Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

eigaeye Knowing nothing about this firm, apart from the very handy cast, I was surprised and pleased how good it was. The story is simple and not especially original - a family in the logging business defy a strike by the unionised labour in their district and keep working - but it is told with considerable intelligence and gusto.The entire cast are excellent; they are working with a strong script (an adaptation from a book, which I have not read); and Paul Newman proves himself a skillful director, in this first- up effort. The film's greatest impact point, however, is its setting, in Oregon, and the extensive and exciting sequences of tree felling, trimming, hauling and rafting. These are not fillers; they lie the heart of the film and drive the narrative. Two scenes stand out, in particular: when Hank (Newman's character) is trying to keep his brother (who is trapped under a log in the river) from drowning, by mouth to mouth resuscitation underwater; and Henry Fonda, the mortally injured family patriarch Henry Stamper, in hospital, defying death right to his last gasp.The central conflict is between the independent, accountable-to-no-one Stamper family and the lumbermen's union, but the more telling commentary on the Stamper philosophy is provided by Lee Remick's character, Hank's wife. On the back of a typically sensitive and wry Remick performance, she is the real counterpoint to the macho, 'life is work, shagging and drinking' world view the family personify. It's not that she wishes to tear it down or even repudiate it; she simply finds it is not enough.The camera-work and editing are first class. The DVD looks and sounds great. There is enormous energy in the production, which builds to a powerful and convincing conclusion.

kenjha An Oregon logging family refuses to join the local union in a strike, leading to tension in the small town. The best-selling Kesey novel becomes a lackluster film. This was Newman's second stint in the director's chair and he seems unsure about how to tell a good story. The plot moves in fits and starts, making it hard to become invested in the story. Too much screen time is devoted to logging scenes that disrupt the narrative flow. The film is best remembered for a heart-wrenching scene involving a logging accident. Newman, Fonda, and Remick head a good cast, with Jaeckel particularly impressive as Newman's cousin.

dedalus-16 I saw this seventies movie for the first time last night. It must be one of the greats. The story line from Kesey's book, and the direction by Paul Newman are so closely woven and with such impact that there are times when one is left emotionally bare. There's not a fault in the casting,and the background of logging is nicely interwoven into the action bringing up surprise after surprise. The only flaw might be the glamorization of Lee Remick - I doubt that her character would show such a degree of grooming and cosmetic sophistication, but, as ever, Ms. Remick gives a performance that is impeccable. If awards were ever to come PaulNewman's way for direction and/or acting surely they should for this masterpiece.

Paul Wegner Unfortunately, as much as I love Paul Newman as an actor, the movie version of Ken Kesey's incredible book could have used a more seasoned director for its translation to the big screen. The perfect cast (the book even mentions Hank Stamper as looking like a muscular Paul Newman!), and some great performances (Fonda, Jaeckel, Remick), but the story just doesn't come across on film the way it should. I remember the first time I saw this movie was in the late 70's on TV (Portland's KPTV-12). It was so chopped-up for television that the story, character motivations, and ending made no sense at all to me. I loved Kesey's book "Cookoo's Nest" so read the novel of "Sometimes" to try to make some sense of what the story was all about. The book was an amazingly nuanced work of fiction with a great deal of depth and under-story (reading between the lines); none of which I saw on the TV screening. I later rented the video but even with the unedited version of the film, I found the story very lacking and barely comprehensive. I've recently watched the rental again (2005) and found more in the film than I had remembered, but I still feel that unless you've read the book, you can't truly understand what this movie and the character motivations are all about. They're just barely eluded to in the film version. In spite of all that, it's still a worthwhile movie to watch. If nothing else, it chronicles some great, authentic-looking logging footage. If you can, however, read the novel first and then catch the film. Also, if you ever make it to Newport, Oregon, visit the harbor bar "Bay Haven" where the scenes for the "Snag" were filmed. Tell them the old bartender from the "Embarcadero" sent you. ;-)