MovieChat Forums > Play Misty for Me (1971) Discussion > This movie annoyed the crap out of me..

This movie annoyed the crap out of me..

posted 15 years ago by electriccherry02
51 replies | jump to latest

First off, let me say that Fatal Attraction is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's been one of my favorites since my dad introduced me to it when I was 8 (far too young to be introduced to it, but that's another store in itself...)

So I rented Play Misty For Me off of Netflix because the premise sounded like something I would like - and I did! However, I had absolutely no idea how Fatal Attraction was based on this movie, which is obviously was. I appreciated that, and was excited to watch it.

But, what the heck?! This movie moves like a turtle stuck in glue...

The reason why Fatal Attraction is 100X better (in my opinion), is that you could really feel how scared Michael Douglas' character was, desperately trying to rid the crazy Glenn Close from his life....he fought and fought ...

In Play Misty For Me, it was like Clint Eastwood was, at most, slightly perturbed that this chick was breaking and entering his home, making a fool of him in public, almost murdering his nanny...
Like, C'MON!!!! Give a little effort here...it was especially unbearable when he wouldn't even tell the cops in his home how crazy she is.

And what's the deal with the other girl? They about have as much chemistry as a snake and a sea otter. At least make that believable.

Anyway, just a rant. Wondering if anyone agrees?

[–] plasticonofan 15 years ago

Well, seeing as everyone besides you on this forum for the film loves it...no.

[–] taffy_turner 15 years ago

Ere no I don't either as 'Play Misty For Me' is an absolute classic and 'Fatal Attraction' is merely a copy.

"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"

[–] tmaj48 15 years ago

Plus it had one of the most romantic songs of the era, "The First Time Ever I
Saw Your Face." Also, a naked Clint Eastwood rolling around in a meadow. Beat
that, "Fatal Attraction."

I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

[–] taffy_turner 15 years ago

Plus Jessica Walter in a purple Mini skirt and kinky boots.

So yet, beat that 'Fatal Attraction'.

http://www.myspace.com/taffy1967

[–] wstock70 15 years ago

Fatal Attraction has always been a favorite of mine too. I just watched Play Misty For Me yesterday for the first time and liked that as well! I see Fatal Attraction as a copy in parts (she cut her wrists and mentioned Madame Butterfly. But FA taught cheating husbands a lesson, where Play Misty For Me didn't really teach a lesson - except not to have sex with someone you don't know. Fatal Attraction did have more of an impact for me but I enjoyed both movies and love this theme.

[–] bron-tay 11 years ago

>>Play Misty For Me didn't really teach a lesson

You don't think Dave Garver needed a lesson in self-control?

~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] robbie_uk_20022002 15 years ago

I agree with the original post. It was very slow at times.

[–] Guardia 14 years ago

All movies were slower in the 60s and 70s - to single this one out for criticism doesn't make sense.

Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.

[–] bron-tay 11 years ago

Yes. Nowadays directors and writers are always goosing the line, pushing each scene to its limit, milking the dialogue, amping up the drama, etc. 60s movies by contrast seem slow, BUT --

Have you seen Snow White and the Huntsman? Breaking Dawn (parts 1 and 2)? Inception? Elizabethtown? Slow as Chinese water torture.

~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.

[–] PseudoFilmCritic 11 years ago

This movie hardly moved slow at all, and it is shorter than the highly overrated and silly Fatal Attraction. I was in suspense through most of it, even the Monterey Film festival where I kept wondering if evelyn would show up out of the blue.

Films are not reality. Reality is not film. Film is only an approximation of reality.

[–] PurpleProseOfCairo 15 years ago

It's a valid opinion, although I enjoyed the movie. I guess you just expect a different pace with a Sixties movie (I know it was made in 1971 but it seems like a Sixties movie to me). I think the problem with Dave telling the police what had gone on was that then, as now, taciturnity (aka inarticulacy) was cool - Dave was the strong silent type, a cool dude, and it wouldn't have looked good for him to have been rapping too much with the heat.

I think Fatal Attraction has dated badly, and relies more on modern-day tactics (loud noises, music etc) to scare us, where as PMFM is a good old nuts and bolts thriller.

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

Play Misty is incomparibly better than the borderline offensive conservative family values preaching product of the decade which ideologically sort of reverted back towards the fifties ssensibilities in America. In Fatal Attraction, all the blame is laid on the single woman and she´s made almost into a FreddyKruger´esque bunny-boiling maniac while the head of the family unit, Michael Douglas is constantly portrayed as a sympathetic fella although the situation was in most part a direct result of his selfish actions. In Misty, Eastwood actually has the balls to depict himself as a vain, reckless egoist who rarely thinks how others around him might feel. All in all, a pretty strong directing debut from Clint.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] mike_cable 14 years ago

I'd like to give you a thumbs up, I agree with your understanding.

[–] ABetterDay 14 years ago

Of the responses offered so far, this is the closest to my opinion. Movies from the sixties expected, frankly, a more intelligent audience to arrive at the theatre than did those from the 1980's forward. Fatal Attraction was an ok movie but pales in comparison to those from decades earlier that actually made you think and didn't motivate you with loud noises, eerie music, and the other things that have come to define a "great" movie today.

Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?

[–] juan_palmero2010 15 years ago

I see your point (or I think I do), but surely, “crap” is a bit too harsh.
Granted, the film has not aged as well as its director. Granted, it has some moments where I did not know whether to cry or to laugh. Take, for instance, the “romantic” scenes, embracing under the waterfall, or kissing while the sun is going down: cringe and horror. Like you say, there is no chemistry between Tobie and Dave, and their dialogues sound pretty artificial, stilted. The final scene, with the punch, the balcony and the cliff are fine for a western, but pretty odd and unbelievable at the end of this film. Also, characters are in mortal danger but behave quite coolly, etc.

However, in my view, the film has also got positive sides to it. For one thing, the story is clear, simple, and it works, in so far as it kept me intrigued: “How much punishment is Dave going to get for his easy going nature?”. The acting by the two main characters, Dave and Evelyn is quite decent. Evelyn looked convincing enough. I certainly would not have welcomed coming across her just after leaving the cinema.

[–] rwsmith29456 14 years ago

The main difference to me is that I could watch "PMFM" and enjoyed it, but with 'Fatal Attraction', I quit watching about halfway thtough the movie because I wasn't enjoying it.

[–] TheIcon2 14 years ago

I think it has to do with the time period. 1971 was a different time and age than it is today. Now adays people get shot with illegal hand guns for what goes on in this movie. Cussed at and beaten.

While it was a little slow I think that is what makes the movie. HOllywood now adays throws everything in your face hoping you get it. Older movies seem to work with building events and stories.

[–] Max06 14 years ago

^^ Is absolutely correct. Films of this period were often paced this way; it's just the way they were made in the late 1960s and early to mid-1970s, often with digressions with popular music of the time.

Play Misty... is a classic and still highly enjoyable.

[–] JackBravo69 14 years ago

Dude it would take more that a screaming crazy lady with a knife to upset Harry Calllahan! This was at best a small inconvenience for the badass that is Clint Eastwood :D

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] hotinvegas2000 14 years ago

Just saw this last night for the first time. Personally I think the movie is a complete mess. It all starts with the screenplay for me. It was poorly written, and nothing the characters did made any sense. I didn't care about any of them. And all the lame jokes just fell flat. Jessica Walter was pretty good. She was great at snapping from one end of the emotional spectrum to the other. But for me, the rest of the movie is forgettable.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fiatlux-1 13 years ago

I agree with hotinvegas2000. This film was a mishmash, uneven and very slow-moving. I love a good buildup in story for a film, I really do. But this one dragged and dragged. There were whole parts of this film where nothing happened.
And the acting, with the exception of Jessica Walter, was terrible. I watched this to see what the hubbub was about, I like '70s era movies, and also because I rather liked "Fatal Attraction".

But I do not like Clint Eastwood as a rule, he's a one-note kind of actor.
He shows no emotions except anger. Even his smiles are stiff.
And the later-on-to-be beautiful Donna Mills was awful here! She was wooden, had zero chemistry with Clint, and her uninteresting character added almost nothing to the story.

"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."

[–] rwsmith29456 13 years ago

I quit watching 'Fatal Attraction' about 1/3 of the way into the movie and I remember VERY little of it. I enjoyed "PMFM" enough that I'd like to see it again.