I saw this film when it first came out, and at the time didn't understand the critics' raves and whatnot. Thirty-five years later I decided to see what a callow youth missed (as he viewed it in a drive-in with his own Lucky Lager between his knees). I'm sorry to say that I have not learned much the movie still seems one of the most overrated 'classics' designated as such.
The scenes do not move smoothly; the locations are what, where? Texas? California? How does he get between the two locations so fast in one of the early scenes? How is the meeting with the two tarts arranged? Other scenes' inclusions are hard to understand - why the one scene with his friend's arrest, and the later one with the intellectuals in his family's home? Just so he can defend his girlfriend and shout at a particularly pompous one, and then go chasing after his brother's girlfriend? Which brings me to - why is this guy seen as charming? He is basically a condescending (to both 'classes' he associates with) hedonist, bored with whatever he chases after. By the end of the film he has learned nothing; except to find another way to humiliate a person who is absolutely dedicated to him. Which can be all right after all the film doesn't have to be about a wonderful person but the film could be accepted more easily if it showed these actions in a more coherent, logical manner. And I know the arguments about 'life not always being coherent or logical', but I think films can be.
I also remember rave reviews 30+ years ago concerning the performance of Helen Kallianiotes, playing a hitchhiker. The second time around the performance just comes off as mannered, obnoxious, and unnecessary. Her appearance simply acts as a vignette used as a setup for the famous restaurant scene, which itself appears just to be a setup so Nicholson's character can humiliate yet another 'blue collar' type on his way to 'finding himself'.
I found most of the scenes somewhat boring and most of the angst portrayed as affected and unconvincing. I'm somewhat uplifted to find that possibly I wasn't as callow a youth as I thought; worse yet however, maybe I'm just as callow as an old man
The scenes do not move smoothly; the locations are what, where? Texas? California? How does he get between the two locations so fast in one of the early scenes? How is the meeting with the two tarts arranged? Other scenes' inclusions are hard to understand - why the one scene with his friend's arrest, and the later one with the intellectuals in his family's home? Just so he can defend his girlfriend and shout at a particularly pompous one, and then go chasing after his brother's girlfriend? Which brings me to - why is this guy seen as charming? He is basically a condescending (to both 'classes' he associates with) hedonist, bored with whatever he chases after. By the end of the film he has learned nothing; except to find another way to humiliate a person who is absolutely dedicated to him. Which can be all right after all the film doesn't have to be about a wonderful person but the film could be accepted more easily if it showed these actions in a more coherent, logical manner. And I know the arguments about 'life not always being coherent or logical', but I think films can be.
I also remember rave reviews 30+ years ago concerning the performance of Helen Kallianiotes, playing a hitchhiker. The second time around the performance just comes off as mannered, obnoxious, and unnecessary. Her appearance simply acts as a vignette used as a setup for the famous restaurant scene, which itself appears just to be a setup so Nicholson's character can humiliate yet another 'blue collar' type on his way to 'finding himself'.
I found most of the scenes somewhat boring and most of the angst portrayed as affected and unconvincing. I'm somewhat uplifted to find that possibly I wasn't as callow a youth as I thought; worse yet however, maybe I'm just as callow as an old man