What's it about? Walker (Lee Marvin) is double-crossed by his criminal gang and left for dead. But he survives and sets out to get revenge on the man (John Vernon) who stole his loot and his wife. It gets a limited re-release today.
Is it any good? Yes, it's a stylish, cool and violent 60s thriller, which has aged much better than some of its contemporaries. Much of this is because the straightforward plot is given a shot in the arm by Boorman's innovative direction; a disorientating mix of flashbacks, dream sequences, editing and sound design which lends ambiguity to the whole film. Is it real or a memory? Is Walker alive or dead? Hard or soft? No, wait, scratch that last one - he's definitely hard. How could he not be when he's played by the magnificent Marvin, who also sports a pretty snappy wardrobe throughout. (Not an actual wardrobe, you understand, that would be just silly). And whilst everyone remembers that 'footsteps' sequence (tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap, CRASHHH!), it has an equally great bit where Walker punches a bloke in the balls. I don't trust you. What do others think? Now regarded as a seminal 60s thriller, which successfully blended European art cinema with American gangster flicks to fascinating effect. Here's an essay which analyzes the different motifs throughout the film. Jason Statham loves it, evidenced by the fact that every single character he plays is modelled on Walker. What does the Fonz think? No mention of Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze?
No comments:
Post a Comment