How is this rated higher than Fatal Attraction?

Interesting analysis.

I have not studied film in any meaningful way but it seems to me that this could be expanded a bit.

Play Misty For Me was made at a time when Hollywood was starting to get used to the idea of a powerful woman in movies. They were no longer simply love interests, sex pots, femmes fatale or saintly types as they were until the 1960s. Bonnie and Clyde (1967) could be considered an earlier example of this trend. While Evelyn doesn't tote a machine gun as Bonnie does, she exerts a power which is challenging to the traditional male. He is actually fearful of her.

Michele Carey's character in El Dorado (1966) is another minor example. She actually shoots John Wayne! She also has a pivotal role in the final shootout.

This was a fairly new idea. Latter day analysis which claims that Sharon Stone's character in Basic Instinct was the turning point in the presentation of powerful - even dominant - women in movies has ignored much of this or pretended it doesn't exist.

I think the film should also be looked at in the context of what became known as the Tate Murders. The idea that celebrities could be targeted in their own homes sent seismic waves through Hollywood and the celebrity set in general. The majority of the killers were actually women and while the film does not imply that all women are potentially psychotic, it removes the previous stereotype of a role secondary to men.

And perhaps there might be another theme: the potential consequences of casual sex. I'm sure anyone interested in metaphor could see a connection there, even though I doubt it is intentional.

On the other hand, the film is very enjoyable just on its own and doesn't really need a lot of analysis. Modern day audiences, raised on horror flicks with a brutal killing every 10 minutes, would find this boring. Others, like me, find that the slower pace enhances the suspense to a far greater degree than relentless violence ever could.

Fatal Attraction, whatever its merits, was not an original idea and had none of the subtlety of Play Misty For Me. From my own point of view, I had far less empathy for Michael Douglas' character than I did for Clint Eastwood's. Equally, I had far less fear of Glenn Close's character. Neither was able to engage me at anything more than a superficial level and that is enough for me to write it off as a cheap imitation of the real thing.

I like both movies, but I personally prefer Play Misty For Me as a whole. And I definitely disagree with the whole acting thing, Jessica Walter was just as good as Glenn Close was, IMO. Both gave great performances.

^^ Points at Rainbird ^^

He wins!! LOL!!

It's not really a romantic role. It's a suspense/shocker with a romantic angle.

The script was written by a woman called Jo Heims in the mid 60s and Clint had little or nothing to do with it. The Dave Garver character is actually based on a real person, I think from around the Monterey area. I can't be sure but it's on the DVD extras.

I have already outlined why it's a bit of a ground breaker and that makes worth a close look. To be honest, I think it can stand up to most scrutiny.

[deleted]

Yeah, Larch was awesome!

Remember, he was the father of the little monster Anthony in the Twilight Zone ep "It's A Good Life" ("It's good that you did that, Anthony. Real good. And tomorrow....tomorrow's going to be a real good day!")

He was also Harry Callahan's CO in the first film (released the same year -- there's even a shot of a movie marquee that's showing PMFM!), before Harry's bosses were turned into evil caricatures or cartoonish buffoons.