What could have been had Tony Scott gone down a different path. I guess we will never know. Very much an early work, but already showing a fine attention to detail and mood.
The film starts out fun, the scene of Eastwood destroying a city block while enjoying a hot dog is a sublime balance between advocating the films conservative politics, but also not taking them too seriously. But as the film progresses this fades away and the film drags under the weight of its ludicrous message.
Weird that the movie is named after the passive,often audience surrogate feeling character and not the dynamic person who is clearly the focus of the film. Not sure if that is a marketing decision or an artistic one. The whole movies seems slightly confused in this way. It can be a really interesting character piece, but also feels very hurt by its closeness to the times it was made. its views on a conservative/liberal divide seem muddy and cartoonish. It is not a bad film, there is a lot of great things here, but a flawed one to be sure.
The most startling film I have seen in a long time. The editing is amazing, the cinematography is amazing, the costumes, amazing. All of this adds up to an poignant look at a womanizers life. The closest thing I’ve seen to a Malick film outside of himself. Things like this remind me how much I haven’t seen and don’t know about. They keep you going in the never ending quest of understanding our world through art.