Rating: 
Summary: One of Coppola's best
Review: Gene Hackman plays the reclusive designer of listening devices used by governments and spies. If you liked Enemy of the State, it was basically a sequel to this classic thriller directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The opening scene is simply magnificent as we overhear the titular conversation through the clandestine recording. Claustrophobic, eerie and with Hackman's oustanding performance, you'll be checking your phone for bugs. The DVD also has a commentary from Coppola and a 'Making of' feature.
Rating:
Summary: Best bugger on the West Coast...bar none!
Review: I got sucked into this movie late one night while I was channel surfing. I saw about 5 seconds of the incredible opening shot of a public sqaure in San Francisco during lunch hour, and I was completely hooked. I stayed up until about 3 a.m. to watch the whole thing, and I have seen it several times since then. I was anxiously awaiting the day it was released on DVD because this has become one of my all time favorite movies.It's an exmple of how a movie can give you tension, a great story and depth of character with a relatively simple plot, small wonderful cast and no special effects. This is brilliant storytelling and every detail is as good as it gets, right down to the haunting score. Without a doubt, this is Gene Hackman's best work of his career; he manages to embody conflicting emotions and subtle nuances of his character, Harry Caul, a top notch (and famous) surveillance specialist. Harry has the seemingly impossible job of recording a conversation between two people walking through a public square suring a busy lunchour, without the use of "bugs" on the subjects, but he pulls it off. And it seems like a simple task, just record the conversation, turn in the tapes and get paid. But something about the couple he's recording and the meaning behind their words haunts Harry, and he's faced with the grim reminder of a past job that went terribly wrong. He's completely paranoid about every facet of his life, but he's especially fearful of repeating the same mistakes. The film has a wonderfully voyeuristic feel without the use of or need for a handheld camera or shakey photography. And despite the look of the film capturing the era of the early/mid 70s, nothing about this seems in the least bit dated, and I think that is the true mark of a classic. The dialogue is still natural and interesting and utterly human. And though the technology of the film may be outdated, the underlying themes and paranoia are not. I love Coppola's films, but I doubt if he will ever make another masterpiece like this. He also had a terrific eye for young talent, casting people like Harrison Ford and Terri Garr in small but pivotal supporting roles where you could really see that they had so much talent to develop. It's not a chick flick or a guy flick, it's a simply brilliant, timeless, subtly thrilling and thought-provoking film. The DVD doesn't offer much in the way of extras; pretty much just a brief behind the scenes documentary that was done in the 70s, so it has a kind of cool nostalia about it. But you don't buy a movie like this on DVD for the extras. You buy it because you love it and you want the best picture and sound you can get. I also have to add that I couldn't help but notice that there is something about Gene Hackman, especially the age he's at in this film, that reminds me of Russell Crowe. Something about the quiet intensity and that sense of tumultuous emotions roiling just beneath the surface but never really getting a chance to blow. Few actors can become or create such a quirky, odd and interesting character while maintaining true humanity and a sense of vulnerability and strength simultaneously. I think Crowe came close to that in The Insider, another brilliant movie and another brilliant and subtle performance. In a lot of ways I see major similarities between the character of Jeffrey Wigand in The Insider and Harry Caul in The Conversation. Maybe someday Russell will be fortunate enough to do a film like The Conversation. I don't think anyone else could have played Harry Caul except for Gene Hackman, no matter when the film was made. It's just one of those rare moments where an actor and the character are made for one another.
Rating:
Summary: Masterful study of paranoia, guilt, and alienation.
Review: Some films exist solely as mindless entertainment; juggling noise, color, and state of the art effects in order to provide a few hours of harmless distraction. Others, plot-heavy and overly reliant on incident and contrivance, keep the audience guessing with last-minute revelations and wild reversals of fortune. However, as a lasting form of cinema, the "film of ideas" -- vague, ambiguous, subtle in form and execution -- leaves an impression that is not easily dismissed. "The Conversation," a cinematic highlight of the greatest of all film decades (the 1970s), boldly explores ideas not as engines to drive the plot forward, but rather as valuable pursuits in their own right; challenges to the viewer to consider unfamiliar philosophical questions and possibilities. Coppola's genius in this film is to provide a skeleton plot (surveillance expert hears something disturbing on a tape, pursues the "truth" behind the mystery) while emphasizing character insight and social examination. The idea, strongly felt, is paranoia -- the crippling, consuming inability to connect with other human beings or an external reality out of fear and, at bottom, a misanthropic distrust of mankind. Harry Caul (an understated, stunning Gene Hackman), the central focus of Coppola's disturbing vision, strains for a near-impossible level of detachment from his work, much to the chagrin (and frustration) of his co-workers. Several attempt conversation, but Caul is the epitome of professionalism ("All I care about is getting a big, fat recording"). He claims that he is above listening to the subjects of his surveillance, but a new assignment brings about unfamiliar guilt (largely because he is reminded of a previous case where his work indirectly caused the deaths of several people). He continually reminds himself (and others) that he is not responsible for the harm that might come to others (after all, he does his work, exchanges it for cash, and moves on to the next assignment), but deep in his mind (and conscience), he knows all-too-well how invasions of privacy stimulate rage, revenge, and often end in violence. Given that this film was released in 1974 (just as Watergate was winding down toward Nixon's resignation), it no doubt stimulated comparisons to that real-life event. However, rather than remaining a dated curiosity, the film serves as a frightening metaphor for our own age; a time of media saturation, corporate hegemony, and the sanctification of hedonism. Given such an environment, privacy vanishes not only as a reality, but also as an ideal. We are, as stated in "Rear Window," a race of peeping toms, fascinated by personal revelation and heretofore behind-the-scenes activity. From sexual interaction to bathroom behavior, few things are kept secret, largely out of our desire to "expose" and destroy (which acts as a leveling effect). Coppola's ability to foresee the ubiquity of surveillance cameras (at work, in stores, schools, and parking lots), wire-taps (Linda Tripp, anyone?) and private investigators speaks to his understanding of human nature. We are a nation of confession and unwarranted revelation; reveling in our release of dirty secrets and self-serving detail. Still, "The Conversation" resonates today because it reveals an essential truth about American life -- we simply do not trust each other. Either out of cynicism or solipsistic arrogance (we do not believe we can or should ever know the reality of another), Americans increasingly seek refuge from input and interaction. This is an interesting turn of events given our obsession with revelation, but it does in fact exist, contradictions and all. Harry Caul, so full of paranoia that he is content to pursue sexual relationships of absolute anonymity (even his "girlfriend" is a stranger), is our Everyman. Hypocritical in that he insists on personal privacy while investigating others; self-righteous in that he insists on moral absolution and detachment despite criminal behavior; and sufficiently dehumanized to live in a barren wasteland of humorless avoidance (he has the pleasure of a saxophone, yet his apartment is nothing more than a holding cell). He has taken disconnection to its frightening, logical conclusion: besieged by loneliness, any human contact we desire must be surreptitiously acquired -- without risk, without confrontation, and ultimately without meaning.
Rating:
Summary: a great Coppola film
Review: This is an intriguing study of paranoia and guilt, eating into a man's mind and soul. Gene Hackman's performance is extraordinary, and the rest of the cast excellent, including a pre-"Star Wars" Harrison Ford. A strange and brilliant small scale film, it's a must see for those that don't insist on a lot of action in their entertainment. I also must mention the beautiful piano piece played at moments throughout the David Shire soundtrack, that blends with the solo sax at the end...a gorgeous touch !
Rating:
Summary: superb
Review: I had the pleasure of seeing this movie purely by accident. On cable one rainy day, I saw Gene Hackman and opted to watch, was I ever rewarded ! This movie, though very quiet and slow is wonderful. Harry Caul(Gene Hackman), as an introverted surveillance guru - who 'happens' upon a bit of a conversation, and is so obsessed with the consequences of his actions, is driven to near madness with trying to undo or stop what he may - or may have not done. Anyhow, the ending sequence where Harry disassembles his apartment searching for a 'bug' is such a powerful scene.....fading away with him playing his sax leaves you with a feeling in the pit of your soul. Who would have guessed, that on a rainy day, I would be so rewarded? As a side note, I just finished watching 'Enemy of the State' for the first time, and was convinced that Gene Hackman's role was a continuation of Harry Caul. Come to find out it isn't....but in the movie; when the NSA look at an old picture of GH from the 70s...it IS a picture of Harry Caul ! A highly recommended movie as well.
Rating:
Summary: Francis Ford Coppola's greatest film!
Review: I think that Coppola is a brilliant director and I love The Godfather, but The Conversation is the true testament to his brilliance. A slow paced film that has little sublte character development and reuses the opening of the film about five times and somehow Coppola keeps us rivoted. The story revolves around paranoia and Hackman's performance as a survaillence expert who gets a taste of his own medicine is incredible. There is very little dialogue in the film but Coppola uses body language to astounding effect. I was blown away. Easily one of the top 20 movies of all time.
Rating:
Summary: One of Coppola's finest hours
Review: Francis Ford Coppola made four masterpieces in a row in the 70's beginning with "The Godfather". The film was followed by "The Conversation", one of the best films of the decade. It was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar and lost to "The Godfather Part II". The film stars Gene Hackman as Harry Caul, a surveillance expert from San Francisco. One day, he records a conversation between two lovers which ends with the crucial words: "He would kill us if he could". Since Harry Caul doesn't know the whole background of these words, he fataly misinterpretes them. The film shows in a subtle and fascinating way that everything small is linked with a larger whole and things depend on each other more than we think. Another hint for that is also given during the conversation of the couple when the man says that when the newspapers went on strike, many homeless people died because it was too cold and they didn't have newspapers to cover themselves at night. "The Conversation" also works as a brillaint character study of a man whose live turned into a great sadness because of his profession. When he returns home on his birthday, Harry finds a present on the table by the owner of his appartment, but the only thing that bothers him is how she managed to get in there. He doesn't want anybody to know much about him, not even his girlfriend. Everything in this picture is just perfect. Coppola's direction and his original screenplay are both fantastic, as is Gene Hackman in the lead. Another standout is the sound by Walter Murch. Hackman somewhat reprised this role 24 years later in Tony Scott's "Enemy of the state".
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant take off on Antonioni!
Review: Michaelangelo Antonioni's "Blow up" is about a photographer not being able to understand wheather a murder had occured or not. Coppola's film is about the same, only here he is a surveilance guy, but in both films (as in De-Palma's "Blow Out", a stated take off on "Blow Up") the philosophical question rises: "Can we count on our senses to help us grasp what's real and what's not?". And out of all three mentioned pictures, Coppola's does it best.
Rating:
Summary: The Conversation.
Review: I can't believe there's a review here saying this movie has noending! It ends perfectly...! SEE THIS FILM, all you who bang-onabout THE GODFATHER! I can't use too many exclamation marks here, it's simply one of the best American movies of the last 30 years! Visually, aurally, dramatically searing film-making. Hackman caps all he has done before or since(Bat-21! Surely not..),and that's saying plenty! Yes, it's about surveillance blah blah blah; yes, it anticipated Watergate, but actually it's a masterfully gripping and gutting story about a cripplingly private man being prized out of his shell. I find it pretty emotionally devastating each time I watch it, but also incredibly entertaining just as a labarynthine thriller that I guarantee will take you by surprise! It also has none of the pompousity and sentimentality which , for me, taint so many of Coppola's 'Great' works. Here's your essay title: Harry in THE CONVERSATION and Rick in CASABLANCA share the same dilemma. Discuss. (They both start with a 'C' as well, you know.....)
Rating: 
Summary: your opinion might change...after some time
Review: Previously (about 2 1/2 years ago), I gave this film a poor rating. What makes a film good or bad? I was very disappointed with the ending, as it wasn't what I had expected. Over the years, I haven't been able to forget the film, which in my book is sound criteria for a successful story, be it either a movie or book. I find myself regularly revisiting the film and thinking about it, which has led me to revisit and revise this review. When you watch the film, do a little more than just view it. Think deeply about the characters and how they feel. You just might want to watch it again to drink it all in.
|
