Reviews on movie Raintree County (2)

Glorious good Illinois sample as early as 1859. Here, in the picturesque district of Raintree, a handsome young man grows up and an idealist (all the golden tree is looking for) John, who has been romantically friends with the blonde Nely since childhood. But ahead of him is a meeting with a brunette-southern Susanna, whom John still marries, and there is already a Civilian coming. What's the problem with this whole story? What the fuck does she know?
For 160 minutes of the film, I asked myself this question: what is the problem? What is all this giant canvas about? And after all this long timekeeping, I never got an answer. Of course, immediately begs the analogy with the nettle "Gone with the Wind" - the war of the South and the North, vintage dresses, Hollywood stars of the first magnitude, costumed extras ... But this is only a superficial analogy, because the difference between Gone with the Wind and Raintree County is the same as between a collector's car and a plywood dummy made for a collector's car.
Firstly, this epic story based on a novel by a certain Ross Lockridge (the writer, incidentally, died when he was only 33 years old). I have no idea what this whole thing looks like on paper, but the film doesn’t have any issues at all. Two ladies love a good boy, he marries one, and the one he marries is not very friendly with his head, having some kind of bzik from childhood associated with a black maid. Why the problem of not the most interesting Freudian deviations to put on the background of the Civil War, I do not quite understand, but this is the author's research. Another thing is that behind all this tinsel there is absolutely no dynamics or intrigue.
Secondly, with all due respect to the directorial talents of Edward Dmitrick (I respected this director after Kane's Rebellion), it is worth admitting that he absolutely did not know how to shoot epic canvases with huge extras. All the extras caught up in the film look miserable and parochial, and if the director focused on interior-suit visualization, he would definitely not lose, and still would save money to producers. Because to see the events of the historical era in the film exactly does not work. Yes, the costumes were sewn qualitatively, but they did not decorate the picture itself. And Dmitrik himself is remembered except that some manic desire to show the actors, rustling in shoes / dresses / costumes on the rivers-swamps, while often completely out of place (unfortunate Montgomery Clift 10 times during the film wanders in clothes in the water).
And thirdly, acting. Yes, 25-year-old Elizabeth Taylor by 1957 has become a star of the first magnitude. But the image of a southern woman with a psychological jump she this time came out crumpled, and for what mats she also got the Oscar nomination is completely unclear. The same Montgomery Clift, who returned to the big meter after a 4-year break, looked much more convincing, although the lamentations of his character also did not cause special emotions. Of the three actors, the “right blonde” looked much more interesting. Eva Marie Saint, who against the background of the crazy heroine Taylor caused at least some sympathy. But in general, the smooth play of very good actors does not brighten up a completely meaningless and tediously long canvas.
In total, we have a pretentious swing with extremely incompetent implementation. "Gone with the Wind" did not work. It turned out "Raintree County" - an anthem of boring and many hours of meaninglessness.

6 out of 10

Sometimes it happens that producers try to “program” the success of a movie. The main role invites unconditional stars, prepare the script for the famous bestseller and artificially try to get into the trend.
Obviously, that’s what the Raintree County producers did. They took as a basis a typical “southern” epic. Yes, so that constantly begs for quite ridiculous comparisons with “Gone with the wind”. Invited three main actors - the cult Montgomery Clift, and star Liz Taylor and Eve Marie Saint. And as a director was invited a wonderful master Edward Dmitrick.

Here’s the recipe for Raintree County success: a lot was expected from the film. And I can’t say that the picture does not meet expectations.

This is a beautifully shot, "big" film - an epic. In the 80s and 90s, such films loved to produce Saul Zents.The film tells about the family of Shonnesi - a young man who during the film grew up, started a family, struggled with racial prejudice and stoically withstood the mental illness of his wife.

As the plot unfolds, we encounter such landmark events as the abolition of slavery, the assassination of Lincoln and the war between North and South.
Western aesthetes will not fail to notice in a very small but memorable role - Lee Marvin.
Well, if we talk about the performers of the main roles, then everyone played cool and professionally, but within the framework of the already existing clichés. Montgomery Clift is as laid-back as his character in The Search of 1946. Liz Taylor, in general, with enviable regularity played the role of mentally unstable women. Therefore, the parallels of Raintree County in such films as Suddenly, Last Summer, Boom, Secret Ceremony are quite obvious.
Perhaps a pleasant exception was only Yves Marie Saint, who, I think, really tried very hard when working on the role.
Although, of course, these are actors of the highest standard. It’s worth a little bit of an episode at the beginning of the movie where Clift gets heavily drunk. At first glance, the simple task of depicting a drunk is insanely complex, the slightest nuance and falsity will be immediately noticeable, especially in the master. But, it is in such a simple scene that it is noticeable how easily and effortlessly Clift coped with all the tasks in his career.
Developing lines of connections and parallels with other films, I would single out "i" The Night Is Tender" and "Last Time I Saw Paris," another Civil War epic, "Cold Mountain," Lumet's anti-racist "Out of the Race of Fugitives.

In the end: This very professional film, which played the stars of the 50s, it is difficult to attribute to the masterpieces. The picture seems predictable and a bit academic. But if you don’t pay attention to the details, then we have a very good film. A film that you can enjoy watching today.

7 out of 10