Opiniones de usuarios

"Little Murders" is another of the obscure films I saw at base/post theaters during my military days. It was certainly better than average and many of the images (especially the wedding scene with Donald Sutherland) have stayed with me through the years.

While I found it less funny during a recent viewing than I remembered, the message was still disturbing and contemporary. It is certainly satire and black comedy, but you often lose yourself in the story. It is a very individual film, different people will laugh at different times and at different things. During a theater viewing it seemed to isolate audience members from each other.

Jules Feiffer's screenplay is about Alfred (Elliot Gould), a NYC photographer and self- described "apathist", sort of an unengaged existentialist. He is completely disillusioned and has deadened himself to the cries, smells, sights and pains of violent city living; in a Big Apple even more adversarial than that of "The Out-Of-Towners".

Alfred can't feel much anymore but he takes an interest in Patsy (Marcia Rodd), a controlling interior decorator optimist, who wants to change him. Patsy has been able to stay upbeat and involved despite daily encounters with muggers, snipers, obscene callers, and a family that leaves a lot to be desired.

The film seems to be saying that harsh urban life cuts its people off from gentler human emotion. As an interior decorator Patsy's life is largely defined by her ability to control her possessions and the attitudes of those around her.

Patsy's father, mother and younger brother are living a painful parody of "family life," and Alfred's weirdness eventually allows him to fit right in. The dinner scene where he first meets her family is one of the funniest in film history.

The film illustrates that neither apathy nor constructive engagement are successful mechanisms for coping with the modern world. It seems to be saying that the only rational response to living in an insane environment is to vigorously participate in the insanity.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

When they were all in their heyday, Elliott Gould, Alan Arkin (who also directed) and Donald Sutherland collaborated on the over-the-top black comedy "Little Murders", in which Gould plays emotionally vacant New York photographer Alfred Chamberlain, hooking up with vivacious young Patsy Newquist (Marcia Rodd) in the midst of several hundred unsolved homicides in the Big Apple. In the process of everything, the series of events exposes the flaws in all the characters, especially Patsy's parents (Vincent Gardenia and Elizabeth Wilson).

I think that my two favorite scenes are the appearances of Sutherland and Arkin. Sutherland plays a priest who seems to be a cross between Sutherland's characters from "MASH" and "Kelly's Heroes"; Arkin plays a detective who spouts out the craziest monologue explaining why there's a conspiracy behind the murders. Overall, this is very much a New York kind of movie. I should identify that there are several very long scenes during the movie, but it's certainly not a flick that you'll forget anytime soon. Impressive.

A black comedy in every sense of the word. It's too bad that Alan Arkin doesn't direct more movies because he really scored with this one. It's a movie that still seems so fresh today because of its storyline, even after close to 30 years. It was pertinent back then and even more so today. It's great to see appearances here by Arkin and Donald Sutherland, and it's one of Elliott Gould's best roles.

Keep on the lookout for this in your late night t.v. schedule. It's really worth seeing again (and especially if you haven't seen it yet).

I asked the clerk at my local video store to suggest a comedy from the 70's on VHS as my DVD player was broken. He recommended Little Murders and got a glazed over look in his eye and an idiots smile on his face, obviously reminiscing over a scene in the film. That was enough for me to want to rent it, and I'm glad I did. The acting in this film is outstanding, the highlight for me was Alan Arkin playing a Dr. Strangelove esquire police officer and of course the scene with Donald Sutherland as the minister. The film holds up remarkably well for having been filmed over 35 years ago, it must have been ahead of it's time when it came out. Aside from a few slang terms that were definitely from a by gone era, the film could easily take place today. All in all worth the effort if for nothing else than an outstanding cast of Arkin, Sutherland and Gould. Did it get any better than that acting wise in the 1970?

Patsy Newquist (Marcia Rodd) is an interior decorator in New York City who rescues a man (Elliott Gould as Alfred Chamberlain) from a prolonged beating that she hears going on outside of her apartment. When she does intervene the group of hooligans turns on her and Alfred does nothing but walk away. After she escapes them, she confronts Alfred about this, who does not apologize. In fact he says nothing. Patsy is instantly smitten by this self acclaimed "apathist", and sets out to make him see life is good and get him trying again - at anything. He is her project, yet she sees this as love.

The backdrop is an increasingly violent NYC in which property is randomly vandalized more than robbed, people are at first attacked - the way that Alfred was - and then random shootings/murders by unnamed snipers begin. Patsy's family of origin are like an educated version of The Bunkers on All In the Family. Eventually they have steel panels installed on their windows so that the snipers will not shoot into their apartment.

Alan Arkin plays a cop driven mad by all of the homicides in which the victims come from every walk, age, and ethnicity and none of them apparently knew their assailants.

Donald Sutherland has a small but memorable role as pastor of the First Existential Church who is able to grant Alfred and Patsy's request that the name of the deity not be mentioned in their wedding ceremony. His sermon - and he airs everybody's dirty linen at this time, apparently not believing in the confidentiality of the clergy - during that service starts a free-for-all fist fight.

The film has a very tie-dyed feel about it that is distinctively early 70s, yet how it deals with all of the random violence, particulary the frightening origin of the random killings in the final scene, seems all too "ripped from the headlines".

I just watched this film because my dad recommended it as a movie he

remember as being funny…mabey. I was skeptical at the beginning, I thought to myself a dated film with an absurd summery on the back. The only reason I sat and watched it was the list of actors, Sutherland and Gould. I was immediately enthralled. I have been a fan of Terry Gilliam films for a long time and to see a film that can achieve his insanity and social messages with out the elaborate sets and costumes Gilliam uses is astounding. The acting is superb, there is no other word that can encapsulate these performances. Every character is riveting until the end. The monologues given are thought provoking to say the least. My original thought that this film was dated could not be farther from the truth, I was in fact surprised by the connections that can be drawn to our modern times. I am surprised that this film did not receive more praise. It is also disappointing that the other Alan Arkin films were given less than glowing reviews. The only question I have is: is it to late to have a cult following for this movie? Anyone else in?

It doesn't get any darker than this, folks. Jules Feiffer shows off his penchant for absurdity and his mastery of the monologue (Lou Jacobi, Donald Sutherland and director Alan Arkin each get one powerhouse scene where it's basically all them with the other characters reacting). The cast is excellent and their handling of Feiffer's language is amazing. Elliot Gould's performance is particularly effective, and Vincent Gardenia as his father-in-law is hysterical.

I saw this film and then read the play it was based on, and both give off the same claustrophobic air of desperation while still being side-splittingly funny. It is definitely worth hunting down. In the words of Father Dupas, it is "all right."

Alan Arkin directed this black comedy from Jules Feiffer (adapted from his play) about the violence--and apathy or pacifism towards violence--in society, with Elliott Gould as the zombie-fied hero at the center of the chaos. Even though this is dark-hued material, Feiffer and Arkin mean it to be deadpan amusing, yet the heights they hope to scale haven't weathered the years well. What was circus-like and crazily absurd in 1971 doesn't look so far-fetched anymore, which gives the proceedings a creepy undermining today. Several good moments, fine cinematography from Gordon Willis compensate, also a terrific performance from Vincent Gardenia as Gould's emotionally unhinged father-in-law. However, the film is now a dated product of its time, not the crackpot cartoon-strip intended. Arkin has a cameo, as does Gould's "MASH" co-star Donald Sutherland in an over-extended bit as a hippie priest. ** from ****

Jules Feiffer's paean to NYC paranoia written in the same tone as his comic strips. Completely over-the-top and hilarious. Alan Arkin's bit is priceless. This movie puts the "funk" back in dysfunctional. This is proto-"Seinfeld" stuff, folks. Climb into the darkest fantasy of every red-blooded Gothamite.

To be honest, what got me to watch this nearly two-hour long flick was the intriguing prospect of a film directed by Alan Arkin, in which he also acts.

The film's strongest asset is the acting. Gould stands out with his apathy and his lackadaisical approach to life and relationships, merrily chased by pushy Patsy (Marcia Rodd), who wants to marry Gould to "mould" him into the man she wants in her life.

In a film that boasts superb dark screwball acting from such famous names as Gould, Sutherland, Gardenia and Liz Wilson, the real show stealer is Rodd with her engaging smile and something bordering on madness in her eyes, reminding me of Jessica Walter in PLAY MISTY FOR ME, which also came out in 1971.

The screenplay is so wayward, its characters so contradictory and disconnected from normal living that I can only wonder how any studio financed its production. Sutherland offers the most outlandish sequence of all the outlandish sequences in the film as the pastor marrying Gould and Rodd - for that alone he would have deserved a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award.

Cinematography by Gordon Willis rates unmemorable. The copy that I watched even had about 3-4 minutes of Gould walking in a park with a photo camera in hand, and not a sound heard.

The mixture of styles and narrative proved more annoying than fit. Unremarkable film that I will avoid in the future. 6/10.

Dir by arkin, written by jules feiffer.

Homo slurs from dad not reacting to lights out.

Like performance art anhedonia great preacher-wedding is best part.

Parents--unfeeling overintellectualizers

I'm pretty surprised at the positive reviews for "Little Murders". To me, it's a single, long and rather tedious joke...one that wears thin at times.

Alfred (Elliot Gould) is a New Yorker who has anhedonia...the complete inability to feel anything. Throughout the film, Alfred is stone-faced and with a rather monotone voice. Despite that, a goofy woman falls in love with him (what's to fall in love with?) and he experiences a variety of odd adventures...such as a super-weird wedding, an odd reunion with his parents as well as some self-examination. At times, some of it is indeed funny (the wedding officiated by Donald Sutherland is pretty funny) but mostly it's boring...because the character is so flat and boring. In many ways, this seems more like performance art than a comedy.

So, you have a review here that did NOT like the film...and many, many reviews which did. Who knows what you'll think...I just thought it would have made a cute short film but as a full length one, it's just tedious most of the time.

Comedy about how New Yorkers are coping with pervasive urban violence, obscene phone calls, rusty water pipes, electrical blackouts, paranoia and ethnic-racial conflict during a typical summer of the 1970s.

So, this is the sort of film that has a good deal of long, boring parts, but is more than made up for by some of the incredible smart dialogue. Early on, we get a wise discourse about what to say if people are going to beat you up, and what they might assume you to be in return. This speech, by Elliott Gould, is brilliant.

But even more brilliant, and the real highlight of the entire film, is a rambling sermon and wedding ceremony from Donald Sutherland, an "existential" minister. His rambling about "love" and "the deity" is not what you expect fro ma minister and this has to be one of Sutherland's greatest roles.

What was the state of the US during the seventies? Watch the films from that time and you get some insight into a society that was disintegrating rapidly.

Panic In Needle Park, The Laughing Policeman, Taxi Driver, The Last Detail, The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon, among others... capture the fallout of political and social "unrest". The Vietnam War revealed all the fault lines between races, classes, and ideological viewpoints. All the institutions-religious, educational, political-failed to address the rampant and severe social problems that were dividing people.

Have things improved or did an entire generation give up on the promise of radical social change? Even revolutionaries grow tired and disillusioned.

Succinct yet long-winded, hilariously unsettling, this black black black comedy is delicious the first time around, coming at you like ray of light through a keyhole five rooms away. And it gets better with multiple viewings. Elliot Gould is a tousled, endearing anti-hero and Donald Sutherland gives perhaps the best screen performance EVER of an existentialist minister with a bad haircut and a fondness for the phrase `all right.' Sometimes, when my mind wanders over the film, I'll remember a scene, a line, and everything is suddenly all right. Thank GOD for this film. Now that I've found it I'll never have to watch another movie again.

Black comedy about an emotionally vacant New York photographer falling in love with an optimistic girl amidst the violence and madness of the city.

I tried watching this once, years ago, and it just didn't grab me at the time, so I moved along and filed it away in the back of my mind as one of those quirky-but-dated turn-of-the-seventies hippie-era things, like "Who Is Harry Kellerman and Why Is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Me?" or "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice".

I took another look at it today and found it to have a lot more depth and originality than I'd registered the first time round. It might be the most interesting and lifelike Elliot Gould performance, and this elevates the film to something more comparable to "The Graduate" or "Harold & Maude".

It's patchy, and often playfully amateurish, but there are some brilliant stretches, and a lot of the stuff about alienation, numbness and anxiety in the big city feels startlingly up-to-date and beautifully observed.

6.7/10.

Exact rating: 8.25

The pulse of this movie is subversive and menacing, and even though there are many, many great laughs, I think the classification of it as a comedy is wrong. It never feels like a comedy. In terms of tone, it is something like the pilot for Twin Peaks and a Mamet play and an Odets play, but with some strange off off off off Broadway claustrophobia and seventies nihilistic horror. It displays a collapsed and paranoid urban environment in which people are combative with words and isolated by them.

I feel it should be essential viewing for any writer, as it contains four of the best-- if not the actual four best-- monologues I've ever heard in a movie. Arkin and Sutherland have amazing monologues that are only marginally upstaged by those given by Gould and Jacobi.

I laughed many, many times (as did many people in the sold out screening I attended), but when it ended, the haunting and thoughtful core of the movie lingered more than did the comedy.

A rich and allegorical piece that deserves serious study and accolades.

(I saw a 35mm print of the movie at Film Forum, N.Y.)

Yet another 'I should probably see again' film (sigh).

Sometimes very funny, occasionally disturbing super-black comedy about the absurdity of modern urban life.

On first viewing, while some of the performances were wonderful (Donald Sutherland), some were merely OK (Elliott Gould in the lead) and some are over the top and annoying (Lou Jacobi, and, surprisingly, the great Alan Arkin who also directed, perhaps trying to do too much at once).

Too often the cast feel like actors are in different movies, with different styles and levels of reality.

This is a very brave and odd film, with some unforgettable moments, but others that feel awkward and trite.

Most reviews were stronger than my reaction, and I could definitely imagine this being one of those films where the strengths would seems stronger, and the weaknesses less annoying on repeated viewings. Nice cinematography by Gordon Willis.

Of the many many moves I have ever seen, this one ranks #2 - from the bottom. '"John Goldfarb, Please Come Home" was the worst. I found "Little Murders" to be a total unfunny confusion with absolutely no redeeming qualities. And just so you know, "My Cousin Vinnie" and "Moonstruck" are 2 of my favorite comedies - and "Paths of Glory", "Jaws" and "Fargo" will always be at the top of my best movie list.

Elliot Gould is stunningly attractive, which is one of only a few reasons why I watched this insane film all the way through. Each of the characters introduced are in their own right neurotic or uniquely nuts. The only fairly sane person is the young woman who falls in love and marries Gould in order to "change him". The brief appearance of Donald Sutherland as a very progressive minister, who prides himself on the high failure rate of the ceremonies he performs is amusing, as he frankly insults everyone gathered by pointing at their peculiarities, causing an eventual riot.

It takes the film more than half of the running time to get a close up of the "little murders". The most shocking moment is when a blood-drenched Gould takes a subway ride, his visibly near-death appearance raising not a single eye-brow among the many commuters. A middle aged woman matter-of-factly announced that she was shot at, the bullet stopped by her her shopping bags. "Open up, I have leaking groceries". Bizarre! An irate police detective investigating the random murder spree is one of the "bigger nuts" in the cast. WOW! If you enjoy "shock value", then this film is for you. To me, the entire cast was made up of zombies who wander about their existence and can't be bothered by anything. The final scene is the culmination of bizarre occurrences. See for yourself, but for me, this was definitely a one-time-view.

This film is trying very hard to be intellectual. Whether it is or not I do not know. But I certainly do know that it is not entertaining. The film contains exactly one funny scene: the nihilistic wedding performed by Donald Sutherland.