This is amazing to me.. No one is interested in this movie? I've seen early talkies with more threads than this one. I thought it was a cinematic masterpiece, and brother Sidney was in his groove with this one.
Movies from the late sixties and early seventies were a breed apart, the best of that era were cool without trying.
I agree, great movie that I missed when it came out....reminde me of the Man with No Name in that he comes & goes without any knowing any better who he is...
Triple Irons-"I could have easily have beaten you, if I had three swords"
If his last name was spelled with a "C" instead of "K" perhaps more peeps would realise his initials. Part of the way thru the film I thought he might been the Grim Reaper cuz he always showed up when peeps died. I hope he was the "god of love" rather than the one who was vengeful. Incidentally, this is supposed to be a personal favorite of Poitier.
What is the sound an imploding pimp makes?
[deleted]
Obviously John is supposed to be a Christ figure, but I love the fact that his character remains a mystery throughout this film. I can understand why this would be a favorite of Poitier. It's right up there with films like "The Swimmer" that present no easy answers but stick with you long after you see them. 8/10 stars from me for now, but I might upgrade when I watch it again.
shareI saw the Swimmer one day about 12 years ago and you are so right. What an interesting era of film in which surreal elements could come and go and not everything was explained. Interesting that it features another face that was in some crucial films but no longer active today Bradford Dillman. I haven't seen this film I look forward to seeing it and a lot more films from this era 1967 to 1976.
shareIt's unfortunate that films that are "felt" more than seen (like "Brother John" and "The Swimmer") just don't seem to be made anymore, or at least are fairly rare in my experience.
I love Bradford Dillman, and it's unfortunate he just seemed to disappear in the '80s. He also made a of horror B-movies like "Bug" and "Piranha," which may not be great films but are undeniably entertaining.
Saw this on DVD a couple of years ago, and liked it, even if it didn't give one all the answers as to who John really was---a pretty intriguing film, Not hard to see why it flopped, since it was probably too challenging for some people who wanted a definite answer to the puzzle that was Brother John. Intriguing ending, though.
shareI saw this movie for the first time today and was ensnared from the first scene all the way until the credits rolled.
It was puzzling and more to the point that several hours after having watched it it's still with me. I find this movie great because it was able to hold strong from start to finish without throwing things at us as if struggling to hold the attention of an audience suffering from ADHD.
A majority of the films today can not do the same. They couldn't do a movie that flows as nicely as this, and sadly they can't provide an ending such as that where you don't really get a definite answer without people being upset that they have to draw a conclusion for themselves.
Perhaps it was just something about that era or something about the actors and directors. I hope to find such work in the future.
The '60s and '70s were an era when films started to throw everything on the screen, and broke taboos that the censors wouldn't allow them to show several years before---lots of tough, groundbreaking films came out of that era because of the censors slacking up of a lot of previous subjects that films never dealt with before, or at least as openly and bluntly. And then there was the fact that audiences were demanding a lot more realism from films in general. The '70s in particular were definitely the "i dgaf" era of films, lol---which is why they're still so much fun to watch---you can see taboos that the censors had completely forbidden being broken before your very eyes, and the filmmakers just went buck wild with their newfound freedom to put whatever on the screen.
share