MovieChat Forums > In Country (1989) Discussion > why havn't more people seen this?

why havn't more people seen this?

posted 19 years ago by smilelikeumeanit
12 replies | jump to latest

This film was in my friends movie collection and I only at first wanted to watch it because bruce willis. The story is original and the character sam made the movie seem very real since my father was in the vietnam war but he luckily didn't lose his life.
Its also really interesting to watch how the veterans acted about the war and their different view points, like at the veterans dance.
anyways its a good movie and worth seeing....norman jewison did a great job

[–] megmarch2003 19 years ago

I think it's a great film, too. It goes at a bit of a slow pace, but well worth watching. I love Peggy Rea, she is fantastic in anything she does.

[–] stormrider57 18 years ago

What's with Emily sleeping with John Terry? He's old enough to be her father-- and if she's supposedly searching for her father, seems like she's looking for him just a little too hard. And I never could stand Peggy Rea. She just plays the same kind of character over and over. Go back to some old Waltons reruns and see her be the same simple fat country hick there.

[–] averageandproudofit 17 years ago

I just finished the book. Tom is in his early thirties, around 32/33. Sam is 18. And they don't have actual sex. She has a *major* crush on him, but after the dance when he takes her to his place he can't perform (psychological impotence since Vietnam). I haven't seen this film yet but John Terry is muuuuuuuch too old to play Tom.

edit: Okay, somebody posted all the Tom scenes on youtube. I must say John Terry looks quite dashing. But Sam and Tom's fling is way sexier in the book. In the film Sam doesn't even seem that interested in Tom. Same vice versa. Most scenes were different in the book, a lot was left out. In the book their attraction was so tangible I just couldn't wait for Sam to dump her bf Lonnie and get it on with Tom

_________

Thus fell Lord Perth, and the earth did shake with that thunder.

[–] martymilton 17 years ago

This is a movie that does a great job of showing how a lot of Viet Nam vets dealt with the after effects of returning to the "world". Bruce Willis is very good, as well as Joan Allen in one of her many "chameleon" roles. It also has a great soundtrack by James Horner, that sadly was never released as a CD.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IceboxMovies 13 years ago

What's with Emily sleeping with John Terry? He's old enough to be her father

I agree. That scene was CREEPY. Actually, I was really crept out by the fact that all the Vietnam veterans in this movie are lusting after an 18-year old girl. When Stephen Tobolowsky spanks Emily Lloyd at the veterans' dance... wtf.

Anyway, this is a decent movie, but it's easy to see why it's been so ignored. It's not a masterpiece. It tries to tell too many stories, and half of the movie consists of pointless scenes that have nothing to do with the plot. The final 30 minutes are pretty intense, of course, and that whole memorial sequence is mesmerizing. But if you compare it to Oliver Stone's Born on the Fourth of July and Brian De Palma's Casualties of War--two other Vietnam films that were released the same year and are much more angrier and ambitious--this movie, by comparison, is rather bloodless.

Practically all of the other films Jewison made in the 80's (A Soldier's Story; Agnes of God; Moonstruck) are better than this one.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] SnoozeAlarm 11 years ago

>>> I was really crept out by the fact that all the Vietnam veterans in this movie are lusting after an 18-year old girl

Most 18-year-old girls are sexually attractive, so is it not natural for any adult male to be sexually stimulated by them?

Don't sell that cow!

[–] eelb 10 years ago

Just how do you think older fat women behave in small town Kentucky? Exactly like Rea does in the movie. Perfect portrayal.

[–] joaquin5 16 years ago

This movie was released just before Oliver Stone's louder and showier "Born on the Fourth of July", which overshadowed the quieter/introspective "In Country".

[–] kinglet 9 years ago

I would also add that coming out in 1989, this subject was awfully close to those of us who had lived through the Vietnam War years. A lot of us were or knew veterans, were dealing with their issues, and kind of didn't need to spend money and time in a theater watching more of the same. Other people just didn't want to deal, period.

It happens after every war - most people are so sick of it all they just want to have families, look to the future, and forget about the bad stuff. Movies about Vietnam in general haven't fared well, with two exceptions being The Deer Hunter and Born on the Fourth of July, which I think is still Tom Cruise's best film.

Add in the young male audience that Hollywood loves to cater to and the fact this portrayal of a vulnerable man was not the action hero they expected after seeing Die Hard about a year before, and you've got a recipe for good reviews and modest box office. I'd love to know what Bruce Willis thinks of this movie though. I enjoyed it quite a bit.

[–] zachanscom 11 years ago

norman jewison films have been suppressed by the industry. they usually don't show them on tv or circulate them after the mid 90s so if you want to watch now, youll have to buy them on dvd/video, rent them, or download them.

[–] kinglet 9 years ago

Suppressed? I guess that explains why I've seen three of them in my local TV listings in just the past two weeks. And why Netflix has 6 placeholders for those not yet out on DVD and 18 currently available that are. Including "In Country". Plus Jewison has won some significant awards just between 2000 and 2008, including the lifetime achievement award from the Directors Guild of America on January 30, 2010 and a Windsor International Film Festival Lifetime Achievement Award in 2014.

Films are usually sold in packages by a given studio to television and cable stations and when one person makes so many movies for so many different studios it may complicate matters, especially with all the mergers, bankruptcies, and buyouts of the last 30 years just in Hollywood alone. In this particular case war-related movies like "In Country" have a notoriously short shelf life. Something like "The Thomas Crown Affair" plays and is going to play a lot longer and more often than a movie like "In Country". I doubt I'll ever have seen all of Jewison's movies but that's true of any director of his generation. Some of the stuff that was topical in the '60s and '70s is pretty dated now, and cable stations seem more interested in packages of old TV shows than in bundles of really good movies. Again, I think part of this is because it's easier to deal with one studio that offers many hours of old programs than it is to deal with multiple studios that each offer a few. Far more people watched junk like "Happy Days" (and want to relive that experience with their kids or grandkids) than ever got out to see Norman Jewison's full slate of movies.

But if he never makes another flick his legacy is first-rate. Few directors have made movies about so many different subjects with such entertaining results.