Reviews

I would have given this entertaining movie 8 stars instead of 10, but I'm giving it 10 stars to "balance out" the reviewers who are giving it 1 star just because the scientists include minorities and a gay man. By the way, out of 3 hours, there is 7 seconds where we learn that one scientist is gay and then it is never mentioned again. And apparently some reviewers are shocked, SHOCKED that a Latino or an Asian-American or an African-American or a gay person could be a scientist. Of course, that says nothing about minorities, but says volumes about the intelligence of the bigoted reviewers. That said, the movie, while very entertaining, is about an hour too long. They could have left out the "CNN-type" reporter (played by a straight actor who used to play a gay character on a sitcom-----Oh No!!! Another "gay" connection! Horrors!). Almost all of his scenes were unnecessary and cutting those scenes would have made the movie better and only 2 hours.

I won't argue with someone who says, "I hated this film". Clearly many people (including film critics) did. But, I disagree with those who say the acting performances were bad-----they were spot on. I disagree with those who say the "trashy" racist characters were over-the-top caricatures-----you haven't met some of my relatives. And, I disagree with those who say that real people never act like these characters do-----pick up a newspaper sometime, either 1950 or 2011. Yes, parts of the movie made me squirm and want to look away-----because the scenes were TOO real and heartbreaking. I, for one, do NOT want racism, past or present, swept under the rug. Show its ugliness. Make people squirm. Hollywood would never make "Hurry Sundown" today, because it is "politically incorrect". The film says our parents, children, neighbors, law enforcement officers, and politicians could be capable of violent racism. Really! No! Surely only in the movies!

*****SPOILERS***** People who go to Woody Allen's films should know by now that Allen is an agnostic when it comes to God, and a skeptic when it comes to anything "supernatural", especially "New Agey" beliefs. That doesn't stop him from using God, religion, and New Age beliefs in his films. In "Alice", one of Allen's best films, he uses a lot of "New Agey" beliefs and supernatural events. Those people posting here who think that Allen is "endorsing" fortune-telling, psychics, and reincarnation are WAY off track. Allen is using those things to compare and contrast the "ordinary" beliefs and actions of "ordinary" people. The husband, daughter, and son-in-law think that the wife/mother/mother-in-law is "delusional" because she believes in fortune-telling and reincarnation. BUT, does she REALLY believe in those things? Or, does she pretend to because it helps her to "get what she wants" and the "blame" goes to the fortune-teller friends and/or her own "nuttiness"? She doesn't want to lend her ungrateful daughter even MORE money------blame the fortune-teller. She wants to criticize her son-in-law for wasting his life trying to become a famous writer instead of becoming a doctor------that's what the fortune-teller said. She knows these kinds of things still "sting" her ungrateful family members, but it's not because SHE is being critical or mean------the fortune-teller is saying these things! She would rather be thought of as "nutty" than "judgmental and selfish". And, she knows her husband is the "nutty" and delusional one-----he thinks he can stop the aging process and death by working out at the gym and marrying a woman young enough to be his grand-daughter. The daughter is delusional because she thinks her boss has romantic feelings for her when he has never said or done anything to give that impression. The son-in-law is delusional because he thinks he is a great writer and thinks he can actually get away with passing someone else's writing off as his own. All these "delusions" are "ordinary" ones that humans have All The Time, so we don't recognize them as "delusions". We save that judgment for the "real nutty" things like psychics and reincarnation. Allen says, why are some delusions "nutty" but others aren't? Well, I guess our OWN delusions are NOT nutty, but other people's delusions ARE nutty. Does that make us delusional? Nutty? Or Human?

i saw this movie when it first premiered on television in 1970 and every time i see sally field, i remember this movie and her performance and wonder why it's never mentioned in interviews with her. i recently found it on video and it holds up wonderfully after thirty years. i highly recommend it. (i had forgotten, however, that david carradine was in the movie. he is quite good, too.)

it seems that most people either hated both blair witch movies, liked the first and hated the second, or hated the first and liked the second. i thought both were examples of outstanding film-making in every way and that each stands out on its own apart from the other. will number 3 be praised or blasted? i just know i'm eagerly awaiting numbers 3, 4, and 5!