Short Cuts (1993)

Robert Altman always did have a way to build an amazing cast. And few better than here. But is the rest of the film worth it?

Director Altman wastes no time in showing us the fallacies of his characters, Tim Robbins' Gene Shepard a particularly big douche. Though he is giving up cigarettes, so I suppose he's partially excused. But not for hating his dog of course. Oh no, that's inexcusable. Generally, the men in this film are not very nice. 

As usual with Altman, all the characters are wholly or partly entwined with one another. In "Short Cuts" mostly either through an affair, or being the confidante to the person cheated on. Adultery and jealousy are the main themes, as even those not cheated on are paranoid about it. And those cheating on their spouses are insanely jealous at the spouses of the people they are cheating with. Not to mention everyone else, that they might be double-cheating with. Sounds exhausting? Well, not quite. Altman opts for slow pace and length (more than 3 hours), so there's plenty of time for all this to unfold. 

Naturally with a cast like this, and the best character-director of that time, everybody's good. But who really excels? Madeleine Stowe for one. Perhaps the female character with the most to work on in the script, though she does fade out towards the middle. Surprisingly, the most stellar of the males are Bruce Davison, trying to deal with a fragile wife and his comatose son, as well as his estranged father. The latter having lunch with him in the hospital cafeteria perhaps the best scene of the film, mostly due to Davison. And he hardly has a line in that entire scene. Another underappreciated actor was the late, great Chris Penn. Wonderful. 

Like a Bruckner symphony, you can feel Altman building for a crescendo. Every now and then he will toss you a little storm, but it always calms down again, while the build-up continues. You don't really notice it at first with his slow pace, but then it sneaks up on you, eerily. 

So there is ongoing conflict, plenty of nudity (mostly female, as was the custom at the time) and some of the finest casting of the decade. All topped with very realistically portrayed tragedy and some quirkery. At times it does go on a bit, and it is possible to get bored, particularly if you don't pay attention to all the details. But the crescendo does come, no worries. Later similarly used by Paul Thomas Anderson in Magnolia. And then. Life goes on. 

Oh, in case you wondered. The dog is fine

8/10

Marathon Man (1976)

Has there ever been a cooler and more random start to a film? Well, probably, but 2 old geezers ramming each others' cars on a busy street, screaming at one another until they run into a fire truck and burn... Pretty cool

A great thriller needs to be good at suspense, and this film certainly is that. It leaves little hints and drops a thought into the viewer at just the right time, to get you to the edge of your seat. A rather forgotten art, unfortunately. And to perfect those moods, the uncertainty, you need a few smart surprises. And some very good actors. 

Hoffman is naturally solid, as is Devane. Scheider is very good. Though the real treat here is Laurence Olivier. Such attention to minor detail, and so good at displaying just enough to make you sense something, without fully understanding it. A wonderful gift for an actor in a thriller. And you will struggle to find a more meticulously fiendish foe. 

There are plenty of scenes with violence, all kept uncomfortably realistic. And some just gruelling. Director Schlesinger taking his time in the build-up to make it all the worse. Generally, Schlesinger sets a slow and methodical pace. A perfect fit for Olivier, and for most of the film.

The who-fools-who is not much better than decent, but that's mostly due to the decades of mediocre thrillers that were made later. Schlesinger also takes a risk by leaving a lot a loose threads for a while. Almost too many as you fail to see any connection. But when they come, it's apparent he has a plan behind it all, to a very impressive extent. Yes. Even the 2 old, angry drivers. 

The suspense is at times absolutely riveting, and the script not at all bad. But the protagonist is much less interesting than the villain (though his final scene is very good for him), and quite obscurely involved in a story where everything else is connected. So it's not perfect. But it is good. And it was brilliant when it came, before thrillers were a dime a dozen, using and re-using all the tricks in the bag until they were worn out.

7/10