). The "documentary style" of the last day looks cheap, forced and is not dynamic enough for the material. The filmmakers can't even make a hostage taking look interesting.

The DVD extras include a "making of" that must be all of five minutes long that adds nothing to our understanding of Mishima or of the movie.

All in all a missed opportunity to understand of one of the most intriguing writers of the 20th century.

A revealing film
It struck me whilst watching Mishima that the film has a very clear, but perhaps unintentional, interpretation of his behaviour in his final years. Mishima's decision to re-focus his life away from what he came to see as an artificial world of words to the real world of action and was, in fact, simply replacing one artistic activity with another. His final actions were performance art. Assesed objectively they served no genuine policital or social purpose at all. A film worth watching for anybody interested in Mishima's work or Japanese culture. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Paul Schrader, the director of American Gigolo, brought a similar kind of sexual chic to this explicit horror movie. A remake of the beautiful, haunting 1942 Cat People, this version takes off from the same idea: that a woman (Nastassja Kinski), a member of a race of feline humans, will revert to her animalistic self when she has sex. Arriving to meet her brother (Malcolm McDowell) in New Orleans, she finds herself disturbed by his sexual presence. A zoo curator (John Heard) becomes fascinated by her, but he will discover that her kittenish ways are just the tip of the claw. Schrader dresses the story up in a stylish, glossy production, keyed on Kinski's green-eyed, thick-lipped beauty; it's hard to think of another actress in 1982 who could so immediately suggest a cat walking on two legs. Luckily Kinski had a European attitude toward her body, because this film has plenty of poster-art nudity. There's also lots of gore and some wacky flashbacks to the ancient tribe of cat people, who hold rituals in an orange desert while Giorgio Moroder's music plays. Cat People doesn't really make all this come together, but it's always interesting to look at, and the dreadful mood lingers. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (47)

A solid, moody thriller
Cat People was of course hit with comparisons to the 1942 original and that, as usual, is unfair. The two have barely a thing in common. Yes, the 80s version has plenty of sex and violence, but so be it, the film has a well-defined look and is certainly moody and atmospheric, which is all we can ask of a horror film so many times. Unlike the original's psychological horror and hammy acting, Schrader is concerned with establishing New Orleans as a bizarre setting for this strange tale of a young woman's sexual awakening and subsequent rampage as a member of the title race. Kinski is perfect in the role as is Heard as Oliver, and McDowell is on hand for his patented creepiness. This film represents a clear vision of the horror only hinted at in the original screenplay by DeWitt Bodeen, and with Scarfioti and Moroder doing the visuals and the music . . .

Sultry, Stylish, and Darkly Erotic
Cat People is one of my favorite horror movies. No, it's not perfect. The script is uneven in parts and it is debatable whether the cheesy dream sequence at the beginning should have been included. But the film creates an atmosphere which draws you in. The casting is brilliant: Natassja Kinski is perfect as Irena, and Malcolm McDowell is perfectly creepy as her brother. The setting of New Orleans, that most sensuous of American cities, is also just right. The film is scary and suspenseful, and has a great soundtrack. Special effects are not used gratuitously, but only when necessary to tell the story. But what really makes this film special is the successful juxtaposition of horror with the erotic. No other American film I can think of does this as well. This is largely due to the presence of Ms. Kinski, who radiates a sexuality which is almost hypnotic. Needless to say, I'm a fan of this film and highly recommend it, despite its flaws.

if it weren't for the exquisite Natassia Kinski...
...I would've given this zero stars.

It felt like a bad 1970s made-for-TV movie: clumsy pacing, cheesy keyboards on the soundtrack, tacky "matte" color photography, high-school-drama-class production standards during the absurd prehistoric Africa scenes... (...)

There's a little sex and some bared breasts I suppose, but far from "Basic Instinct" quality.

This little pussycat doesn't roar, it just kinda sorta meows.

Hungry like the panther
"Cat People" is a dark erotic horror movie made in the early 80s; before horror meant hack and slash blood and guts (not that I am complaining). It centers on Irena (Nastassja Kinski), a young virgin who arives in New Orleans to meet her long lost brother Paul (Malcolm McDowell). One night after an awkward advance toward Irena, Paul goes missing. Meanwhile, the zoo catches a wild panther that mysteriously turns up in the city. Irena goes to the zoo, and immeadiatly feels drawn to the panther. The curator, Oliver (John Heard), falls for Irena and arranges for her to get a job. After the panther kills a zoo employee, it escapes, and then Paul comes back. Eventually this leads Irena to learn that she and Paul are the last of cat people, ancient people that can become an animal only after they have had sex, and can only transform back after they have ate a human. It is sort of a variation on the werewolf myth. Irena must decide if she wants to be a part of the human world, or the animal one. This is a very smart horror movie in a time when they were rapidly becoming mindless. Kinski is a beautiful woman, and she handles herself with grace and sleekness that puts you very much in the mind of a feline. The whole movie depends on her, and you buy her many emotions as genuine through the whole movie. McDowell dose what he dose best, play the heavy; a little more depth from him would have been nice, but I don't hold it against him. John Heard plays hurt and confused well, and it is nice to see him in a role where he isn't a slime ball. The supporting cast is filled out with excellent actors; Ruby Dee and Ed Begley Jr. do just fine in their limited roles. There is also a young and sexy Annette O'Toole, with a twist on the promiscuous female type in horror movies. The brillant director behind the vastly underrated "Cat People" is Paul Schrader, who wrote "Taxi Driver". In a way, Irena reminds me a little bit of Travis Bickle; alone, alianated, and prone to senseless violence. The only part that really didn't feel right in the movie was the flash backs to Ancient Times in the desert. That piece looked too fake, but it is so brief that you can ignore it. New Orleans is beautifly photographed, especially the French Quarter, with all it's hints of secrets and mystery. This is really a well made erotic thriller that mature audiences will like a lot.

That dude from Austin Powers is sweet in this
There's all kinds of people (women) walking around totally naked in this movie. I give it my full support there. But as an added frosting on the cake, the dude who plays Austin Powers' commander or whatever is all crazy and jumps around like a cat. Or maybe it's not the guy from Austin Powers - I don't know. But it is cool when they jump up on things like cats. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Based on a creepy Ian McEwan novel, this Paul Schrader film stars Natasha Richardson and Rupert Everett as a married couple who find their marriage sliding into a morass of tedium. To reignite it, they visit Venice, where they fall under the spell of an urbane older couple, played by Christopher Walken (in one of his most chillingly insinuating roles) and Helen Mirren (who seems to be more his crippled acolyte than his wife). British reserve forces the younger couple to be polite to these strange birds, but increased exposure to them through coincidental meetings gradually pulls them into their deadly orbit. Adapted by Harold Pinter, it's a slightly arid but still goose-fleshy film in which nothing is what it seems to be and, what's worse, nothing familiar looks familiar anymore. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Death in Venice
I have watched this movie via home video three times now and find something new to like about it each time. Released in 1991, this movie is based on an early novel of the same title by Ian McEwan so we are fairly sure from the outset that the characters won't all live happily ever after. Set in Venice and beautifully filmed, the movie is directed by Paul Schrader; the screenplay is written by Harold Pinter so we're obviously not dealing with slouches here.

There are only four characters in the movie, all of whom do commendable acting jobs: Rupert Everett, Natasha Richardson, Christopher Walken and Helen Mirren. Everett's good looks sometimes get in the way of his acting-- at least for me-- that does not happen here, however. A lot of appropriate adjectives fit this movie: sinister, scary, shocking, compelling, mysterious, sexually ambiguous, suspenseful. I do not know how much time this movie got in theatres, but it is a very fine movie indeed. It is certainly an artistic success and ought to have had a wide viewing.

This movie reminded me of both DEATH IN VENICE from the Thomas Mann novel and DON'T LOOK NOW. Another beautiful movie filmed in this otherwordly beautiful city about death and dying and/or horror.

Death in Venice
This is an excellent adaptation by Harold Pinter of the McEwan Novel with superb cinematography and an evocation of the eirie atmosphere as well as the incredible beauty of Venice.All four main castmembers put in great performances with Christopher Walken at his dangerous best as the sophisticated yet strangely chilling protagonist.Helen Mirren,Rupert Everett and Natasha Richardson are perfectly cast and give faultless performances.The scenes shot on the Lido are especially interesting and bring back memories of Dirk Bogart in Thomas Manns "Death in Venice",which you will find is a surprisingly appropriate reference even though the subject matter is vastly different. I also enjoyed the scenes shot late at night in which Christopher Walken mysteriously introduces an innocent Rupert Everett to some of the seedier nightclubs of Venice. Beautiful shots of the more well -known parts of Venice abound,with a beautiful soundtrack to highlight them. All this plus a spinechilling ending!

A pity this is out of production .I recommend it to the studio that they put this out on DVD.It could become a cult classic

Highly unusual, experimental narrative, strangely appealing
This is one of those movies where you are left wondering long after its over whether you understood what happened and why it happened. I can't say I have much confidence in my own analysis of this plot and these four characters. I think things are left sketchy on purpose too so you feel as disoriented as the characters in the film do. I have my opinions about who did what and why but since the plot never winds down to any final resolution you are never certain whether you were right or not. This kind of film is disturbing because it deals with things that have no easy rational explanation--like the darker side of the psyche and its relation to desire and death. That said the film is a wonder to look at. My take on the film:Rupert Everett & Natasha Richardson are a confused couple who really don't belong together but don't know it yet. Everett is narcissistic and bored with both his wife and his job and perhaps with life itself. Richardson is drawn to Everetts beauty but so is everyone else. Including Walken and Mirren. Walken and Mirren live in an opulent kind of decadence surrounded by PreRaphaelite paintings depicting sensual languor. When Everett and Richardson sleepover at Walken and Mirrens villa they are photographed to look just like one of the paintings on the villas walls as they sleep with bedsheets barely concealing their nude bodies. Walken and Mirren possess all kinds of art objects and they play rough games with each other. Once they spot Everett they know they must involve him in some way. There is strange chemistry between Everett and Walken as soon as they meet and equally strange but less potent chemistry between Everett and Mirren. It seems both desire him. Walken and Mirren strike Everett and Richardson as more than just a little odd and yet they are also very curious about the older couple who are obviously interestd in them. Walken is rude and even violent to Everett and yet he seems to offer himself to this couple willingly submitting to whatever they have in mind for him. The couple obviously ignites something that had been dormant in him. Richardson is stunning in her own right but Everetts desire for her is really directed more toward Walken and Mirren who interest him far more than Richardson. As much as I like this film there are clues which never lead anywhere like the story Walken tells about his father which both initiates the frienship between the couples and is once again repeated at the close of the story. We are never convinced of Walkens authenticity as an aristocrat so everything he says is suspect including the story of his father which reveals nothing really whether it is true or not. I think this little story within the story is a clue that some stories make very little sense and because they make so little sense they continue to haunt the imagination.

Disturbing, intriguing, hypnotic, mood piece.
I return to this film at regular intervals as I return to other films such as Woody Allen's MANHATTAN. But where Mr Allen's film is as much watchable for its witty dialogue and characterisation , THE COMFORT OF STRANGERS is watchable for quite a number of different reasons. The overall idea of the story I take it to be is of two lovers from the modern world returning to an older and different culture to try and recapture their private past. If this older culture is a metaphor for their private past then their past is a murky, fluid, labrynthine, decaying place of intrigue and mystery which is how Venice is portrayed in the film. I may be misreading the major idea of the film but to my mind the film has a serious moral side to it. Certainly, the two lovers are not innocents. The male is portrayed as selfish, vain, indulgent , and the female as having abandoned her children, albeit temporarily. They are both self-absorbed and shallow people, looking for something. They find some relief in sexual passion. But after they meet two locals, their holiday changes. Having said that, the two lovers are deliriously good to look at. Rupert Everett must be one of the most beautiful men ever to have graced the screen and, dressed in his casual Armani clothes throughout the film, and in the prime of his youth, he is a visual and sensual treat to behold. Natasha Richardson has a wholesome beauty but her hair is a golden glory . Her Armani clothes also bewitch. The two Venetian locals , Christopher Walken, and Helen Mirren, aristocratic, decadent, sexually deviant, provide an interesting double for the visitors. He in his white silk/linen Armani suit, she in her gowns. The acting by this quartet, is pitch perfect. The dialogue by Harold Pinter weird and wonderful: the film begins and ends with a monologue by Mr Walken about his character's father, a vain man who used to touch up his greying moustache with mascara. And the fans of David Lynch and his TWIN PEAKS will be delighted with the eerie music by master Angelo Badalamenti. Camerawork by Mr Spinotti and sets by Mr Quaranta are resplendently rich. Paul Schrader delivers a mis en scene, a suspense, performances that deserve repeated viewings. It may not be a masterpiece but it reveals a great deal about what film making can be in the hands of gifted artists. Compelling viewing. No flat spots. For film lovers everywhere.

Walken at his enigmatic best.
If you have ever wondered why moths fly toward a fire to their untimely death, check out this film. A vacationing couple in Venice become enthralled with an excentric local and his wife. The encounter confirms that the light always seeks the dark and vise versa.
Walken is about the scariest I have ever seen him, and he's always scary.
This film is probably Paul Schrader's most compelling directorial outing. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Writer-director Paul Schrader viewed this as the second part of a trilogy that began with Taxi Driver and concluded with Light Sleeper--each dealing with a lonely man trying to deal with both his own dizzily spinning moral compass and the hypocrisy of the society that's trying to tell him what to do. Richard Gere plays a high-priced prostitute, an immaculately dressed stud for hire who services the bored women of Beverly Hills without ever allowing himself to be touched emotionally. His affair with a politician's wife (Lauren Hutton) changes that, at a point when he is being framed for a murder he didn't commit. Even as he tries to elude the law, he allows himself to become enmeshed with her in unexpected ways. Too cool and distant for some viewers, the film has a distinctive look and deliberate pacing--and about two endings too many. But it will keep you watching in spite of yourself. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (27)

Cult Classic
Few movies define a generation or trend like "American Gigolo". Movies such as "Saturday Night Fever" and "Rocky" defined for the young male viewer a benchmark to aim for in one's coming of age. "Saturday Night Fever" somewhat laid out a sense of cool and "Rocky" a triumph for the underdog. What does "American Gigolo' provide? From the get go, the thundering Giorgio Moroder centered soundtrack set the stage for what was to be an not so ordinary film. The car, the clothes and the music (not to mention Gere, Hutton and the wicked supporting cast) make the movie. Gere and Hutton provide a tension in the film that is not given its due. The car, the clothes, the strut filled a void left by "Saturday Night Fever". The movie even asked a few deep questions here and there. I return to "American Gigolo" every now and then and it is a different experience everytime. It might not be "A Clockwork Orange" and it can stand accused for valorizing what can really be a seedy profession. Nonetheless, it is the stuff of Hollywood at its best for its time. Julia Roberts may have replaced Lauren Hutton as the Gere love interest but Richard Gere will forever be the "American Gigolo".

Miguel Llora

Darkly comic thriller from Paul Schrader
"American Gigolo" is high on my list of Guilty Pleasures. This 1980 thriller wallows in the troubles of the rich, the infamous and the decadent. Its main characters have too much money, which can be a good thing, and too much time on their hands, which can be a very bad thing. There is a sort of perverse pleasure in watching them sort through their various problems, most of which are indirectly of their own making. Writer-director Paul Schrader has always cast a cynical eye on human endeavors. Sometimes, his insights have been absolutely brilliant. [He wrote both " Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull".] But even when he is playing around, as in "American Gigolo", he creates for us an interesting world, which can also be repellant because we see a certain amount of truth in his characterizations.

Richard Gere is Julian Kaye, a very well paid [and apparently well educated] LA hustler. His specialty is wealthy, older women. Arrogant and self-assured, he has made his share of enemies in his shadowy world, especially among his pimps. Things get complicated for him when he falls for Michelle Stratton [Lauren Hutton], wife of a prominent political figure. But far worse is in store for him after a client is murdered and Julian becomes the number one suspect.

Giorgio Moroder contributes a lively musical score - very 80s. John Bailey's cinematography is first-rate. He captures the vanity and vulnerability of Julian right from the opening shots, for example.

This is one of those movies that has more detractors than admirers. To me, it is wildly entertaining in a dark comedy way. Its one big fault is a contrived happy ending, which is diametrically opposed to the tone of the rest of the movie.

Not the best Richard Gere movie to watch
I watched this film with much anticipation but was left dissapointed at the end. The ending was predictable and the acting was subpar. I expected more from a Richard Gere movie. Not as good as An Officer And A Gentleman. Richard Gere's charactar Julian is very shallow and materialistic. Lauren Hutton gives a dry performance. She really isnt an actress. The film started off well but like I said earlier, the ending left something to be desired.

American Nightmare
"American Gigolo" stars Richard Gere of a high priced male prostitute. He is coasting along with his rich southern Cailifonia clients until one of them is murdered. When he is considered the main suspect, he goes on the run, with his only friend being the wife of a politician. At the begining he tells people that he is a moral man, for example, he dosn't service gays, more on that in a moment. It is interseting to note that Gere also played in a movie about hookers a decade later in "Pretty Woman" and it made a star out of Julia Roberts. But that is where the similarities end. This is a much darker story about hypocracy. When he falls under suspicion all his clients that liked him before all distance themselves from him. In the end, he finds himself a hypocrit, because in order to get an aliby he is willing to do anything job; gays, S and M, anything to avoid jail. The only love story here is about him and the politician's wife (Lauren Hutten). It is complicated by the fact that he will not let anyone in close to him, even for his own protection. For all it's darkness there is one funny scene. Richard Gere is called in for a line up at the police department. He tells the other men in the line up that he got paid, and the others get angry and cause a scene, averting the attention off of Gere. This is a really good movie as an examination of society's attitude toward sex. This film was written and directed by Paul Schrader, if that is why it seems like a less brutal companion to "Taxi Driver". Richard Gere is wooden, but his character is cold and icy, so that approach is right. Lauren Hutten is alright as the bored housewife of a powerful man; she seems sincere in wanting to help Gere. But I thought the standout performance was Bill Duke as the slezzy street pimp who is quiet but menacing (as oppose to Gere's 'Madam'), but also provides the warning to Gere at the beginning that his 15 minutes of fame are running out. And another future "Pretty Woman" player is present; Hector Elanzo. He plays the detective on Gere's trail; but he is slimy and rather unlikable here. Well worth your time, but for adults only.

Stylish, sexy, and vulnerable
Gere is terrific in this somewhat unusual film. We love him as the ladies companion and as he pretends to be a flamboyantly gay decorator so as not to "out" his client AND as he works the room in search of new prey. His vulnerability to Lauren Hutton is obvious from their first meeting. Gere's character is interesting, intelligent, serious, and good at his job. He is also compassionate and polite. We leave the movie wanting to take him too! Great film! ... Read more

Reviews (51)

A bleak town and a dark legacy
Based on a novel by Russell Banks who also wrote "The Sweet Hereafter", and directed by Paul Schrader of "Raging Bull" and "The Mosquito Coast" fame, the winter landscape and cold bleakness of the town sets the tone for this exploration of the dark legacy of what it is to be a man.

Nick Nolte stars in this dark story of a the lone policeman in a small New Hampshire town investigating a hunting accident. He is divorced and trying and to get custody of his young daughter who rejects his fumbling efforts to be nice to her. James Coburn is excellent as Nick Nolte's father, a brutal and angry old man who typifies a sick machismo which has in turn afflicted his son. His acting is extraordinary as is Nolte's although their styles are different. Noltle is subtle; his facial expressions are controlled and typical of a man who has learned to hold in emotion. Coburn's face, on the other hand, is more deeply expressive; his eyebrows move, his mouth hardens, his eyes glare.

This is the kind of dark, brooding movie that I like. For a brief few hours I enter its world and get completely absorbed in the characters in the way I did with "A thousand Acres" or "The Horse Whisperers". Like these films, there are no easy answers and the conclusion does not wrap up in a neat little Hollywood package that is soon forgotten. Recommended.

Definitely not a date-flick.
I'll say this: this film is pretty good for Schrader, which means that a director with a better sense of pacing would have done this material much better. But, we got what we got. It's certainly devoid of sentimentality: perhaps Schrader's best virtue is that he doesn't pander to an audience. The proceedings are in-your-face and austere in the extreme. I'm still unsure what to think of Mr. Nolte's performance: it's the same old Nolte performance, only with more misery. But here, that just might be okay. Wish he'd get his voice-box operated on, though -- it's getting hard to understand what he's saying. All in all, that Mt. Rushmore face and gravelly voice in all that misery might be more than most folks can stand for a duration of 2 hours. As for Coburn, call that acting job one-note all you want, but you'll probably won't forget it any time soon.

While I commend the fact that there's no overblown "confrontation scene" (like I said, Schrader never panders), the ancillary subplots, i.e. the hunting accident and the devious manuevers of a local real estate developer, are pedestrian at best and irrelevant at worst. Wade is what matters; if you can't come up with a good plot device, don't bother. Also: perhaps because of Nolte's performance, I never felt all that in touch with Wade emotionally -- with the one exception of that primal "tooth" scene. Besides that scene, we only see him the way others see him, which is unfortunate because he would make a terrific character study. Ultimately, that distance harms the film and makes this an incomplete experience.

Affliction (1999)
Director: Paul Schrader
Cast: Nick Nolte, Sissy Spacek, James Coburn, William Dafoe, Jim True, Mary Beth Hurt.
Running Time: 114 minutes.
Rated R for language and mild child abuse.

Director Paul Schrader's account of the troubles that child abuse can bring to those afflicted much later in life--the everlasting affect that the criminality and brutality of the fear it can cause. "Affliction" is not an uplifting film and it tends to drag throughout, but it can at times be very powerful and depressing. Small-town New Hampshire constable Nick Nolte investigates an accidental shooting that he believes to be murder; meanwhile, his personal life deteriorates as he is haunted by a horrific childhood terrorized by a drunken, abusive father (played brilliantly by James Coburn, who would earn an Oscar for the role).

The story twists and turns between two themes, but mainly gets tangled and disjointed by the end of the film. Schrader does not seem confident in choosing to focus more on the murder conspiracy or the father-son relationship between Nolte and Coburn. While Coburn's performance was celebrated, Sissy Spacek is very good as Nolte's wife and William Dafoe is perfectly casted as the concerned, loving brother. The final result of "Affliction" is melodramatic, slightly bleak, and overall implausible; however, the excellent roles carry this motion picture from the gutter and heighten it as a moderately effective drama.

BORING!!!!
I've tried to watch this film three or four times and could never get through it. It was soooo slow and dull. I never cared about any of the people and it was just over the top depressing. I understand that some people feel tgar it may be some great acting and a very upscale film, but it really did nothing for me.

BORING!!!
I've tried to watch this film three or four times and could never get through it. It was soooo slow and dull. I never cared about any of the people and it was just over the top depressing. I understand that some people feel tgar it may be some great acting and a very upscale film, but it really did nothing for me. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

An in-your-face gem about life on the assembly line!
This 1978 underrated classic is about three autoworkers. There's an honest and gritty realism to this story and the four-letter words and curses have a ring of authenticity to them, especially those of Richard Pryor whose foul language has been compared to raw sewage mixed with social insight. He's cast in the role of Zeke Brown, who owes money to the IRS and struggles to support his wife and three children. Harvey Keitel plays Jerry Bawtowski, who also has trouble meeting his bills and can't even afford braces for his daughter. And Yaphet Kotto, a physically imposing black man who is actually the son of a Cameroonian crown prince, plays the role of Smoky James, an ex-con who throws wild parties with drugs and women which serve as escape for the growing frustration of the men. All three see the union as corrupt and decide to rob the union office. They hope to get a few thousand dollars apiece. Instead they get more than they bargained for and the series of events that follow lead to betrayal, and murder.

This is the directional debut for writer/director Paul Shrader, known for writing Taxi Driver, and he does a masterful job. He puts the viewer right there on the assembly line, with the harsh clanging of heavy machinery and the constant pressure of the foreman to work faster and faster. I could almost feel the heat and smell the machine oil and sweat of the workers. Along with the physical labor, there's constant stress and this goes on day after day after day. The subject is serious and the story real but the wisecracks provide comic relief and the story is fast paced and gripping. An excellent blues musical score enhancing the action underscores all this. And all the performances were so good that I forgot they were acting. Eventually, the dramatic unsettling conclusion leaves a lot to think about.

I loved this film and give it one of my highest ratings. It's not pleasant or comfortable to watch but it sure is real. And I learned more about the lives of assembly line workers than I ever thought I wanted to know. It's especially poignant seeing it now because Detroit has closed many of these plants since 1978 and this story now has historical perspective. But this tight, riveting story that's an in-your-face gem about life on the assembly line says something important about the American Dream. Don't miss it.

SCHRADER'S FIRST
Screenwriter and director Paul Schrader's first effort, BLUE COLLAR was shot in 1977 and takes place in Detroit, city dedicated to one of our modern gods : the Car. Harvey Keitel, Yaphet Kotto and Richard Pryor are blue collars working in one of the churches of the God and they have the usual problems of their fellow companions : money, drugs and alcohol. They plan an hold-up and steal the notebook of the worker's union. Will they be able to handle union bosses, the F.B.I. and the killers sent to kill them ?

We have to thank Anchor Bay to give us the opportunity to rediscover BLUE COLLAR, presented in its original format and with the commentary of Paul Schrader. In fact, the director answers the questions of a courageous journalist about the movie because it seems that Schrader is not of the voluble kind. No english subtitles, so if you don't master Shakespeare's language perfectly, you will have some difficulty to follow Pryor's hysterical logorrhea.

BLUE COLLAR, in my opinion, is not a masterpiece but deserves to be seen at least once. The social point of the movie isn't the most original one : if you're poor and don't have connections, you better shut up and stay poor. But, we dont have so often the opportunity to watch movies taking place in car factories and Keitel, Pryor and Kotto give excellent performances. So, if you're curious or if you want to know better Paul Schrader who is, after all, one of the most interesting american screenwriters of the last thirty years, give BLUE COLLAR a try.

A DVD dedicated to Richard Pryor.

A unique movie
"Blue Collar" is very unique. It captures the ugliness of industry and the futility of those who work in the factories of this country. Along with "Norma Rae" and "Salt of the Earth", it is one of the few movies to tackle such issues.

I can't give this movie a 5 star rating, because there were some portions which were either out of place (the love making scene) or very unrealistic (death by paintbooth?).

It was great to see the Checker factory (even if the movie writers moved it completely across the state within the story line). What an irony that Checker would be out of business within the next seven years after the filming of this movie. Getting to see the inside of the Checker factory was a true time capsule opportunity.

The transfer is average, so don't expect a wonderful anamorphic picture. However, it is unlikely this movie will ever get the royal treatment, so enjoy it as it is.

Great Cinema
I don't understand why a movie this great isn't given much praise. This is by far the greatest performance from Richard Pryor. Excellent screenplay and performances from supporting cast. A nice transfer from the print to the DVD.

Tough, uncompromising look at the American working man
"Blue Collar" is one of the great underrated American films of the 1970s. It tells the story of three desperate, powerless men who work in a Detroit auto plant. When they're not being suppressed by their soulless company, they're being duped by their arrogant, corrupt labor union. Their collective desperation leads them to conduct an almost laughably amateurish robbery of the union safe. Instead, what they find is evidence of widespread union corruption. When they decide to blackmail the union, they find that three working men are no match for a ruthless, powerful labor union (and--in a larger sense--the American capitalist system).

Director Paul Schrader (who co-wrote the film with his brother Leonard) presents this tale in a gritty, realistic fashion. Its bleak message is timeless, but the film is very much of the late 1970s, both in the sets (note the ugly orange sofas!) and in its infusion of drama and socio-political commentary. Filmed in Detroit, Kalamazoo, and Los Angeles, you really get the sense of the hopeless desperation of these three men, who are dying to make a better life for themselves and their families, but are trapped in soul-crushing jobs at the factory.

Harvey Keitel and Yaphet Kotto are their usual brilliant selves. The true surprise for most viewers will be Richard Pryor in one of the very few dramatic roles he ever played. He's hilarious, tragic, sympathetic, and--in the end--despicable all rolled into one.

The DVD version of "Blue Collar" contains interesting bios of the three stars and of Schrader, and a commentary from the director and a female journalist (who spends much of the time swooning over Keitel...particularly when he's in his underwear!). Anyway, from the commentary, we learn that the 35-day shoot was an absolutely brutal one, especially since this was Schrader's first film as a director, and the fact that the three leads absolutely *HATED* each other. Physical altercations and set walk-offs were apparently the norm here. The fact that these three guys come off seeming like friends (for a time) illustrates their considerable acting ability and the magic of movies.

The commentary itself is helpful, but Schrader starts running out of steam (it's clear he doesn't really like this movie very much) toward the end.

The movie, however, never lets up. "Blue Collar" is a terrific analysis of the American working man, and the illusory nature of the so-called "American Dream". ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Patchily brilliant
"Patty Hearst"'s title is about as self-explanatory as they come. Natasha Richardson (Vanessa Redgrave's elder daughter) plays the eponymous, uhhh, heroine, kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army (don't even ask...) and eventually brought round to the point of joining them on a bank robbery.

The second half of the film, in which Patty and the gang are on the run from the cops, is exciting enough in its way. Schrader's trademark willingness to explore what many people would regard as total amorality enables him to make us care for this raggle-taggle bunch of outlaws, as one after another they're arrested, gunned down or burned. Richardson herself is very good as Patty, having to run the gamut from spoiled heiress via terrified captive to bitterly experienced convict.

It's the first half, though, that makes the second half work. Patty's captivity is rendered in a dark, surreal, almost theatrical way; we are locked in a room with her for much of the first half an hour, experiencing her captors only as black silhouettes against white light. The stylisation that worked so well on Schrader's "Mishima" is here employed to other ends, and suprisingly successfully. If the earlier portions of "Patty Hearst" weren't so good, the later part wouldn't carry the charge that it has; Patty's wish to join the SLA only makes sense in terms of the extreme experience she's been through.

The real Patty Hearst went on to act in a John Waters movie, which must make Schrader wince whenever he thinks of it. This is, by virtue of the subject matter, somewhere between drama-documentary, art film and chase flick, and some of the genre trappings hold it back a bit, but few directors would have this kind of understanding of where he wanted an audience to go. 3 stars if only because this is one of the less distinguished films in an illustrious career. But 3 stars for Schrader are worth five for the vast majority of directors. (Note to Amazon: need more stars!) ... Read more

Reviews (13)

An in-your-face gem about life on the assembly line!
This 1978 underrated classic is about three autoworkers. There's an honest and gritty realism to this story and the four-letter words and curses have a ring of authenticity to them, especially those of Richard Pryor whose foul language has been compared to raw sewage mixed with social insight. He's cast in the role of Zeke Brown, who owes money to the IRS and struggles to support his wife and three children. Harvey Keitel plays Jerry Bawtowski, who also has trouble meeting his bills and can't even afford braces for his daughter. And Yaphet Kotto, a physically imposing black man who is actually the son of a Cameroonian crown prince, plays the role of Smoky James, an ex-con who throws wild parties with drugs and women which serve as escape for the growing frustration of the men. All three see the union as corrupt and decide to rob the union office. They hope to get a few thousand dollars apiece. Instead they get more than they bargained for and the series of events that follow lead to betrayal, and murder.

This is the directional debut for writer/director Paul Shrader, known for writing Taxi Driver, and he does a masterful job. He puts the viewer right there on the assembly line, with the harsh clanging of heavy machinery and the constant pressure of the foreman to work faster and faster. I could almost feel the heat and smell the machine oil and sweat of the workers. Along with the physical labor, there's constant stress and this goes on day after day after day. The subject is serious and the story real but the wisecracks provide comic relief and the story is fast paced and gripping. An excellent blues musical score enhancing the action underscores all this. And all the performances were so good that I forgot they were acting. Eventually, the dramatic unsettling conclusion leaves a lot to think about.

I loved this film and give it one of my highest ratings. It's not pleasant or comfortable to watch but it sure is real. And I learned more about the lives of assembly line workers than I ever thought I wanted to know. It's especially poignant seeing it now because Detroit has closed many of these plants since 1978 and this story now has historical perspective. But this tight, riveting story that's an in-your-face gem about life on the assembly line says something important about the American Dream. Don't miss it.

SCHRADER'S FIRST
Screenwriter and director Paul Schrader's first effort, BLUE COLLAR was shot in 1977 and takes place in Detroit, city dedicated to one of our modern gods : the Car. Harvey Keitel, Yaphet Kotto and Richard Pryor are blue collars working in one of the churches of the God and they have the usual problems of their fellow companions : money, drugs and alcohol. They plan an hold-up and steal the notebook of the worker's union. Will they be able to handle union bosses, the F.B.I. and the killers sent to kill them ?

We have to thank Anchor Bay to give us the opportunity to rediscover BLUE COLLAR, presented in its original format and with the commentary of Paul Schrader. In fact, the director answers the questions of a courageous journalist about the movie because it seems that Schrader is not of the voluble kind. No english subtitles, so if you don't master Shakespeare's language perfectly, you will have some difficulty to follow Pryor's hysterical logorrhea.

BLUE COLLAR, in my opinion, is not a masterpiece but deserves to be seen at least once. The social point of the movie isn't the most original one : if you're poor and don't have connections, you better shut up and stay poor. But, we dont have so often the opportunity to watch movies taking place in car factories and Keitel, Pryor and Kotto give excellent performances. So, if you're curious or if you want to know better Paul Schrader who is, after all, one of the most interesting american screenwriters of the last thirty years, give BLUE COLLAR a try.

A DVD dedicated to Richard Pryor.

A unique movie
"Blue Collar" is very unique. It captures the ugliness of industry and the futility of those who work in the factories of this country. Along with "Norma Rae" and "Salt of the Earth", it is one of the few movies to tackle such issues.

I can't give this movie a 5 star rating, because there were some portions which were either out of place (the love making scene) or very unrealistic (death by paintbooth?).

It was great to see the Checker factory (even if the movie writers moved it completely across the state within the story line). What an irony that Checker would be out of business within the next seven years after the filming of this movie. Getting to see the inside of the Checker factory was a true time capsule opportunity.

The transfer is average, so don't expect a wonderful anamorphic picture. However, it is unlikely this movie will ever get the royal treatment, so enjoy it as it is.

Great Cinema
I don't understand why a movie this great isn't given much praise. This is by far the greatest performance from Richard Pryor. Excellent screenplay and performances from supporting cast. A nice transfer from the print to the DVD.

Tough, uncompromising look at the American working man
"Blue Collar" is one of the great underrated American films of the 1970s. It tells the story of three desperate, powerless men who work in a Detroit auto plant. When they're not being suppressed by their soulless company, they're being duped by their arrogant, corrupt labor union. Their collective desperation leads them to conduct an almost laughably amateurish robbery of the union safe. Instead, what they find is evidence of widespread union corruption. When they decide to blackmail the union, they find that three working men are no match for a ruthless, powerful labor union (and--in a larger sense--the American capitalist system).

Director Paul Schrader (who co-wrote the film with his brother Leonard) presents this tale in a gritty, realistic fashion. Its bleak message is timeless, but the film is very much of the late 1970s, both in the sets (note the ugly orange sofas!) and in its infusion of drama and socio-political commentary. Filmed in Detroit, Kalamazoo, and Los Angeles, you really get the sense of the hopeless desperation of these three men, who are dying to make a better life for themselves and their families, but are trapped in soul-crushing jobs at the factory.

Harvey Keitel and Yaphet Kotto are their usual brilliant selves. The true surprise for most viewers will be Richard Pryor in one of the very few dramatic roles he ever played. He's hilarious, tragic, sympathetic, and--in the end--despicable all rolled into one.

The DVD version of "Blue Collar" contains interesting bios of the three stars and of Schrader, and a commentary from the director and a female journalist (who spends much of the time swooning over Keitel...particularly when he's in his underwear!). Anyway, from the commentary, we learn that the 35-day shoot was an absolutely brutal one, especially since this was Schrader's first film as a director, and the fact that the three leads absolutely *HATED* each other. Physical altercations and set walk-offs were apparently the norm here. The fact that these three guys come off seeming like friends (for a time) illustrates their considerable acting ability and the magic of movies.

The commentary itself is helpful, but Schrader starts running out of steam (it's clear he doesn't really like this movie very much) toward the end.

The movie, however, never lets up. "Blue Collar" is a terrific analysis of the American working man, and the illusory nature of the so-called "American Dream". ... Read more

Reviews (50)

Great Performances. Incisive Portrait of Compulsion.
Autofocus is the story of actor Bob Crane's rise to popularity as Colonel Hogan on Hogan's Heroes through his fall from grace in Hollywood and eventual murder, based on the Book 'The Murder of Bob Crane' by Robert Graysmith. Bob Crane (Greg Kinnear) is a supremely likable guy with a family and a popular prime time sitcom, but also with a penchant for pornography and casual sex when he meets a man named John Carpenter (Willem Dafoe) on the set of Hogan's Heroes. Carpenter was a sales representative for Sony's cutting edge technologies when they were developing VTR technology, a precursor to videotape. Crane, a lifelong photography enthusiast, was quite taken with this new technology. Also being a huge fan of pornography, he took the opportunity that VTR provided to make an astounding number of pornographic 'home movies' of anyone who would let him. Bob Crane's philandering and sexual obsession, often encouraged and facilitated by John Carpenter, became pathological and seemingly out of his own control, eventually costing him his first marriage and damaged his ability to get roles in Hollywood. Bob Crane was murdered in 1978 . The movie asserts the most popular hypothesis as to who committed the crime. But the circumstances surrounding his murder actually remain unclear.

Greg Kinnear gives the performance of his life as the affable, compulsive Bob Crane. I only know Bob Crane from television, but, based on what I've seen, Kinnear nailed Crane's mannerisms perfectly. Willem Dafoe is superb as bright, needy, and sleazy John Carpenter. Rita Wilson is admirable in her supporting role as Bob Crane's first wife Anne. Maria Bello plays his second wife, actress Patricia Olson. I don't like director Paul Schrader's decision to overdub a narration that is supposed to be Bob Crane speaking (even speaking from the grave at one point!). It is unnecessary, corny, and takes Bob Crane's words too far out of their context, I think. That is a minor point, since the overdubbing is only occasional.

Bob Crane's elder son by his first marriage, Robert David Crane, cooperated with the making of this film. His younger son by his second marriage, Robert Scott Crane -young "Scotty" in the movie- did not and has voiced strong objections to how his father is portrayed in the film. He cites a long list of what he claims are the film's inaccuracies. (You can read his objections if you search for Autofocus on the Internet Movie Database.) I am not inclined to take his criticisms of the film seriously because, having seen the movie, I can say that the film simply does not imply many of the things that Robert Scott Crane claims that it does. He seems to think that Autofocus paints an overwhelmingly negative picture of his father without showing the positve aspects of Bob Crane's life and character. I disagree. Autofocus is not unsympathetic to Bob Crane. He is portrayed as a likable and extremely gregarious man who cared for his family and was a talented comic actor...but who had an addiction that destroyed at least one of his marriages and his career and may have caused his premature death. He would never admit that he had problem and so never tried to change his behavior. I don't think that that characterization of Bob Crane is in dispute. But the issue of accuracy which Robert Scott Crane raises is a legitimate one. Unless the subject of a biographical film cooperates in writing the film, the screenwriters and scriptwriters cannot possible know the details of what went on behind closed doors or what was said in private conversations. So they make it up. They write scenes and put words in the characters' mouths that move the story along and support (hopefully) accurate character development. So viewers have to take the details with a grain of salt, not literally.

I recommend Autofocus for Greg Kinnear's great performance, and for its excellent portrait of someone who has crossed the line between self-indulgence and self-destruction and never really figures that out.

Schmile!
That's the cornball line Bob Crane (Greg Kinnear) runs on every woman he photographs, whether in the beginning of his career for autograph hounds, or later as a sick pornographer in this excellent though dispiriting movie.

First off, let me say that I have never seen an episode of "Hogan's Heroes"; my father, a WW2 vet from the European theatre, refused to have it on in our house. Thus, I have no clear image of the real Bob Crane, meaning that I can't really tell whether Kinnear's portrayal is cariacature, dead-on, or way off.

But that didn't bother me none. He actually reminded me of a somewhat unsavory man I know in real life, so I had no trouble making the leap that this seeming family man was actually a Real Creep in sheep's clothing. Kinnear does a great job as we see him disintegrate from a respectable vaguely naive man into a joyful then joyless sexaholic. It's a shame, really, that neither he nor his talented co-star Willem Dafoe got Oscar nominations for their work in this film. Dafoe brings to mind every lounge lizard you've ever seen as the Mephistopheles character to Bob Crane/Faust. It's Carpenter (Dafoe) who, as a pioneer in video tech doing some work for "Hogan" co-star Richard Dawson, introduces Crane to swinging and videotaping their joint sexual escapades. The two feed off each other for well over a decade until a final ugly altercation. Shortly after, Crane is found murdered in a motel room; the filmmakers imply that the guilty party is Carpenter.

While I may not be conversant with Bob Crane's visage, like anyone else from the 1970s I do know "Family Feud" host Richard Dawson, and I have to say that this guy was terrible casting in that role. I don't know how long it took even for me to realize who this actor was supposed to be playing--nothing like him at all! More like Tommy Tune than the short somewhat stocky real
Dawson.

But that's about the only complaint I have about "Auto Focus", with the possible exception of the unhelpful title. When I went to the theatre, I couldn't for the life of me remember what this movie was supposed to be about, even though I knew I'd seen the trailer before. It just doesn't communicate anything to its potential audience, which may explain that a lot of people didn't find out about this movie, good though it is.

"Auto Focus" does a creditable job of capturing the emptiness of Crane and Carpenter's sex addiction; one telling moment is when the two men are comparing notes on which cities have the best in certain sexual specialties, the way some others might talk about bus service. Another time, the two men are watching footage of themselves and begin to masturbate, each alone in his addiction despite the other's presence. Interesting too that Crane is up for any kind of action except homosexual; he goes ballistic when he sees Carpenter's hand on his own naked posterior during an orgy.

In the end, the main moral of "Auto Focus" is that loss of control in one area eventually spells disaster in every facet of Crane's life, whether professional or personal. Like a modern update of a morality play, we are all well warned to stay on the straight and narrow to avoid such a downfall as Bob Crane's.

One of the most famous sitcom stars on your tv
Done in the vein of those cable behind the scenes documentaries, the story that unfolds is not that unique or even surprising. We sort of know what is going to happen to Bob...the fame, the obsession ( sex ) so complete that to him it seems normal, the concurrent decline in career, all hell breaking loose...

WHat makes the movie "fun" is that the performance of Kinnear and Dafoe remind us of the capacity for self destruction, even when the cards dealt seem a winning hand.

IT is almost comedic, in a sad way, the precision with which the boys go about their after hours entertainment, with humorous looks at the new stuff in home video, introduced to Crane by his buddy John ( the Sony Betamax). There is a lack of tension in a story that really is not a story...the predictability made acceptable by the chance to look at the crash. The movie almost seems to be entirely about Bob's sexual versus job performances, and At least you can say that it has a sort of guided percision in that sense...the movie IS in focus.

Dafoe in particular is excellent, and Kinnear portrays convincingly how obsession of any kind can lead to ruin.

"Bob, I said I'm sorry. It's a group grope!"
The title "Auto Focus" relates to "self-involved", not the operation of camera lenses (which were not around in Bob's day.) The movie covers the period of 1965-1978 in the life of actor Bob Crane.

"But why Bob Crane"? you might ask. Good question. Bob Crane is best-known as "Colonel Hogan" in the hit TV sit-com "Hogan's Heroes" which aired for 6 years. Previous to that, Bob did mostly radio work, and some minor acting. After "Hogan's Heroes" was abruptly cancelled, he had a hard time getting much meaningful work, mostly because of his reputation for having an addiction to sex and pornography, which is the main thrust of the movie.

While at first blush this may not seem to be much of a story, it is strangely compelling. It was directed by Paul Shrader, who wrote Raging Bull and Taxi Driver, so he is no lightweight when it comes to dark subjects. However, the movie is pretty quite bright and cheery for the first third or so. Then by design, as we see more and more of Bob Crane's degrading life and lifestyle, the colors get darker and drabber, different film-stock is used for a grungier feel, the camera becomes hand-held rather than having smooth pans, etc.

Bob met up with a man named John Carpenter, who was sort of a video enthusiast/merchandiser, when video was just getting going. There is a fair amount of retro-video technology shown in the movie - big bulky cameras (VTR's - video tape recorders)- which produce reel-to-reel tape, then big bulky cassettes, etc. In fact, like modern men, these two characters sometimes would be more interested in the working of the technology than the ladies they have brought home.

These two men struck it off and became good friends. With his TV show on the air, Bob had no problem getting women, and John reaped some benefits as well. Although rather conservative, and a Catholic, Bob divorced his first wife and married an actress from "Hogan's Heroes". He continued his decline with videotaping and cataloging his sex adventures up until the end.

Bob's murder is still unsolved, mostly due to the fact that the majority of evidence is circumstantial, and the DNA testing abilities back then (1978) were somewhat rudimentary. Therefore, although there was a trial, the accused was acquitted.

Greg Kinnear plays Crane, and Willem Dafoe is John Carpenter. In many respect Kinnear's career is similar to Crane's - radio background, not very large acting roles, etc. Both actors do a fine job. Some notables also show up in the supporting roles, including one of Bob's sons as an interviewer.

Director Paul Shrader says he was not a fan of "Hogan's Heroes" and the movie was not an attempt to revive any warm-fuzzies of that show. He simply saw an intriguing story. In one scene, in order to avoid an NC-17 rating, the central portion of the scene of oral sex was pixellated. At first, you think "that's odd", but Shrader explains that he wanted to show the actual hardcore videotaping that Crane was doing so we would know this wasn't just a little cheesecake stuff he was doing on occasion. Had the scene just been cut, then we would not really know how deep Bob was sinking. There are other scenes of sex, but most is on the old video tape played on a TV with low resolution and image quality.

Director Paul Shrader's commentary is very good and interesting, mostly about technical aspects of the film and story. The second commentary by the writer and two producers is only for the first hour due to space, and is mostly about the script development, though it too was interesting.

There is an excellent documentary about the investigation into Bob's death including graphic photos of the bloody body. The police, prosecutor, defense attorneys and family members all contribute. There is footage for the trial, which as I mentioned, resulted in acquittal. If the available evidence had been analyzed with modern technology, I'm quite sure the accused would have been convicted