I_Ailurophile
Joined Oct 2002
Welcome to the new profile
We're making some updates, and some features will be temporarily unavailable while we enhance your experience. The previous version will not be accessible after 7/14. Stay tuned for the upcoming relaunch.
Badges6
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4.2K
I_Ailurophile's rating
The best digital falsehood that artists sitting at a computer could ever conjure will very, very rarely hold a candle to real, dangerous stunts, practical effects, and tangible creations. It's part of why 1933's 'King Kong' remains the superlative rendition of the colossal ape; it's why sci-fi fare of the 1950s, with its highly variable quality, still often holds up while yesterday's superhero swill is already forgotten. The more that post-production visuals are relied upon, and the more we see of them, the worse they look and age; consider the sparing lightsabers and laser blasts in 1977's 'Star Wars' versus the uniformly shiny, sterile sheen in the 'Star Wars' prequels circa 2000. Nevertheless, "special effects" have proliferated in recent years while the real has faded from consideration for many filmmakers. Granted, there are significant difficulties (financial, logistical, technical, environmental) in producing real effects and stunts that the industry must reckon with - but the same is also true, if in a different way, of the servers required to power digital embellishments. And as we extend the same thoughts about this disparity between styles from individual movies to the wider medium, one arguable result is that today's filmmakers are somehow happy with a lesser product, the rapidly aging slop of the digital, as if they've given up on the ideal that everyone from Georges Méliès, to Francis Ford Coppola, to Jackie Chan had perfected over time and in their own ways. As everything from flashy effects, to backgrounds and cityscapes, to even touches of lighting and actors' faces receive the Zeroes And Ones treatment, the doing grows more and more tiresome. When it comes to production values in music, television, or cinema, to be frank, "perfect" really is the enemy of "good."
But we'll get back to that in a minute. It's safe to say that I harbored severe skepticism about this picture from the moment it was announced, let alone following tidbits that came out about it over time. Of the many people who participated in its creation, most if not all have some terrific credits to their name, and 'Raiders of the lost ark' and 'The last crusade' are essential classics. On the other hand, the last cinematic venture of Dr. Henry Jones, Jr., 2008's 'Kingdom of the crystal skull,' was rife with issues that dampened its fun and lasting value, not least a level of far-flung spectacle and new-age science fiction that exceeded the scope of the time-tested mix of the supernatural and occult and action-adventure that made even the lesser 'Temple of doom' such a blast. With Steven Spielberg and George Lucas stepping away to make room for James Mangold, and with Harrison Ford donning that well-worn fedora one last time more than forty years after the character debuted, could an action piece with a much older Indy defy the odds and my cynical expectations and be worthwhile? How is 'The dial of destiny,' actually? Happily, to my pleasant surprise, I actually think it's really good! There are definite troubles here that place upper limits on the title's lasting worth, but for as little as I assumed of it sights unseen, I'm very glad at how enjoyable it is.
I think we should talk about those definite troubles first, because in all earnestness they rankled me more than not from the very beginning, and it took a while to start to look past them as the minutes ticked by. There's a reason I harped on the digital wizardry first and foremost, because its extensive use here is decidedly regrettable. By all means, many, many sequences and elements are defined by what is real, from the filming locations and sets, to props, stunts, effects, and more, and it is most welcome. Yet the supposed development of digital techniques and technology over the years has seemingly led many filmmakers (or at least studios) to believe that because these can do anything, they should do everything. This feature amply demonstrates why that's not the case, however, for the heavy usage here is distinctly emptier than the carefully crafted splendor we saw in the previous works of the 80s. The long opening scene is full of that digital falsehood, the "de-aging" of Ford and Mads Mikkelsen is as artistically hollow as it is ethically dubious, most major (action) sequences likewise are retooled with computers, and even smaller touches like backgrounds and lighting are thus questionably "enhanced." There is a clear demarcation between those shots that were digitally tainted and those that were not - for those that were are an eyesore in their artifice, while those that were not, or which suffered that taint only to very subtle degrees, look outstanding. 'The dial of destiny' is a case study in how computer-generated imagery is failing the filmmakers who employ it.
That's the biggest issue facing this, but it's not the only one. There is also a modern sense of frenticism to too much action that's off-putting as it means scenes struggle to achieve all due impact, to say nothing of some bits that come off as overwrought "gosh golly!" spectacle for its own sake. The climax gets a bit messy as the writing team tries to resolve the conflict between the protagonist and the antagonists at the same time as they try to resolve the conflict within the protagonist himself, and to that same point, satisfying as the ending is, I don't think the groundwork was laid for it in the screenplay. Some dialogue is bad, some characters don't receive as much treatment as they should, the opening scene is longer than it should be - and taken together with the contrivances of CGI, there are some aspects in here that suggest not the sum total of the contributions of expert filmmakers, but a second-rate "action" videogame of very linear, by-the-books gameplay. Two and one-half hours is too long insomuch as the whole could have been tightened, but also too short in that some facets could (and maybe should) have been expanded upon.
If all this seems like a lot of criticism to follow my exclamation of "it's really good," however, it must be noted that far, far more than not, there is excellent substance to this film, and more than its immediate predecessor could claim. I have my critiques and I hold to them, yet in my book 'The dial of destiny' feels like the movie that 'Kingdom of the crystal skull' should have been. More pages could have been spent on Indy passing into old age and a world passing him by, but it was handled reasonably well all the same. More pages could have been spent rounding out select characters, including Voller, Teddy, and even Helena, yet we are nonetheless given reason to care about these figures, or to cheer against the scum who are the villains this time around. While I would wish for more stunts and practical effects over that mediocre CGI, the best instances of the latter (mostly the centerpiece of the climax) do look really sharp - and even with all this in mind, and the freneticism and spectacle, overall the action scenes are duly exciting. And I think this picture meaningfully achieves that blend that made audiences fall in love with 'Raiders' and 'Crusade' all those years ago: the action and adventure, yes, but also the quiet drama and personal interactions, the quick wit and bright humor, the solving of mysteries and riddles and puzzles, the big stakes and thrills, and the characters who exist on a spectrum from virtuous and friendly, to reprehensible and evil, and everywhere in between. Again, I hold to what harsh words I've laid down, yet as the length drew on, I was sincerely invested in the proceedings such that those concerns mostly fell away until the credits began rolling.
All throughout are faults big and small. All throughout, too, are joys big and small, and on the balance these far outweigh the latter. I think these joys also include the cast, for though I repeat that some characters' involvement is not handled so well, I cannot fault the cast for solid acting of range, nuance, physicality, and even occasional depth. My commendations to Phoebe Waller-Bridge, for in her portrayal of Helena I rather think she steals the show from her co-stars. John Williams' score is as fantastic as ever, and even the costume design is quite fetching. Truly, for everything that is wrong about this title, it could have gone much more wrong. And it didn't. No one doubted its prospects more than me from the time it was announced (since before that, if we're including the very existence of 'Crystal skull'), so no one is more astonished than I am at how worthy 'The dial of destiny' is. I recognize that in the grand scheme of pop culture it has not been received well, but I can only say that for my part, I find it a fine, honorable conclusion to the saga that began in 1981. It certainly hasn't and will not find equal favor among all comers, but if someone as jaded as me can sit down for this fifth 'Indiana Jones' and be entertained, I can only give it my very warm recommendation!
But we'll get back to that in a minute. It's safe to say that I harbored severe skepticism about this picture from the moment it was announced, let alone following tidbits that came out about it over time. Of the many people who participated in its creation, most if not all have some terrific credits to their name, and 'Raiders of the lost ark' and 'The last crusade' are essential classics. On the other hand, the last cinematic venture of Dr. Henry Jones, Jr., 2008's 'Kingdom of the crystal skull,' was rife with issues that dampened its fun and lasting value, not least a level of far-flung spectacle and new-age science fiction that exceeded the scope of the time-tested mix of the supernatural and occult and action-adventure that made even the lesser 'Temple of doom' such a blast. With Steven Spielberg and George Lucas stepping away to make room for James Mangold, and with Harrison Ford donning that well-worn fedora one last time more than forty years after the character debuted, could an action piece with a much older Indy defy the odds and my cynical expectations and be worthwhile? How is 'The dial of destiny,' actually? Happily, to my pleasant surprise, I actually think it's really good! There are definite troubles here that place upper limits on the title's lasting worth, but for as little as I assumed of it sights unseen, I'm very glad at how enjoyable it is.
I think we should talk about those definite troubles first, because in all earnestness they rankled me more than not from the very beginning, and it took a while to start to look past them as the minutes ticked by. There's a reason I harped on the digital wizardry first and foremost, because its extensive use here is decidedly regrettable. By all means, many, many sequences and elements are defined by what is real, from the filming locations and sets, to props, stunts, effects, and more, and it is most welcome. Yet the supposed development of digital techniques and technology over the years has seemingly led many filmmakers (or at least studios) to believe that because these can do anything, they should do everything. This feature amply demonstrates why that's not the case, however, for the heavy usage here is distinctly emptier than the carefully crafted splendor we saw in the previous works of the 80s. The long opening scene is full of that digital falsehood, the "de-aging" of Ford and Mads Mikkelsen is as artistically hollow as it is ethically dubious, most major (action) sequences likewise are retooled with computers, and even smaller touches like backgrounds and lighting are thus questionably "enhanced." There is a clear demarcation between those shots that were digitally tainted and those that were not - for those that were are an eyesore in their artifice, while those that were not, or which suffered that taint only to very subtle degrees, look outstanding. 'The dial of destiny' is a case study in how computer-generated imagery is failing the filmmakers who employ it.
That's the biggest issue facing this, but it's not the only one. There is also a modern sense of frenticism to too much action that's off-putting as it means scenes struggle to achieve all due impact, to say nothing of some bits that come off as overwrought "gosh golly!" spectacle for its own sake. The climax gets a bit messy as the writing team tries to resolve the conflict between the protagonist and the antagonists at the same time as they try to resolve the conflict within the protagonist himself, and to that same point, satisfying as the ending is, I don't think the groundwork was laid for it in the screenplay. Some dialogue is bad, some characters don't receive as much treatment as they should, the opening scene is longer than it should be - and taken together with the contrivances of CGI, there are some aspects in here that suggest not the sum total of the contributions of expert filmmakers, but a second-rate "action" videogame of very linear, by-the-books gameplay. Two and one-half hours is too long insomuch as the whole could have been tightened, but also too short in that some facets could (and maybe should) have been expanded upon.
If all this seems like a lot of criticism to follow my exclamation of "it's really good," however, it must be noted that far, far more than not, there is excellent substance to this film, and more than its immediate predecessor could claim. I have my critiques and I hold to them, yet in my book 'The dial of destiny' feels like the movie that 'Kingdom of the crystal skull' should have been. More pages could have been spent on Indy passing into old age and a world passing him by, but it was handled reasonably well all the same. More pages could have been spent rounding out select characters, including Voller, Teddy, and even Helena, yet we are nonetheless given reason to care about these figures, or to cheer against the scum who are the villains this time around. While I would wish for more stunts and practical effects over that mediocre CGI, the best instances of the latter (mostly the centerpiece of the climax) do look really sharp - and even with all this in mind, and the freneticism and spectacle, overall the action scenes are duly exciting. And I think this picture meaningfully achieves that blend that made audiences fall in love with 'Raiders' and 'Crusade' all those years ago: the action and adventure, yes, but also the quiet drama and personal interactions, the quick wit and bright humor, the solving of mysteries and riddles and puzzles, the big stakes and thrills, and the characters who exist on a spectrum from virtuous and friendly, to reprehensible and evil, and everywhere in between. Again, I hold to what harsh words I've laid down, yet as the length drew on, I was sincerely invested in the proceedings such that those concerns mostly fell away until the credits began rolling.
All throughout are faults big and small. All throughout, too, are joys big and small, and on the balance these far outweigh the latter. I think these joys also include the cast, for though I repeat that some characters' involvement is not handled so well, I cannot fault the cast for solid acting of range, nuance, physicality, and even occasional depth. My commendations to Phoebe Waller-Bridge, for in her portrayal of Helena I rather think she steals the show from her co-stars. John Williams' score is as fantastic as ever, and even the costume design is quite fetching. Truly, for everything that is wrong about this title, it could have gone much more wrong. And it didn't. No one doubted its prospects more than me from the time it was announced (since before that, if we're including the very existence of 'Crystal skull'), so no one is more astonished than I am at how worthy 'The dial of destiny' is. I recognize that in the grand scheme of pop culture it has not been received well, but I can only say that for my part, I find it a fine, honorable conclusion to the saga that began in 1981. It certainly hasn't and will not find equal favor among all comers, but if someone as jaded as me can sit down for this fifth 'Indiana Jones' and be entertained, I can only give it my very warm recommendation!
I'm unfamiliar with filmmaker Stimson Snead, but it's an incredible supporting cast that he somehow assembled for this piece, and that alone is enough to warrant a look. Right from the very start we're also greeted with gratifyingly sharp production values - unexpected for such a small, unknown title - and an original score of synthwave from composers Si Begg and Damon Baxter that, to my absolute pleasure, goes a lot harder than it ever needed to (and never really lets up). We do also have to factor in the very premise, however: it's interesting and primed for amusement, but there's a question of how successfully and/or how seriously Snead will toy with time travel, a conceit which has been the sticking point for many a piece of fiction. Thankfully, however, like those other joys that greet us so rapidly, we don't need to wait to find out, because 'Tim Travers and the time traveler's paradox' is a total blast, and I'm aghast that this hasn't gotten bigger reception!
As it happens, Snead has gone about his time travel flippancy in a wonderfully shrewd manner. It lays the foundation for the plot, and for the clever, vibrant humor that will be peppered throughout - yet neither the plot nor the humor are fully reliant on the intricacies of time travel being impeccably thought out and scientifically cohesive to work, so it's easy to just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. At the same "time," however, in his dialogue and scene work Snead builds on the plot and humor with meaningful (and fast-paced, and sometimes heavy) exploration of theoretical notions of science and philosophy, with the result that even as a viewer need not dwell on the particulars to have a good time, to dwell on and get twisted up in those particulars definitely adds another layer to the frivolities. Even that's not enough for Snead, though, for when he's not slyly referencing the bootstrap paradox or other minutiae, he's gleefully toying with other fantastical notions that have been dreamt up over time, and fiddling with the narrative structure, all while never losing sight of the plot and comedy. Frankly, just in considering all this, Snead's screenplay is possibly among the most brilliant I've ever seen.
But we're just getting started! Felicia Day, Joel McHale, Danny Trejo, and Keith David boast the star power, and it's a delight to see them at play here, but those in other supporting parts, including Snead himself, are just as great. Above all, as he takes the central role of time traveling tinkerer Tim Travers, it cannot be overstated how excellent Samuel Dunning is. This flick allows Dunning to exercise all his muscles as an actor, and even setting aside all the other glory to greet us, I think this would be worth watching just for him. This is to say nothing of the select few yet superb filming locations, ingeniously employed as they are through Snead's writing and direction, or the relatively light yet lovingly attended production design and art direction, props, costume design, and hair and makeup. What practical stunts and effects are employed are terrific; while post-production visuals aren't the top of the line, they're pretty darn stupendous, and far better than one might anticipate based on the nature of small-time productions that have proliferated across the Internet in the past ten to fifteen years. Our eyes are also met with keen cinematography, editing, sound, and even lighting; in all sincerity, what's not to love here?
Subtly but smoothly the story turns over time from riotous, far-out humor to darker and more serious sci-fi energies, and in every capacity the participants keep up with flawless ease and the vitality to match. In writing, in direction, in acting, in the music, and in every trace of the craftsmanship lies tremendous wit and originality as the picture dances across a marvelous bounty of very big ideas. With all this having been said, I don't think the feature is entirely perfect. There is some imbalance in the audio, for compared to literally anything else one might watch through any platform, by default the volume is so loud that one has to turn their speakers way down. A few instances of digital wizardry in the last act weirdly received less consideration than elsewhere in these ninety-some minutes, including even others in the last act that are even more grandiose and prevalent and nevertheless look outstanding. And for as bright as the considerable majority of everything is here, I can't help but think that Snead ran into some trouble with his third act, for he enters a narrative space that feels kind of oddly conventional in its far-flung whimsy. The wit and big thoughts continue through to the end, yet it somewhat comes across that Snead had difficulty resolving the plot, and he did after all get bogged down in the enormity of what he conjured and lost sight somewhere in the process.
Still, though less sure-footed in the back end, I can only repeat that much, much more than not, 'Tim Travers and the time-traveler's paradox' is fantastic. Where I'd argue it stumbles, the fault is no worse than we see in other kindred fare, and the difference here is that at its best - and for the preponderance of its runtime - this movie is incredibly smart, funny, and absorbing in ways that too many others aren't. No, it's not perfect, but even with fair criticisms in mind the sum total is so good that I could hardly be more pleased. I had high hopes based on Day's involvement, if I'm being honest, because at this point in her professional career I don't think she's prone to making ill-informed judgments, and my expectations have been well exceeded. It won't appeal to all comers nor meet with equal favor, but I found this to be fabulously entertaining, and I'm glad to give 'Tim Travers and the time traveler's paradox' my high recommendation!
As it happens, Snead has gone about his time travel flippancy in a wonderfully shrewd manner. It lays the foundation for the plot, and for the clever, vibrant humor that will be peppered throughout - yet neither the plot nor the humor are fully reliant on the intricacies of time travel being impeccably thought out and scientifically cohesive to work, so it's easy to just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. At the same "time," however, in his dialogue and scene work Snead builds on the plot and humor with meaningful (and fast-paced, and sometimes heavy) exploration of theoretical notions of science and philosophy, with the result that even as a viewer need not dwell on the particulars to have a good time, to dwell on and get twisted up in those particulars definitely adds another layer to the frivolities. Even that's not enough for Snead, though, for when he's not slyly referencing the bootstrap paradox or other minutiae, he's gleefully toying with other fantastical notions that have been dreamt up over time, and fiddling with the narrative structure, all while never losing sight of the plot and comedy. Frankly, just in considering all this, Snead's screenplay is possibly among the most brilliant I've ever seen.
But we're just getting started! Felicia Day, Joel McHale, Danny Trejo, and Keith David boast the star power, and it's a delight to see them at play here, but those in other supporting parts, including Snead himself, are just as great. Above all, as he takes the central role of time traveling tinkerer Tim Travers, it cannot be overstated how excellent Samuel Dunning is. This flick allows Dunning to exercise all his muscles as an actor, and even setting aside all the other glory to greet us, I think this would be worth watching just for him. This is to say nothing of the select few yet superb filming locations, ingeniously employed as they are through Snead's writing and direction, or the relatively light yet lovingly attended production design and art direction, props, costume design, and hair and makeup. What practical stunts and effects are employed are terrific; while post-production visuals aren't the top of the line, they're pretty darn stupendous, and far better than one might anticipate based on the nature of small-time productions that have proliferated across the Internet in the past ten to fifteen years. Our eyes are also met with keen cinematography, editing, sound, and even lighting; in all sincerity, what's not to love here?
Subtly but smoothly the story turns over time from riotous, far-out humor to darker and more serious sci-fi energies, and in every capacity the participants keep up with flawless ease and the vitality to match. In writing, in direction, in acting, in the music, and in every trace of the craftsmanship lies tremendous wit and originality as the picture dances across a marvelous bounty of very big ideas. With all this having been said, I don't think the feature is entirely perfect. There is some imbalance in the audio, for compared to literally anything else one might watch through any platform, by default the volume is so loud that one has to turn their speakers way down. A few instances of digital wizardry in the last act weirdly received less consideration than elsewhere in these ninety-some minutes, including even others in the last act that are even more grandiose and prevalent and nevertheless look outstanding. And for as bright as the considerable majority of everything is here, I can't help but think that Snead ran into some trouble with his third act, for he enters a narrative space that feels kind of oddly conventional in its far-flung whimsy. The wit and big thoughts continue through to the end, yet it somewhat comes across that Snead had difficulty resolving the plot, and he did after all get bogged down in the enormity of what he conjured and lost sight somewhere in the process.
Still, though less sure-footed in the back end, I can only repeat that much, much more than not, 'Tim Travers and the time-traveler's paradox' is fantastic. Where I'd argue it stumbles, the fault is no worse than we see in other kindred fare, and the difference here is that at its best - and for the preponderance of its runtime - this movie is incredibly smart, funny, and absorbing in ways that too many others aren't. No, it's not perfect, but even with fair criticisms in mind the sum total is so good that I could hardly be more pleased. I had high hopes based on Day's involvement, if I'm being honest, because at this point in her professional career I don't think she's prone to making ill-informed judgments, and my expectations have been well exceeded. It won't appeal to all comers nor meet with equal favor, but I found this to be fabulously entertaining, and I'm glad to give 'Tim Travers and the time traveler's paradox' my high recommendation!
I'm not someone who really likes sports, though I've been known to make occasional exceptions for hockey, soccer, and even cricket. I'm no fan of sports movies, either, not least because it's a genre prone to tired formula. 'Slap shot,' however, is not your average sports movie. It bears elements that are common to many of its kin, sure, as it touches upon the lives and chaos of a hockey team both on and off the ice, with a discrete plot of drama setting the foundation. As a slightly older film, there are also bits of dialogue or scene writing that haven't aged well, or which today are rightly considered inappropriate and offensive, including a lot of casually dispensed homophobic slurs, and boorish sexism - the stereotypical but aggravatingly real "locker room talk," unabashedly thrust into the spotlight. Modern viewers may also be surprised at how coarse and juvenile some of the humor is in this, showing that today's flicks for the college crowd aren't reinventing anything with their anatomy and sex jokes, and there's enough profanity in the script to allow one to suppose that Quentin Tarantino learned how to write dialogue by watching this in his youth.
Yet this really is readily set apart from its brethren. Part of that is because no matter how much we may raise an eyebrow at some of the intended humor, 'Slap shot' definitely earns a lot of big laughs, and this is far funnier than many other so-called comedies could claim. Much of that can be attributed to screenwriter Nancy Dowd, for her characters, scenes, and dialogue are notably sharper and more vibrant than in much kindred fare, with more personality in them and more intelligence behind them. It's not just about the humor, though, for an unexpectedly shrewd, absorbing story underlies the riotous shenanigans and makes them all the richer. Dowd touches upon the economic hardship of small factory towns as the flagging Charlestown Chiefs learn they're at risk of being dissolved, and player-coach Reggie takes enormous risks - personally, and professionally - in his attempts to revitalize the team. With that in mind, this picture is a dark comedy with a searing edge that most reminds me of Elaine May's brilliant anti-comedy 'The heartbreak kid': the stark, surprisingly strong violence on hand, the infusion of grim notions from real life, and the themes and sly commentary that are invoked all work together to sometimes elicit reactions that aren't so much giddy chortles as they are shocked, uncomfortable gasps of breath. Honestly, the sum total is only a few steps away from being dark to the point of being depressing.
And still Dowd's screenplay is smart enough to stay light on its feet, tantalizingly playing with the harsher aspects but declining to fully dive in. And meanwhile, everyone else who participated here leaps right into those same sensibilities with a vitality that's invigorating. There are times, perhaps most of all at the very end, when the amalgamation gets a tad jumbled with everything that is being woven together, yet director George Roy Hill, the cast, and even cinematographer Victor J. Kemper and editor Dede Allen were clearly of one mind in bringing the feature to vivid life with all the zest they could muster. Some shots are particularly excellent; the editing is flawlessly fluid. And while Paul Newman certainly carries the most star power among the actors, everyone here has a time to shine at one point or another - a fine credit to Michael Ontkean, Strother Martin, Lindsay Crouse, Jeff and Steve Carlson, David Hanson, Paul D'Amato, and still others. This is to say nothing of the stunts and effects, the great filming locations and production design, or the fine sound design, and Hill brings it all to bear with an energy that's most welcome.
In all sincerity I find myself surprised. In some regards 'Slap shot' is just as I expected, yet its' better, funnier, more cunning, and more carefully crafted than I anticipate of most comedies, or of sports films. While I understand that it's gathered a cult following over time, to sit and watch it also doesn't strike me as the sort of title that usually does attain such a reputation. Between marginal messiness in the conglomeration of ideas and those facets that don't sit so well with the world of almost 50 years later, I wouldn't say that the whole is perfect. It IS very, very good, however, and so long as the violence, profanity, sexuality, and more tawdry tidbits aren't an obstacle for anyone, I'm glad to give this my solid recommendation. Against all odds 'Slap shot' is a sports comedy that holds up splendidly overall, and all this time later it's well worth checking out.
Yet this really is readily set apart from its brethren. Part of that is because no matter how much we may raise an eyebrow at some of the intended humor, 'Slap shot' definitely earns a lot of big laughs, and this is far funnier than many other so-called comedies could claim. Much of that can be attributed to screenwriter Nancy Dowd, for her characters, scenes, and dialogue are notably sharper and more vibrant than in much kindred fare, with more personality in them and more intelligence behind them. It's not just about the humor, though, for an unexpectedly shrewd, absorbing story underlies the riotous shenanigans and makes them all the richer. Dowd touches upon the economic hardship of small factory towns as the flagging Charlestown Chiefs learn they're at risk of being dissolved, and player-coach Reggie takes enormous risks - personally, and professionally - in his attempts to revitalize the team. With that in mind, this picture is a dark comedy with a searing edge that most reminds me of Elaine May's brilliant anti-comedy 'The heartbreak kid': the stark, surprisingly strong violence on hand, the infusion of grim notions from real life, and the themes and sly commentary that are invoked all work together to sometimes elicit reactions that aren't so much giddy chortles as they are shocked, uncomfortable gasps of breath. Honestly, the sum total is only a few steps away from being dark to the point of being depressing.
And still Dowd's screenplay is smart enough to stay light on its feet, tantalizingly playing with the harsher aspects but declining to fully dive in. And meanwhile, everyone else who participated here leaps right into those same sensibilities with a vitality that's invigorating. There are times, perhaps most of all at the very end, when the amalgamation gets a tad jumbled with everything that is being woven together, yet director George Roy Hill, the cast, and even cinematographer Victor J. Kemper and editor Dede Allen were clearly of one mind in bringing the feature to vivid life with all the zest they could muster. Some shots are particularly excellent; the editing is flawlessly fluid. And while Paul Newman certainly carries the most star power among the actors, everyone here has a time to shine at one point or another - a fine credit to Michael Ontkean, Strother Martin, Lindsay Crouse, Jeff and Steve Carlson, David Hanson, Paul D'Amato, and still others. This is to say nothing of the stunts and effects, the great filming locations and production design, or the fine sound design, and Hill brings it all to bear with an energy that's most welcome.
In all sincerity I find myself surprised. In some regards 'Slap shot' is just as I expected, yet its' better, funnier, more cunning, and more carefully crafted than I anticipate of most comedies, or of sports films. While I understand that it's gathered a cult following over time, to sit and watch it also doesn't strike me as the sort of title that usually does attain such a reputation. Between marginal messiness in the conglomeration of ideas and those facets that don't sit so well with the world of almost 50 years later, I wouldn't say that the whole is perfect. It IS very, very good, however, and so long as the violence, profanity, sexuality, and more tawdry tidbits aren't an obstacle for anyone, I'm glad to give this my solid recommendation. Against all odds 'Slap shot' is a sports comedy that holds up splendidly overall, and all this time later it's well worth checking out.