Lovin' Molly

It's seems clear that Sidney Lumet was unfamiliar with the setting, the characters, the story...I mean, Gid is a cowboy wearing OVERALLS--Gid's NOT a farmer! He was afraid of Texas, and moved back east to New Jersey to shoot the remainder of the film--no wonder the film looks like a TV movie. It should have been directed by someone else, someone who understood the place, and written by a screenwriter who understood the characters and story, like McMurtry himself, perhaps??? Maybe someday it will be re-done, and done justly. It's a moving and complex story, one that deserves to be told in the affecting way it's written. Eastwood as director? It spans a 45-year period, and though challenging, with the appropriate writer and director and actors would make for a timeless, memorable film.

Based on the touching Larry McMurtry novel Leaving Cheyenne, this 1974 western romance is a gem. I loved it so much, I watched it twice in one week - an honor of mine reserved for very special movies. It's told in sections, like the novel, focusing on each of the three characters' perspectives. First is young Anthony Perkins. He's grown up working on the family farm and trying to be responsible and mature like his father. His best friend, Beau Bridges, is a cowboy. He doesn't want to settle down and own his own land someday; he just wants to be a hired hand and be free to go where the wind takes him. The two pals are extremely close, and their near brotherly relationship is the strongest in the story. Even when they both fall in love with the same girl, Blythe Danner, their friendship never wavers.

As the years pass, Blythe is forced to make a choice between the two. Her choice surprises everyone, and the rest of the film shows how they cope and move on with the rest of their lives. Romance and friendship are the leads of the story, but hard work, responsibility, consequences, and time are also given strong supporting roles. Lovin' Molly isn't just a movie; it feels like you're witnessing the characters' lives. They become so dear to your heart, you'll be anxious to get a copy of the novel to get to know them even better. I usually prefer the movie to the book, and even though McMurtry's words are full of poignancy, this adaptation is equally haunting. The characters are given faces and fleshed out extremely well. I've never seen Psycho, but even if Anthony Perkins has been ruined for you, you can still see him with fresh eyes in this role. Beau Bridges is lovable and puts a smile on your face with his playful attitude. And even Blythe Danner, whom I don't really like, is sufficiently careless to make her character believable.

Lovin' Molly is wonderful. Every time I watch it, the ending and final lines make me tear up. I highly recommend it. Released in a year when grandiose movies like The Great Gatsby, Chinatown, and Murder on the Orient Express overshadowed intimate films like this, it still makes an impression.

Coming on the heels of The Last Picture Show, this Larry McMurtry adaptation must've sounded like a sure thing with the likes of Beau Bridges, Anthony Perkins, and Blythe Danner before the cameras and the great Sidney Lumet behind but ultimately this film is a case of too much too soon. This story, which resembles last year's The Hi-Lo Country, could've been much more interesting in the hands of others. Bridges and Danner give their acting chops a good exercise but it's a case of bringing on newcomers before their time while Perkins is just miscast period. Even Lumet shows he's in unfamiliar territory by shooting the outdoor sequences in a flat, TV movie fashion while keeping the performances more in tune with the melodramatic films of yesteryear instead of being true to the times in which the film was made. Imagine what Sam Peckinpah or Martin Ritt could've done with the material. Neither being completely horrible or forgivably worthwhile, Lovin' Molly will remain an interesting footnote in the careers of all involved.

Lovin' Molly very accurately captures the emotion, mood, and zeitgeist of the times it's set in. The film stands on its own regardless of having read the book.

Also, Anthony Perkins is most definitely not miscast. I found his portrayal of Gid quite compelling. His ability to contrast against Johnny (Beau Bridges) was spot on.

Mr Fry (Edward Binns) was not sufficiently developed but the film does an excellent job capturing the character. I would have liked to see more of the interaction with Mr. Taylor (Claude Traverse) and Gid.

I highly recommend this film to any fan of Larry McMurtry as an example of his earlier works.

Maybe it's not such a bad movie if you haven't read the book. But after reading the book which has something muggy, something atmospheric around watching the movie is a boring and tedious business. Even the characters are miscast. How can you believe Anthony Perkins is Gid? Besides they should have made ONE story for the movie out of the three perspectives in the book. Following the book this closely for the movie was a mistake. Another thing is that the characters don't change age. They don't get visibly older. If you think that a movie like Chinatown was made around the same time you see what I mean with lack of quality. Lovin' Molly is too much a book filming in which they tried to stay faithful to the book. Anyway, maybe somebody who never read the book can enjoy it.