MovieChat Forums > Cannery Row (1982) Discussion > Why does this great film get such a bad ...

Why does this great film get such a bad rap?

posted 15 years ago by jack_north
16 replies | jump to latest

I've just never understood that. I see poor or anemic reviews of this and yet every time I see it I am charmed. I guess I'm just a sap, 'cause it just makes me smile every time I see it. The look of those great sets, the characters, the octopi...

...and of course the music, which is so great I've always thought it was a shame the soundtrack was never released (at least, I don't think it's been.) And I had given up on ever seeing it on DVD, but just recently discovered it had been released earlier this year. It looks great.

A shout out to all involved in this: Thank you.

[–] theokinawabadass 15 years ago

It really just is not that good of a movie, it reminded me of a bad CBS T.V. series to be honest. The book itself is a much darker and even violent story of people struggling to maintain their innocence in a often disturbed world. The movie plays out completely differently than what the book portrays which was essentially influenced the most by Cannery Row's happier sequel, Sweet Thursday, which is a story I find far inferior to Cannery Row. Mack is not supposed to be in his late 40's and the store keeper is not supposed to be Mexican. It was all just an unpleasant mess. If you want to get an idea of what I think the tone of the movie should have been, based on the book. Its somewhere in between Fargo and No Country for Old Men, Fargo for the dark-humor and No Country for Old Men for the books post-modern quietness and sincerity, with perhaps George Clooney or Daniel Day Lewis cast as Doc and Matt Damon or Brad Pitt cast as Mack could pull off to great effect, IMHO.

[–] Hollywoodshack 14 years ago

Agree completely.

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

The book itself is a much darker and even violent story of people struggling to maintain their innocence in a often disturbed world

There's some of that in the book, but it's also one of Steinbeck's funniest novels. Certainly it's far less relentlessly dark than most of Steinbeck's other books.

The movie plays out completely differently than what the book portrays which was essentially influenced the most by Cannery Row's happier sequel, Sweet Thursday, which is a story I find far inferior to Cannery Row. Mack is not supposed to be in his late 40's and the store keeper is not supposed to be Mexican. It was all just an unpleasant mess.

You're right that there's more of Sweet Thursday in the movie. In ST, a Mexican takes over the store from the original Chinese owner. However, as I recall, Mack was a middle-aged man, and I think that the casting of Emmett Walsh as Mack was one of the high points of the film. I just wish that Mack and his gang had more scenes and the film had focused more on them and the other never do wells of Cannery Row rather than on Doc and Suzy's romance.

with perhaps George Clooney or Daniel Day Lewis cast as Doc and Matt Damon or Brad Pitt cast as Mack could pull off to great effect, IMHO

Walsh made a much more convincing bum than Brad Pitt ever could, and as far as I'm concerned George Clooney is probably the most overrated living actor (Day-Lewis would be a great choice in a remake, however). As to the casting of Doc, Nick Nolte is a good actor, they just didn't give him the best material to work with here.

[–] marcus538-1 14 years ago

very often the films i enjoy most have bad reveiws,i go and see films with bad reviews they are te best.

who knows why the reveiwer is reveiwing it? hes probaly biased.

[–] Hollywoodshack 14 years ago

Well, let's think. They fired Raquel Welch. She would have made a great Dora. Nick Nolte is simply too big a drunkard macho he-man to play Doc, an intellegent marine scientist. I would have liked Richard Dreyfuss in the part. One reviewer quipped Nolte was "Dreyfuss in a tummy girdle." I admit I'm prejudiced because I scripted the first version that followed the titled book. But John Huston's folksy narration replaced some of what could have been the best scenes in the film. And where did Mack and the boys find those big lights to use in their frog hunt? Why should we call a grocer Joseph and Mary?

[–] jack_north 14 years ago

I used to be of the opinion that a movie adaptation of a book should be more faithful than they typically are. I still feel that way when the film is almost a faithful retelling. (As in, "if they almost copied the book, why not go the whole way.")

But when a film uses a book merely as a starting point and tells the story in a whole different way, (i.e., the 1931 Frankenstein, just one of probably a hundred examples) then I tend to just look at the film as a separate entity, which, of course, we should probably do all the time. I suppose the credits should read "suggested by the novel" or "inspired by the novel," because when the film title is the same as the book title, people who've read the book would expect to be seeing the book on the screen.

This is one of those cases where the I take the film as a separate entity. I do this partly because I have not read these particular Steinbeck stories. I have read some Steinbeck, though, and really, really liked Tortilla Flat. This film has the same "flavor" of Tortilla Flat, and so I'm thinking it has the same feel as the two source works.

As a separate entity, I think this film works. And "Joseph and Mary" as the grocer's name just makes me smile.

[–] Hollywoodshack 14 years ago

Cannery Row was mostly a series of stories put together as a short novel. Now, I miss the flag pole skater, Frankie, Henri the painter, Horace Appeville, the Molloys that lived in the pipes, Josh Billings, and the other colorful characters missing from the film. Even the Chinaman on the way to the ocean to collect fish that Andy teased. It's too bad Fellini isn't alive today, what great things he could do to put all the little segments together to make a great film instead of a simple romantic comedy. The more commercial approach flopped at the box office, anyway.

[–] Hollywoodshack 14 years ago

Mr. North, your post says you didn't read Cannery Row. By all means read this beautiful book. It contains no brain-damaged Seer who plays trumpet and drowns himself leaving his hat floating in the water. By all means buy and read the book. The Steinbeck family is, according to some, going broke from lack of interest in the late writer's novels, films and plays and in some cases, over who owns the ones that lost money in re release.

[–] callagal 13 years ago

Richard Dreyfuss as Doc? No- I don't see it, everyone adored and looked up to Doc. I think Nolte was great. Drefuss as Mack, I could see.

The movie is one of my favorites, I love Huston's narration (I could listen to him read the phone book, what a voice!), it has a lot of humor and sweetness.

It's not very much like the Cannery Row book (which is a good book), it is based more on Sweet Thursday, which has Joseph and Mary (the Mexican grocer), Fauna, Suzy, and the Seer. I just started re-reading it after many years, Fauna has just told Hazel that his astrology shows he is to be President.

Forget whether the film follows a novel or not, just enjoy it on it's own!

[–] jsmith98-1 9 years ago

Well put, I agree with you 100%. It's a combination of two great novels.

As you mentioned, enjoy the movie for what it is, don't expect it to follow the novels exactly. Most novels that are made into movies don't follow the story line exactly as the written work.

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

They fired Raquel Welch. She would have made a great Dora. Nick Nolte is simply too big a drunkard macho he-man to play Doc, an intellegent marine scientist. I would have liked Richard Dreyfuss in the part. One reviewer quipped Nolte was "Dreyfuss in a tummy girdle.

Raquel Welch was eye candy, not an actress that could be taken seriously. It would be like making this film in the 1990's with Cindy Crawford as Suzy.

Ricketts, on whom Doc was based, was some something of a tough guy and bar brawler, not a nerdy nebbish (your archetypal "Blue Collar Intellectual" in the style of Eric Hoffer or Jack London). Nick Nolte is closer to the image I had of Doc reading the novel than Richard Dreyfuss.

[–] markann-2 7 years ago

Ricketts was a real person who collaborated with Steinbeck often.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Ricketts

[–] Hollywoodshack 7 years ago

Winger was a tough talker, the only thing that matched Suzy. The novel itself tells us Doc was a shy and set apart man who played classical music on his phonograph records while he washed dishes in the morning. He was an explorer and a loner, not a bar brawler at all. The film is from the novels, not Ricketts himself. It surprised Mac when Doc finally used his fists after the boys wrecked the laboratory.

[–] jsmith98-1 9 years ago

Personally, this is one of my favorite movies. Not a huge fan of either Debra Winger nor Nick Nolte. However, I will have to say that Nick Nolte looks very handsome in this movie. The hat and leather jacket are great looking accessories for the role of "Doc". I also love the fact that it's narrated by the great John Houston. It's a "period piece" by one of the greatest writers, John Steinbeck

I love the fact that "Doc" is a Marine Biologist. Marine biology and oceanography where always my dream job as a student. I have had several saltwater and reef tanks with live corals and this movie is the main reason why. I love the vintage tanks in his lab that doubles as his home. I've tried the beer milkshake and it is surprisingly good if you use Miller High Life. I agree that this movie does get a bad rap. Not everyone can appreciate a great novel that is made into one of the best movies of the early eighties. If seems like in this day and age, if it's not full of violence or has some insane futuristic plot, then people tend to frown upon the movie.

I was 10 years old when I first watched this film. It made me want to read more books by Steinbeck . That led to other authors and great novels. This movie enriched my own life in ways that others just may not be able to relate to. I lived by the sea during this period of my life and spent many hours combing the sands and tide pools for creatures. I often found live starfish and hermit crabs. This is my second favorite movie of all time. The cannery's overfished the waters, the bums that live there are like the town clowns, and the main story of "Doc"and the "Seer" is the movies storyline in my opinion is what makes this a great movie.This isn't part of the novel, but it adds something special to the movie version. The love story plot isn't as important to me as it is obvious that the movie is headed in that direction from the opening.

If you like the movie, then great, if you don't like this movie why waste you're time trashing it? Obviously it is above your understanding of what makes a great novel suitable for a great film. I don't think the movie would be as interesting if it did follow the book exactly as it was written. Most novels that are made into movies seldom are identical to the written work. A great example of this is Game of Thrones. The series is a convoluted mess compaired to the book series. Story lines in the series aren't even big events in the books. I like the show, but I don't like the way it has been twisted out of context to get viewers.

[–] lousvr 9 years ago

Agree jsmith98-1... don't forget... the bell curve..

[–] mjz688 8 years ago

This is also one of my favorite movies. I've never read Steinbeck, so I judge the film on its own merits. It's funny, tragic, thoughtful and elegiac, well-acted, well cast and beautifully produced, with an amazing soundtrack. I saw it when it first came out in 1982, and I still watch it at least once a year.

Now, if someone would just put it out on blu-ray.