Rating: 
Summary: Curious mov between ¿Godfathers¿
Review: MY RATING- 6.7This one has been sometimes forgot in the middle of the colossal "Godfather" parts.
It has a brave acting of Gene Hackman, that goes very well as Harry Caul, "the best bugger in the West Coast". He's lonely, frightened and he pleases himself hearing his tapes many times.
Sometimes the mov gets some thriller touches with Hackman being hunted, however it gets monotuous after a while and we see why the "Godfather" movs are better.
Good acting by the rest of the cast Frederic Forrest, John Cazale (a favorite from Coppola), young Harrison Ford and a cameo by Robert Duvall.
Not for all tastes.
Rating: 
Summary: A memorable and disturbing film.
Review: Yes, it moves along slowly, particularly in the beginning, but one gradually begins to understand the character of Harry Caul (a top "bugger"), wonderfully played by Gene Hackman. How will the audio tapes he makes be used? Caul finally becomes concerned, then racked by guilt (even going to confession) about his latest job. What will he do? The film builds in suspense, culminating in a terrific, ironic ending. This film is beautifully written and directed by Francis Coppola, with very good supporting acting by Allen Garfield, Harrison Ford, Robert Duvall, Cindy Williams, and John Cazale. The DVD has a nice, little documentary about the making of the film that I thought was interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: I don't have a lot to say about the themes of the movie, which are surely as interesting and complex as some other reviewers have noted. For me, however, this is simply a genius film about the slow-burn deterioration of a man, played fearlessly by Gene Hackman. No acting pyro-technics, no eating of scenery, just a slow crumble into madness and/or moral squalor. It bears repeating that the film boasts an unforgettable score by David Shire (available from the Intrata label) and unbelievable sound editing by Walter Murch, turning in work comparable to that in 2001. Add to that one of the most disturbing images of a hotel toilet you'll ever want to see, and you have a mesmerizing, moving, and truly brilliant film.
Rating:
Summary: Somewhat Interesting Movie. By Today's Pace, Dull Though
Review: Pretty suspenseful and done with a cerain degree of style like older crime-drama classics (film noire, etc.). However, I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. Acting is fine, but the story just never builds up enough pace to make it remarkable. You could do worse, but I think there are several movies MUCH better. I rented this DVD after seeing ENEMY OF THE STATE and hearing how Gene Hackman pretty much copies the role he created in this movie. There is a resemblance, but like all the other elements, not enough to peak my fascination. Really deserves a Two And A Half Stars for this definitely overrated picture. Thanks for the misleading reviews guys that were as off as this movie!
Rating:
Summary: Who guards the guardians? Coppola's modern reply...
Review: The Conversation is awesome. It's an early example of the director's rare nose for great stories that are outside the box. This is an example of Coppola's great sense for drama, of social justice and how to recreate it in front of a camera. He chooses the right objects to film, motivates the right actors, and puts events in the right order. He picks socially relevant subjects, whether drawing from popular fiction, as in Mario Puzo's smashing Mob soap opera serial; or when recycling of 'classic' literature, as in "Apocalypse Now," the retelling of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," in the wake of Vietnam, where America repeated the bloody Belgian folly in Africa. Critics have derided Coppola for these efforts; they have called it pretentious to try and bring these kinds of stories to the screen. That's nonsense. Classic literature is as good a place to draw from as any for movie ideas; and who could quibble with Coppola's talent for bringing a theme down to earth and up to date? The Conversation is part of a long line of fiction about invasion of privacy, and overreaching of governments, and the private operators who work in service of the highest bidder. George Orwell's 1984; Adous Huxley's Brave New World; Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 are popular examples of "dystopian" fiction that warned against totalitarianism in their time. Films like Antonioni's Blowup, and later, Coppola's The Conversation, and more recently Enemy of the State (which brought back Gene Hackman in basically the same role 20 years later as a Private Ear) shed light on the same subject matter in a world of Parabolic microphones, Satellite pictures of license plates and the real life characters that populate George O'Toole's work of Nonfiction: "The Private Sector," where you can find what made "Harry Lispet" a legend, a Private detective who was referred to in the The Conversation. Were Thomas Jefferson alive, I think he'd be delighted that someone is vigilant about keeping the public's eye on Liberty, privacy and personal freedom as technology "advances" at its break neck pace. And the ending, which is something out of "The Yellow Wallpaper," is great for showing the viewer, and to anyone who has every heard the phrase "technical surveillance counter measures (TSCM)" to where this path leads.
Rating:
Summary: Coppola, With a Dash of Hitchcock
Review: This is not a movie that you might expect from Francis Ford Coppola. That is, not unless you've seen something by him besides the Godfathers and Apocalypse Now. It is a very Hitchcockian tale of a paranoid man's descent into madness.
Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) is the world's greatest serveilance expert. It is through one of his "jobs" for someone that he makes his descent. I don't really want to say more than that about the plot, because it is way better if you see it without knowing anything about it (and if you intend to do that, stop reading reviews after mine, because the ones below mine reveal spoilers). That said, this movie has a great cast. Gene Hackman is brilliant. He is not his usual, overly energetic, constantly yelling self in this movie. He plays the role subtlely, which is perfect to show Harry's shy, inward personality. Harry is, because of his paranioa, very much the loner, and Hackman's usual acting just wouldn't fit in here. He positively nails this role.
Let's not forget the supporting actors. John Cazale (an underrated actor and one of my person favorites)plays Harry's employee in the serveilance firm, Robert Duvall plays the guy who hires Harry for the job that eventually sends him into madness, Harrison Ford (I love the way he acts in FFC's movies (see Apocalypse Now), he is completely different from all his other roles. He is cold and ruthless in this-none of that sarcastic wit and quick grin here) plays Duvall's employee, and Cindy Williams plays one of the people who Harry is hired to watch. They are all excellent. I thought that it would be hard believing Cindy Williams in a role such as this because of her days on Laverne and Shirley, but she pulls it off wonderfully. Francis Ford Coppola is a brilliant writer. Almost every movie that he has written has been a masterpiece. This oft-overlooked gem is no exception. His script (like Hackman's acting) has a subtlety that perfectly fits with the main character's personality. He really is showing his talent with this movie. Why Francis felt that he should stop making good movies in the 90's (e.g. Jack, The Rainmaker (a good movie, but nothing of this caliber), Peggy Sue Got Married, etc) is beyond me. Maybe he (God forbid) lost his touch or something. I sure hope not. Francis, make something good again! Your "good" is the equivalent of everyone else's "once in a lifetime masterpiece". Maybe it's because everytime he tries to make something good, he gets screwed (e.g. Apocalypse Now (money trouble) and the Godfather (studio trouble)). Oh well, who knows. I got a little off track there, but my mind often wonders... Anyway, this movie is definately one of those that you can't miss. If you like Taxi Driver, this is a less violent version. That's the closest comparision I can think of to give you an idea of what this movie's about. Even though saying this won't convince you (yeah, I read your "rules" Mike Stone, and if you're allowed to break them, I'm allowed to break them), I must say it anyway: Highly recommended. Buy it!!
Rating:
Summary: A Master Class film.
Review: Small film, small story, small cast. Packs a HUGE wallop.
This is the better version of Enemy of the State.
It will stand up to time very well, in about 50 years
we will be still looking at it and ourselves and be horrified.
Remember 1st season X-Files where Mulder shreds his apt looking for a bug that isn't there..this is where they stole it from.
Coppola has hardly ever been better.
Rating: 
Summary: Harry Bugger
Review: For a movie with a reputation as an unseen masterpiece, "The Conversation" is somewhat flawed; there are facets of it that appear quite amateurish. On the other hand, there's even more that's spellbinding and mind bending and awe inspiring. Let's start with the cons. Francis Ford Coppola, as screenwriter, fills his story with a lot of obvious psychology. He makes a point of having Harry Caul pick up a piece of trash, on an otherwise spic and span path, before a late night rendezvous in a lady friend's apartment (he's meticulous, but he's also dirty!). We see Harry open an intricate system of three locks before he enters his apartment (he's paranoid!). And when we see the inside of said apartment, it's barely furnished, except for the essential amenities (he's empty on the inside, too!). The visual imagery that Coppola utilizes feels equally contrived. Harry has an ever-present overcoat; only it's so thin and diaphanous that its main function -- to hide Harry from the outside world -- is not served. This dovetails nicely with his surname, which also tries to serve the same function, unsuccessfully. Okay, the above seems like nitpicking to me. They're things that jumped out at me while watching the movie, things that a subtler screenwriter (nobody ever accused Coppola of being subtle) would have hidden better. Not that they distract from the brilliance that is the rest of the movie.
Tops on the list of brilliant things here is, of course, Gene Hackman as Harry Caul. One of our best actors, Hackman is usually asked to chew scenery, provide charisma, and pump up a film's energy. Here, he does none of that. I've mentioned before how some of my favourite film performances involve an actor known for his energy having it forcibly bottled up (see Billy Bob Thornton in "The Man Who Wasn't There"). Hackman shows how this is done best. He is terrific when showing us Harry's social ineptitude. When in the company of other surveillance technicians, Harry is quiet. He knows that everything he says will have gravity, seeing as he's the top man in the business. He doesn't need to say much, while still standing out. But when he's with civilians, his shyness, awkwardness, and clumsiness burst to the forefront. Hackman slithers back and forth between these two of Harry's personas with such skill and precision, you're liable to forget you're watching a movie. The performance feels like you're spying on an unsuspecting subject. Coppola, as screenwriter (again), does some things right. He's created a Hitchcockian thriller, only more psychological than Hitchcock ever got. Sure, there's the aspect of the movie that involves human deviousness, and the audience is engaged in trying to solve a dangerous mystery. But that's just a starting point. Listen: the people Harry works for, and the people he's spying on, are all MacGuffins. They appear, at first glance, to be integral to what the movie is about. Actually, the movie is about the inner torment of a paranoid and lonely man. The rest is just window dressing. Skilled window dressing, but inconsequential nonetheless. Coppola, as director, is a magician here. He's at his best when showing us how Harry puts a surveillance tape together. He's been contracted to tape the conversation of the film's title, which will take place in a crowded quad. In order to get it, Harry uses four different microphones at four different stations. Coppola shows us the quad scene many times from many different angles, as we follow along with Harry to try and find the best angle to listen from. It's one man's Rashomon. The film is fascinating to watch in these scenes, as we are privy to the machinations of the buggers at work. Complementary in these scenes is the brilliant work of the film's sound team. They have created a sounds cape that is developed perfectly, where layer upon layer of noise is filtered away until the information is slowly revealed. Don't you dare watch this movie with anything less than a quality sound system, or half the accomplishment will lost. "The Conversation" moves slowly but assuredly. It is more an impressive achievement than an entertaining one. Still, for the paranoid cineaste, you can't do much better.
Rating:
Summary: Good, but very depressing
Review: This is a classic movie, and one that everyone who cares about film should see. However, it is so relentlessly depressing, that it is hard to fully recommend it. I found the movie very entertaining, even gripping, and of course it is beautifully made. Coppola is a wizard of a film maker. Great fun to analyze from a cinematic perspective. But the characters are living in an existential void, and it becomes painful to watch their empty lives after a time.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most inventive and important film of the 1970s
Review: This movie stars Gene Hackman as Harry Caul, expert surveillance man. A routine wire-tapping job turns into a modern nightmare as Harry hears something disturbing in his recording of a young couple in a park. He begins to worry about what the tape may be used for and becomes involved in a maze of secrecy and murder. The movie is much more thou, as you watch it more and more you relises Harry isn't as good in keeping to hisself. His landlord has keys to get in his apartment and his client has his home telephone #. The acting and direction, the sound editing deserves to be mentiioned, are all perfect and spot on. This movie was nominated for Best Picture in 1973 for an Academy Adward.
|
