I didn't know where to stick my 2 cents in this thread, so I finally decided to put it here at the (current) end. I agree with those who have commented about Oojacumspiff's insight. There's a lot that I totally missed -- even the pun of the title !! But I also agree with those critical of this film; and having watched it just the other night (pun?), I really was disappointed with it. When I first saw it years ago -- probably around the time it came out -- I thought it was good, and that recollection stayed with me. But it was disappointing to see it now. Hackman isn't at his best by far in this one and the film itself is weak. Kanekuni's point ("Night Moves is a character study, but still it's part of the detective genre where plotting is important and this is where Night Moves fall down") perhaps says it best for me. Others here also said it well and also covered other aspects of the film's weaknesses.
First off, was it my DVD or did Penn cut this thing in a disjointed way? There are at least 2 cuts in my DVD that are just unacceptable. The scene suddenly jumps to an entirely different situation and the viewer is clearly left with "How did we get here?" One I recall is the night boat ride where Delly finds the plane wreck. One minute we're at Tom's place (I think it was) and then "bam," we're on board a boat at night and Delly is asking Harry something about why he followed her, yada yada. It's completely unnecessary to make that kind of sharp sudden shift without any transition whatsoever. When a cut like that makes you wonder if maybe you got a bad copy, you know it's lame. There was another similar cut early in the film that similarly made absolutely no sense. Frankly, I'm in the process of getting the VHS tape to see if maybe my DVD is defective (??). If it's not, then I think Penn was just trying for effect, and probably because the film itself is just so weak overall as a mystery/detective/crime thriller. Having now had the benefit of Oojacumspiff's insight, I can agree that the film "succeeds" on the level he's referring to. Perhaps "succeeds" isn't the best choice of words -- perhaps "bludgeons" or "plods" is more appropriate.
Maybe I should have "gotten" it myself, but frankly I think I'm in the vast majority in missing that aspect. It's far to subtle and, frankly, stupid. We see Harry as a high-potential low-achiever right from the start, and nobody need suffer through the entire film simply to make that point. Okay, so he missed all the clues all along. Big freaking deal. They were all so beyond-subtle that it's only via hindsight that ya can see the freaking things at all. And, as has been pointed out quite well in this thread, the connection to the killer was extremely weak at best. Maybe this film should have had a spoiler notice at the outset advising the viewer that it's not a mystery or crime drama or detective story or thriller, but simply a "character study" and nothing else. Maybe then I would have paid attention to the point Penn was trying to make -- but which I think was well-enough made in the first 20 minutes of the film. Do we really need an entire film that points out at the outset that the main character is a loser and then goes on to batter you with that point over and over again for the next hour and a half and then some?
Okay, Harry's a loser and not so good at what he does. We get it. But I'm watching this thing from that point on thinking he's gonna show us how brilliant he really is by solving this puzzle. Instead, we get stiffed with a ringer as the bad guy who comes in from outta nowhere at the end. The classic ending for every film that never had any real plot to begin with.
And, frankly, it was so poorly done at the end that I wasn't sure WHO the hell that was in the plane -- I could hardly see him clearly. I only came on this site now to find out if that really WAS him.
I like Penn a lot and also just recently watched his Little Big Man, which I consider a masterpiece. But he really seems lost here. There's surely an inadequate connection to the killer in the body of the film, and that's just BS when it comes to this genre. I hate it when a film like this is so weak in plot that it just plops an incidental character down at the end as the guy who did it. C'mon, will ya? There is no way that anyone could have pegged this guy as the killer. Not unless you're one of those folks who picks the least likely guy as the killer from the git go. This stuff about his art collection is weak because we don't even see what the heck is being smuggled until the virtual end of the film. How is that a connection to him???? He's flying the freaking plane when the smuggled booty first pops into view. I'm supposed to piece all that together then? "Oh, it must be old what's-his-name cuz he collects stuff that looks kinda like whatever that was that just popped up."
Puleeease!
And check out the Tag Line for the film. It's clearly presented as a thriller / mystery / detective story. What's this about Harry finding himself??? He had found himself before the film ever started. What did he find out about himself at the end that he didn't know all along? Nothing.
I found Hackman's performance weak and stilted. About on a par with his combover. Same with the others. The dialog was also weak and stilted. I found myself pressing on to finish the thing as a kind of mission to acomplish, having completely lost interest in it as a work of art long before it finally ended.
Did Harry die at the end or not? Who the hell cares? Make up your own ending. The bunch responsible for this thing did, so why not you too? In fact, this is a film that you could make up your own plot about -- even after it's over -- because it didn't know what it was about itself.
Okay, it's existentialist -- the plot's not important.
I wish somebody had told me that before I sat down to watch this drivel. Because had I known that, I simply would have left halfway thru 'cuz that point was made long before that.
100 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. Now I wish I could have lived out the rest of my days thinking of it as I did before this last viewing. I guess it's true ya can't go home again. Too many good films and life experiences -- not to mention good Hackman performances -- since my first viewing. Sadly, they gave me the ability to see just how flawed this thing is.
If Chinatown is a 10 -- which it is -- then this thing can't be ranked higher than 3, particularly since it's contemporaneous.
reply
share
kessinger-1
17 years ago
I find threads such as these very informative reading on different and difficult movies.
Personally I find that all of the plot, although obscure, is there in the movie if you care to look for it.
So hereby some comments and corrections, only, to things said in this thread for the benefit and amusement of future readers.
>>>About Joey shaking his head in the end scene:
Tween's post has a good point there.
The first time Joey shakes his head he is definitely very lucid in doing it. The second time, as he sinks deeper, is very much different and confused.
He is definitely trying to make something clear with a completely non hostile expression/face.
>>>>Joey's art collection:
It is painful this is being independently repeated even by people who recently saw the movie as Joey does not have an art collection. Or at least as far as we know.
Moseby goes to some friend/collegue for info on Arlene and he has the collection. He is not seen after in the film.
Did they came from the black market? Who knows.
What is known is that there is an evident increase in the availability for some regular guy to have multiple figures in a crummy case in his office.
>>>>>Joey's connection to smuggling
There is none.
He is not there in the plane to recover the artifact.
Infact he is not even seeing the artifact nor the diver. Just look at his actions. He is focused on the boat only, leading to his mistake hitting the diver very awkwardly for himself.
If he wanted the artifact at all (which he wanted not) he could just wait on them to return with it and then shoot them with his Uzi.
Why jump in a plane with one side of your body in a cast, shoot on people from the air, hoping to hit them; and then trying to pull (?) a heavy stone altar, it looked like an altar please correct me if something else, with ONE arm into the plane?
>>>>Said in a post "pre-Columbian artifact that was said to be worth a half million dollars"
The artifact itself is not said to be worth half a million, but only when put together with other artifacts. Important this as this particular item would not be worth as much on its own.
>>>>Said in a post "Delly eventually learned that fact which is what she was apparently attempting to tell Harry when she made the phone call to his office ( which he never returned)"
It is much simpler than this.
Delly already recognised the pilot at the night she was diving. All the signs are there. The panic, later confusion when sitting across Moseby when back home and the nightmare ("his face was eaten by the fishes!").
She calls Moseby to correct her mistake of not telling ("I thought you would like that know that...."). A calm and simple voice says this.
-------------------------------
tommymax:
>>>>Okay, so he missed all the clues all along. Big freaking deal. They were all so beyond-subtle that it's only via hindsight that ya can see the freaking things at all.
Exactly.
>>>>And, as has been pointed out quite well in this thread, the connection to the killer was extremely weak at best
Depends on the connection to what.
This story is not weak or impossible to understand. It is there, but it is written in a curious way as has been already well explained in this thread. Why this is done is explained also.
Read edward's post for big hints to the plot (or at least the parts which would help you). He nearly writes the answer out.
>>>>Maybe this film should have had a spoiler notice at the outset advising the viewer that it's not a mystery or crime drama or detective story or thriller, but simply a "character study" and nothing else.
It is you who mistakes it for something it is not and therefore it is your fault. Your preconception before seeing the movie.
Don't blame a thing because it is not something you wrongly think it should be.
Just avoid it if you can't see it for what it is and like/dislike it for that it is.
>>>>But I'm watching this thing from that point on thinking he's gonna show us how brilliant he really is by solving this puzzle.
Might aswell blame Kubrick for not putting space fighters in Space Odyssey for I thought it would be a sci fi action flic.
>>>>Instead, we get stiffed with a ringer as the bad guy who comes in from outta nowhere at the end.
We and the lead.
We (and to a fault you) were just as unobserving as the lead. Waiting for the plot to be spoon fed to us, because we expect that the lead follows all the relevant leads. Life, and this movie's plot, don't work that way.
Also the "one bad guy" may not be automatically responsible for all killings (Marv for example).
>>>>The classic ending for every film that never had any real plot to begin with.
As Moseby's wife says (paraphrase) "you think you solve something important with these trivial cases?".
The only one with any idea it should be there is you. Not the movie.
>>>And, frankly, it was so poorly done at the end that I wasn't sure WHO the hell that was in the plane
That big white cast was as obvious as anything.
>>>>and that's just BS when it comes to this genre
Your fault again. Pigeonholing things.
>>>>I hate it when a film like this is so weak in plot that it just plops an incidental character down at the end as the guy who did it.
I do to, but it is not the case here. Unexpected, but not just dropped in.
>>>There is no way that anyone could have pegged this guy as the killer.
If you admit that you should have sympathy for Moseby.
Killer for whom though? The girl? Marv? Quinn?
All different killers.
>>>>100 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
Make that 115 minutes for venting on a message board after viewing. 15 additional wasted minutes on a movie you claim to care nothing for.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."
reply
share
dandorotik
14 years ago
Wow, such detail and insight- but wrong on so many levels. I need mention nothing else but your comment on Gene Hackman's performance being weak- that's all you needed to say to negate the review. I think I would be safe in saying that 99+% of the individuals who watched this movie would say that the acting is the least of their criticisms, if any. Maybe Gene didn't do his best work in something like Superman or The Replacements, but in Night Moves? One of the top 5 in his career.
Anyway, Night Moves- whether you completely love it or have issues with certain aspects of it- you can't deny that it's certainly one of the most in-depth movies. And while I completely disagree with your opinion, I applaud your detail.
reply
share
jondoe888
13 years ago
T-max - The problem with movie reviews is we all have different views (re the perfect name of the boat). Ebert may be brilliant, but he doesn't always see the same movie I did.
Also, our perspective changes with time and mood. The first time I saw Peggy Sue gets Married, I found it so well done. Perfect. I saw it again a few months ago, and felt less engaged. It's the same great movie, but somehow I didn't buy into it like the first few times. I assume it was the wrong movie to see that night.
reply
share