Boorman & Marvin: 2 years, 2 movies, 2 classics

The late 60's were very kind to Lee Marvin. After 15 years of playing supporting characters; usually some sort of a bad guy, a soldier, or even a bad guy soldier, Marvin was slowly starting to develop himself into a leading man. After a nice fat Oscar win for Cat Ballou (1965) in early 1966 that transformation was complete. Those small bit part days were long gone now. And, even large supporting roles seemed to be a thing of the past. Lee was a legitimate star now. So, Lee being the god among men that he was decided to go on an impressive hot streak of movies that were either hits, critical favorites, or even both at the same time. He directly followed Cat Ballou with The Professionals (1966) and The Dirty Dozen (1967), two highly successful movies both critically and financially. Not bad for a character actor. Now, where things get really interesting is his teaming with an unknown director and friend, John Boorman. Lee and John met while Lee was filming The Dirty Dozen in England. They struck an immediate friendship and started developing a movie together. After Lee is finished shooting The Dirty Dozen he immediately goes with this project. As you could imagine, Lee Marvin had some juice back then. So, when Lee Marvin tells MGM he defers all of his approvals to this unknown director, John Boorman, MGM listens. And, what you get is John Boorman being able to experiment more than he probably deserved to. Hey, Lee Marvin approves. Why shouldn't he be able to experiment? Well, it's a good thing, because Boorman got to make what ended up being a highly experimental, amazing, $3 million dollar art film with one of the biggest movie stars in the world as his star.


Point Blank (1967). If you want a rough idea of what a hot streak Lee Marvin was on, here it is. The Dirty Dozen came out June of '67. Point Blank came out August of '67. In one summer, Marvin was in two movies that are cool enough to be the one highlight of anybody elses entire career. Marvin spent the Summer of '67 alone with both of them. Now, Point Blank is a movie that's been discussed in depth by people much smarter than me. Martin Scorsese devoted a whole piece of his Personal Journey through American Movies to it for crying out loud. All you need to know is the movie could mean many different things, it could mean it all at once, or it could mean nothing at all if you just want to enjoy what's on the surface level. Because, on the surface level, Lee Marvin is pissed off. And, he really, really wants his fucking money. Now, if that doesn't sell you, I want you to move your mouse all the way to top right hand corner of the page, hit the "x" and leave this place forever. Because, you and I will never have much to say to each other. Lee Marvin blissfully punches people in the balls as hard as a human can possibly do all while leading anybody that gets in his way to their untimely deaths. Is he taking on corporate America? Or, is he just a stickler for a deal? Doesn't really matter. Has Walker been dead the whole movie? Don't worry about it. Because Angie Dickinson is beautiful and Lee Marvin rules. Sit back and enjoy this gem.


Hell in the Pacific (1968). One year later, Boorman and Marvin team up again. This time, they join forces with Toshirô Mifune, a legend in Japan for his work with Kurosawa. Now, I can't explain why, but I've been obsessed with being deserted since I was a little boy. It doesn't matter if it's a beach, or a forest, the thought of being stranded anywhere was always exciting to me. Could be the only child in me. As a result, I was also always fixated on any kind of deserted island movie. Bad or good. Didn't matter. But, if you want to go out of your way and make a good deserted island movie, I'll be extra happy. Hell in the Pacific is one of the good ones. Now, to call it a "deserted island" movie isn't totally fair. It's more than that. But, they are deserted on an island. They do have to learn how to live off the land. So, technically, it's not that far off from every other deserted island movie and you know exactly what I'm saying. In this particular one, two men are stuck on an island. One is an American soldier. The other is a Japanese soldier. World War II is happening as they both sit on this island. They don't particularly like each other. Do to language barriers they can't really communicate these feelings verbally. So, they instead choose to chase each other with sticks, fight, and attempt to kill each other on a daily basis. A beautiful thing happens, though. The two learn to coexist. It's lonely on a deserted island. It's tough to survive. Here you have another guy that is lonely and can help you survive and you'll put stupid things like war aside help each other out. You might even make a friend in the process. Hell in the Pacific is only a cast of two; Marvin and Mifune. And, it's the coolest thing in the world to watch these two act together.

I will say the only thing I'm not in love with in this movie is the very ending. I've read what was Boorman's intended ending, and that would have fit the movie much better. I've learned to accept the actual ending, though. Even though it comes out of left field. But, even if I still hated it, it wouldn't matter. It's really only the last minute of the movie. The rest of the movie is amazing. And, the build up to that last moment is complete gold. Hell in the Pacific is a great movie. It doesn't get the respect Point Blank gets, but I would put them on the same exact pedestal together. Two years. Two classics.



9:40

John Frankenheimer's Seconds (1966)

I first saw Seconds about a year ago. It seems like every couple of days since then, I find myself thinking about it. I really think it's one of those movies that everybody can relate to, but don't like to. They just don't want to think that their life isn't fulfilling enough to the point where they'd contemplate making the same decision John Randolph's character, Arthur Hamilton did. Whether they would ultimately make that decision or not isn't the point. The fact that they would even contemplate it is the scary part. Arthur Hamilton is most people. He's me. He's probably you. He has the life that really isn't all that bad. But, it really isn't all that good either. It's that middle ground that seems to slowly drive people insane. Those little things that drive you crazy. The things in your mind that take you away for a couple of moments, but make you come back down to Earth almost immediately because you know that's never going to actually happen. And, to further elaborate these great things in your mind would just be torturing yourself. That's what this movie is about. What made me respond so much to it is the way it's told. It's very subtle. A lot of directors would have been scared to show Arthur Hamilton make the decision he does with his life being as good as it is. I think most directors would have copped out and had some drastic happen to drive Arthur Hamilton into his decision. Not this movie. And, that's what is so brilliant about it. It wasn't something drastic. It was just the little things. Arthur Hamilton kisses his wife before going to bed. She kisses him back. Hey, it's a kiss! Some people don't even have that. But, there was nothing in this kiss. It was a ritual. It was a habit. It wasn't love, though. Now, did they love each other? Yes. But, it wasn't the same crazy love that it once was. And, to kiss somebody you once loved more than anything in the world, and have that great act now be reduced to some sort of empty gesture that you do out of habit before going bed can't be something that feels good. She feels the same nothingness. This didn't happen over night. It very gradually came to this. This is just one of those subtle things in life. Almost every other movie would have some drastic thing happen that would drive their main character over the top into making the decision Arthur Hamilton ends up making. He loses his job. He loses his wife. He loses something. They need something obvious to help justify this decision. John Frankenheimer didn't need something obvious. And, the lack of obviousness is what makes this movie as great as it is. Because, it wasn't something drastic that drove Arthur Hamilton to do what he did. It was the lack of passion in a kiss that was part of it. Not all that Earth shattering when you think of it as one single event. But, it is a meaningful thing in one's life. More than anything, though, it was being ordinary that made Arthur Hamilton do what he did. And, lets face it. We're all ordinary. There is not a special one amongst us. Well, maybe David Bowie. But, I guarantee you David Bowie wakes up in the morning and goes, "Damn, I wish I was Bob Dylan." And, Bob Dylan probably wakes up every morning and wishes it was 1870 and he's was traveling on horseback as an outlaw, or something. Everybody wants something else. And, that common desire is what makes us all ordinary. And, knowing that, I truly believe most people would at the very least contemplate the scenario brought up to Arthur Hamilton. Especially if they were asked on the right day. Or even the wrong day depending on your views on life.

First off, my knowledge of John Frankenheimer films are not very vast. I've probably only seen ten of his fifty plus credits. Eleven if you want to count the Tales From the Crypt episode I just caught on the Chiller Network a few weeks back. So, my new found love for this man really is solely based on Seconds. Sure, I enjoyed The Manchurian Candidate, and Birdman of Alcatraz. I even enjoyed his version of Iceman Cometh enough to watch it twice in two days. But, none of those movies affected me in the way Seconds did. From watching it from the first time standpoint, he never showed off more as a director than he did in Seconds. This one just oozes style. It has a very modern use of composition and camera moves. I mean, there was SnorriCam shot in the very first scene for crying out loud. SnorriCam seemed cutting edge in the late 90's, and here was John doing it in 1966. And, from a story telling standpoint, he has you sucked in right from the beginning. The train station setting, John Randolph being followed, and a little sheet of paper that could mean anything all takes place within the first five minutes, and you just have to know where this thing is going. You concede, "Okay, you hooked me in, John." Five minutes later Arthur Hamilton is talking to his "dead" friend. What a first act. This is like a Twilight Zone episode. Only, it would be by far the greatest Twilight Zone episode of all time. So, while Frankenheimer masterfully starts this movie up, he then takes a step back and makes it "The John Randolph Show."

John Randolph at this point of his career, was a character actor in the midst of a fifteen year hiatus from Hollywood due to his being blacklisted for his "commie views." John Randolph never became more than a character actor. His age, and looks would never allow him to be. But, for the first half of Seconds, this is a John Randolph movie. And boy, does he shine. Randolph is one of the perfect castings of all time. Nobody else could of played Arthur Hamilton. Randolph didn't have to say anything to convince you he was him. All you had to do was look in his eyes. And, you could see he was Arthur Hamilton. He had this amazing talent to sit in stillness and completely act with his eyes. Now, I say "sit in stillness" and you might picture this Bill Murray, stoic kind of thing. But, that's not what I'm talking about. Because, Randolph could sit in stillness and not be stoic at all. He could be outright animated, in fact. So, Arthur Hamilton is in the office being pitched the proposition, and Frankenheimer does a really brave thing by just completely stopping the movie. It reminds me of the peep show booth scene in Paris, Texas in that way. The camera stops moving. The room is dead silent. There is no soundtrack to speak of. It's just people talking. And, we're all going to listen. Far too many directors are terrified of lack of action and especially silence these days. Silence is a forgotten tool. Frankenheimer embraces it. So, Arthur Hamilton listens to the pitch, and he takes it. Sure, he may have been blackmailed into doing so. But, look at that face above. Does that look like the face of a man that is going to say "no" to a new life? That's a "where do I sign up" kind of face.


Arthur Hamilton accepts. Of course he does. Exit John Randolph. Enter Rock Hudson. Now, I stated I didn't know much about John Frankenheimer's career and then said I've seen ten of his films in the very next sentence. Well, I will say I don't know much about Rock Hudson's career, and actually not know anything about Rock Hudson's career. Like anybody that enjoys movies, I've asked people to recommend stuff to me. Nobody has recommended a Rock Hudson movie to me yet. Not one person. I always assumed that meant he went the safe Hollywood route. And, had a paint by numbers type path to his career. Nothing wrong with that at all. But, that would explain me never seeing a Rock Hudson movie until Seconds. The safe, popcorn movies of it's day aren't usually the movies that get passed down generation to generation. Seconds is obviously not a safe, popcorn movie, however. Now, I called John Randolph one of the great castings of all time. Well, give John Frankenheimer and whoever helped him cast credit, because they snagged another great castings of all time. And, in the very same movie, no less. Now, knowing what we know now about Hudson's sexuality now, it is heartbreaking to watch Hudson play a character that painfully explains how he "had to live his life according to rules set by others." It really is painful. I would have believed him back then not knowing anything. And, I certainly believe him now. It's just a great performance, and while I won't claim to know for sure, I will bravely assume that it's by far Rock Hudson's top performance. Now, the only flaw I could find in this amazing movie is I feel like Hudson's character rejects his new life a little too quickly. I think he would have enjoyed it for a little while before the rejection inevitably happened. It's not nearly a big enough flaw to ruin this great movie, though. As I realize the point Frankenheimer was trying to convey by making him reject it so quickly. Plus, the quicker he rejects it, the sooner we get a really great ending to a movie.


This is an amazing movie. That's all there is to it. I will go as far to say that it is somewhat forgotten, as well. It was nominated for an Oscar which will never make it completely forgotten. People will find it that way. But, I've never heard a contemporary director mention this movie. Ever. I would think there would be one director mentioning it from time to time. Especially considering there are plenty who's style resemble this movie. But, no dice. I won't harp on that thought too long, though. Because, for no logical reason whatsoever, something that is really cool that is also obscure somehow becomes even cooler. So, Seconds is my little cool movie that only a select group of other cool people know.

Decade Gods: Nicolas Roeg - The 70's

Every good artist has that creative peak in their career. For some, it lasts longer than for others. I suppose that's what differentiates the good ones from the really good ones - The longevity of that peek. Ten years is a pretty amazing peek. Think how many one hit wonders out there would kill a loved one for one more year. And, here we are talking about ten. Now, in those really beautifully symmetrical cases, those ten years take place perfectly within a decade. Within the first or second year of the decade, their first masterpiece is done. Within the last year or two, the final one. All while all the ones in the middle are right up to par with those beautiful bookends. Absolutely no weak links allowed. That is what this is about. As, this is the first installment of Decade Gods.

This whole idea basically started as just an excuse to write about the greatness that was Nicolas Roeg's films of the 70's. I mean, talk about a hot streak. For whatever reason, when people talk about the great filmmakers of the 70's, Nicolas Roeg is rarely mentioned. It might have something to do with Nic's work not living up to the high standards he set for himself in the decades following. But, that's not exactly fair. If you're talking about films from the 70's, you're talking about films from the 70's. What does the rest of the career have to do with anything? Sure, talking about Martin Scorsese and Taxi Driver for the millionth time is fun. Hell, I'll even join that conversation. And, I don't join many. But, somebody please show Nic Roeg some fucking respect.

Now, I was born in 1984. Oddly enough, the very same year Nic Roeg's reputation died a horrible death with the flawed, but not all that bad Eureka. I mention this odd coincidence because man, his reputation must have been destroyed. Because, I never even heard of Roeg until I was nineteen years old. And, I was a fairly educated film viewer in my teen years. This just goes to show how buried this man's reputation was here in the States. Not even the film school kids talked about Roeg. So, while Roeg may be the Rodney Dangerfield of 70's Directors in most places, that will never be the case here at P,I. He's the first director that I will ever talk about in depth for that very reason. It's to prove a point actually. Because, Nic Roeg and all the Nic Roeg's of the world get their respect here in Paris, Internet.

To actually begin Roeg's amazing run in the Seventies, you'd have to start with Performance (1970). Now, Performance was a film he co-directed with Donald Cammell, a man who I'm not familiar with. I've been meaning to see Cammell's Demon Seed (1977), but then again, my "meaning to see" list is quite long. So, it could be a while before I get around to it. Performance is interesting to say the least. It's a surreal, British Gangster film starring The Rolling Stones. Now, that's not a sentence often written. This movie, it's psychedelic, it's campy, it's free loving, it's everything you could possibly want from an experimental 70's movie. Since it's not a strict Nicolas Roeg film, I wouldn't include it as part of his 70's collection. It's the film you see after you see all of his 70's films. It's a nice look at the progression of a successful cinematographer transitioning into the auteur director you know and love. Plus, the film was actually made in the 60's, and feels very 60's in every possible way. This movie is merely the planting of a seed for what would become Roeg's 70's garden. And, the first flower that blooms is 1971's Walkabout.

Walkabout (1971). This is the Roeg film that actually gets respect. You see this pop up in some lists from time to time. I know Roger Ebert has it on his Great Movies list, which could say a lot or say nothing at all depending on your views on his tastes. If I had to describe Walkabout in one single word, it would be the easiest decision of my life. And, that one word would be "beauty." This movie is beautiful in every sense of the word. Aesthetically it's got everything you want. Amazing Australian Outback scenery is captured. You could tell this is a director with a cinematographer's eye. As if the beauty of the land was not enough, the very beautiful Jenny Agutter is running around for what seems like half the movie either topless, or completely naked. Which is a very nice added bonus. When she is "clothed," she's wearing a very short skirt while climbing up mountains as the camera is at a low angle. Not even Roeg's annoying son, who plays Agutter's brother could ruin these moments.

Even without nudity, this movie is a pretty great movie. The Agutter stuff is just icing on the cake. The plot is so simple on the surface. To use this simple plot to draw parallels between two very different kinds of "walkabouts" in this movie is not only clever in theory, but flawlessly executed. Besides the obvious political undertones by comparing the two different cultures, I've always responded since my first viewing to the social commentary on the openness of youth much much more. The girl, who is much older, is quicker to find happiness once she's back to the environment she's used to. Her much younger brother, who is seeing things more objectively, not so much. He's more willing just adapt to his new surroundings because he's not as used to the "regular" life as she is. He's taking things completely at face value, 100% objectively. He doesn't know what his life is supposed to be. It hasn't been beaten into his mind yet. So, this way of life doesn't only seem exciting to him, but something worth continuing to do. And, of course the Aboriginal boy on the more traditional walkabout is even less willing to adapt to that "normal" life. The end result really speaks for itself. I won't ruin it for those that have seen it, and for those that have, you understand my writings could do no possible justice to it. A brilliant beginning to what would be an amazing decade for Nicolas Roeg.

Don't Look Now (1973). Brief transcript of a conversation I had with a friend the day after I saw this movie.
FRIEND
What movie did you watch last night?

ME
Don't Look Now.
(Friend looks baffled.)
It's a horror movie with Donald Sutherland in it.

FRIEND
Oh, nice. Donald Sutherland is a creepy motherfucker.

ME
Donald Sutherland is actually the good guy.

FRIEND
Wow. This sounds like the scariest movie of all time.

Before Donald Sutherland was old and creepy, he was actually a leading man with a little bit of charm. He's amazing in this movie. He really is. Julie Christie too. She has the tough task that every female lead in a Roeg movie has and that's be completely sexy at all times, while remaining very complicated in actions. She pulls it off well. And, Roeg...Well, Roeg does a thriller in a way that only Roeg can. You have a movie with a serial killer on the loose being the main plot point, and in a lot of ways, it's not a movie about a serial killer on the loose. Like all of Roeg's 70's films, it's about a relationship between a man and a woman. It's about sex. It's about grief. And, more than anything, this particular film is about misunderstandings. Although it's probably a reach, the person that ends up being the killer, may not be the killer at all. In a film about misunderstandings, could the ending be another misunderstanding? The way Sutherland was chasing that "little girl," could she have been scared, thought HE was the killer and defended herself? It's possible. The way she defends herself makes it unlikely. But, it is possible. And, the fact that it is possible is what makes it so cool. The movie doesn't have to be taken just on it's surface level.

I've always taken the ending to be literal, though. In a way it's sort of a cheap scare. I mean that in the most respectful way, though. Because, the build up to that moment, the psychology behind it, and the character development; it doesn't cheapen the movie in any way. It's Hitchcockian, in a way. Where the ending is a little campy. It's even a little cute in retrospect when you unsuccessfully try and explain it to somebody that hasn't seen it. But, at that moment it happens, it is the scariest thing in the world. One of the all time great horror/thrillers.

The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976). What do you get when you join today's honoree with a man that will undoubtedly get the same treatment here in a future installment? You get one of the strangest, most beautiful movies of all time. Two absolute kings of what they do at the height of their creativity joining forces. It's a super power of art. My only complaint about this movie is the lack of Bowie songs in it. An all Bowie soundtrack could be the only possible thing that would make this better. As far as I know, the original plan was for Bowie to record all the songs for the soundtrack, but it just never came together for various reasons. Mainly, RCA messing things up contractually. Many of the songs that ended up on Station to Station and Low are some of those songs that couldn't be on the soundtrack, apparently. The fact that we got two brilliant albums out of RCA messing up this soundtrack seems like a fair enough trade in retrospect. You know, I'm really at a loss for words for this movie. I've only seen it twice, which is a relatively small amount for a movie I like as much as this one. The main reason I'm at a loss for words is because I had a different reaction to both viewings. I just can't internally wrap a single thread around it in my mind, so there is no way I'll be able to outwardly explain it or justify my feelings towards it in words. How could I? It's just one of those movies that are a rare experience, though. Where there is like an atmosphere of greatness around it. You can't explain exactly what it is. But, if you've experienced that feeling, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You find it every once in awhile in a film, and it's a wonderful thing when that happens. This movie is a wonderful thing. I should give it another viewing in the near future and see if that reaction resembles any of my previous two.

Here is a montage of The Man Who Fell to Earth on youtube. I have nothing to do with it. I stumbled upon it one late night and quite enjoyed it. It's various SPOILER ridden scenes set to Moonage Daydream. You can't go wrong there. The user disabled the embed code, so the link is the best I can do. Freak out.

Bad Timing (1980). Filmed in 1979. This is the peek of the peek. If I mention the films of Nicolas Roeg, the first one I'm going to bring up is Bad Timing. It's everything Roeg is about. And, it's everything Roeg previously worked up to culminating into this masterpiece. It's sleazy. It's disorientating. It's Theresa Russell. It's naked men with curly Afros. It's a Nicolas Roeg movie in all it's glory.

While it is true that I hadn't heard of Roeg until I was nineteen years old. I did hear about Bad Timing for the first time when I was eleven or twelve. It was right around the time Pulp Fiction got it's first backlash. After a year or two of universally being called an instant, modern masterpiece, people had to try and bring it down a peg. I personally think it was more of a backlash at Tarantion fans than Tarantino. In the years after Pulp Fiction, a lot of movies were "ripping off" the out of sequence way of telling a story. To Tarantino fans, they were ripping off Quentin. To people that hated Tarantino fans, they were ripping off everybody that messed with time BEFORE Quentin. I guess people got sick of Tarantino fans acting like Tarantino invented everything. At that time, every film that ever messed with time was mentioned as something Tarantino "ripped off." And, while some may be true. Most were not. Bad Timing was one of the many titles mentioned. The only reason why I remember it being mentioned is because I could not fathom the idea that not only was Art Garfunkel in a movie, but Art Garfunkel was actually supposedly in a good movie. Apparently, I had never heard of Carnal Knowledge at that point of my young life. Fast forward many years later - I'm looking at the films of Nicolas Roeg on IMDb, and Bad Timing catches my attention. Oh, yeah. The Art Garfunkel movie that is supposedly good. "Let's see not only if this Nic Roeg is a good director, but lets see if Art Garfunkel has done any good in his life without Paul Simon carrying him like Michael Jordan to Art's Luc Longley," I think. This was the first Nicolas Roeg movie I ever saw. And, it is without a doubt his masterpiece.

It's tough to watch at first. It really has a good time jumping around and keeping you confused. It has the typical odd Roeg cuts, and freeze frames. I've heard people say that dates the movie, but I couldn't disagree more. If a lot of people were cutting like that, I might agree. But, Roeg was really the only one doing it to that extent. So, it's not a "dated 70's movie." It's just a "typical Nicolas Roeg Movie." And, in every sense. Once again, Roeg makes a movie about a man and woman. The good times. The bad. The beautiful love making. The near necrophilia. I guess it could be the average boy meets girl story. Only the boy is a very creepy Art Garfunkel. And, the girl is the completely off the rails Theresa Russell. The story is masterfully laid out. You get the bits of information you get, only when Roeg wants you to get it. And, when you do get that information, you don't know what to do with it at first. If I ever think of Roeg in an editing suite putting this together; I picture him maniacally laughing like a Bond villain. Just not being able to stop laughing at the thoughts of how much fun he is going to have playing with his audience. Going to screenings and watching peoples reactions had to be completely empowering. Almost God like. Many directors have played with time since then. It happens all the time now. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Bad Timing is not only a case of it working, but it's a case where it's executed perfectly. You appreciate it even more the second time you watch it, which is always a good sign. It's the perfect amount of information at the perfect times. It's so completely masterful. You look at the way Harvey Keitel is looking at Art Garfunkel, and you want to cheer at that look. This is just one of the greatest movies ever made.

Although, Roeg was completely masterful in this movie, make no mistake about it, this is Theresa Russell's movie. I really could go on and on about how great she is in this. I rather devote a whole article to her in the near future instead. In short form, as far as Theresa Russell in Bad Timing goes; I can boldly say without hesitation that is one of the greatest female performances of all time. Hands down. It's an insanely good performance. It's one of those rare parts for a woman where it is a complete showcase for her talents. They don't come around often. These types of roles are usually written for men. She displays every possible emotion in this movie. In fact, she displays more emotions in single scenes in this movie than a lot of celebrated actresses have done in their entire career. It's an all time great, amazing performance. And, I truly believe even that is an understatement.

It's difficult to say why Nicolas Roeg doesn't seem to get the respect he deserves. The easy answer would be his lack of success since then. But, I've seen directors who have done less in their prime, and less since their prime talked about all the time. Michael Cimino is probably the closest comparison I could make to Roeg. Cimino is obviously more well known. The biggest difference between the two is Cimino's bomb is actually a brilliant movie. Where as Roeg's while not nearly as bad as the wrap it's gotten, is not. But, both directors haven't done much since. And, consequentally, are often forgotton. Roeg obviously moreso than Cimino, though. I myself haven't even seen all of Roeg's movies since the 70's. I caught a couple of bad ones and it wasn't easy to convince myself to view the others. Even in his bad movies, though, he shows so much talent. It really makes you wonder what makes a movie go right or wrong sometimes. And, what makes a director seemingly lose "it." You see it happen all the time. Making movies isn't like playing sports. There isn't a physical prime to lose that makes you a different player. But, it does seemingly happen to every great director, regardless. In the years where his work seemingly slipped, he married Theresa Russell, had children and lived a life most of us would trade for in a heartbeat. Not exactly a bad time for Roeg, I would imagine. I guess we could celebrate Roeg's life in the 80's for catching Theresa Russell. Who cares about the work when you got Theresa Russell?

His work hasn't all been bad since his amazing run, though. Eureka (1984) isn't bad at all. If anything, it's worth checking out for another great Theresa Russell performance. Two Deaths (1995) is actually a movie I enjoyed quite a bit. It's a nice honest look at regret. Puffball is Roeg's first movie in seven years. He's teaming up with Donald Sutherland which alone should make people like me check it out. Whether Puffball is good or bad, doesn't really matter, though. For better or for worse, Nicolas Roeg has already left his mark. His run between 1971 and 1980 is one of the greatest of all time. And for that, Nicolas Roeg will forever be remembered as a God of the 70's.