Three Days of the Condor
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.99 You Save: $2.99 (30%) Availability: Usually ships in 10 to 13 days Buy Used: from $4.43 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Three Days of the Condor
Movie Review: Being "out to lunch" can save your life!!!
Summary: 5 Stars
+++++
This movie is based on the novel "Six Days of the Condor" (1974) by James Grady.
This movie is about a man named Joe Turner (Robert Redford) who "just read[s] books" with six others at a place called the "American Literary Historical Society" (ALHS). Turner and his literary colleagues are also non-practicing CIA agents with Turner having the code name "Condor."
On this particular day it was Turner's turn to pick up lunch for the others at the office. He exits through a rear door of the ALHS to do so. On returning with lunch he finds all his colleagues murdered. He now runs for his life.
Turner reports this massacre to his superior (Cliff Robertson), a man he has never met. He suddenly finds himself the target of both his employers and the unknown murderers of his associates. He randomly abducts a lonely photographer (Faye Dunaway) who is forced to hide him and later helps him discover the answer to the following question:
"What's the secret worth murdering everybody at the ALHS house?"
This movie was an unexpected surprise for me. While starting out tame, it turns into an intense thriller with excellent acting. Redford, Robertson, and Dunaway give good performances. However, my biggest kudos must go to someone I never mentioned in the above summary--Max von Sydow who ruthlessly and chillingly plays a maverick hit man.
The background music adds to each scene. I found the cinematography of mid-seventies New York interesting.
Finally, the DVD (the one released Aug. 1999) is perfect in picture and sound quality. It has one extra.
In conclusion, after watching this movie, you'll be asking yourself the same question Turner asks:
"Do you believe the Condor is really an endangered species?"
(1975; 1 hr, 55 min; wide screen; 16 scenes; rated `R')
+++++
Movie Review: Seventies' Spy Thriller About Oil
Summary: 4 Stars
This is a great action thriller, except for the scenes between Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway because they defy reality. The book "Six Days of the Condor" by James Grady is way better.
The film starts out very well. Condor slips out the back door (and leaves it open!) to make a food run at lunch time. When he returns, he finds everybody gunned down inside - his girlfriend too! Boy is he angry! He can't wait to find her killer.
But wait. . . he can wait! Oh yeah. He finds Faye Dunaway and they throw a private lust party, while trying to stay a step ahead of his girlfriend's killers. Finally, his girlfriend's killer catches up with him. Condor thinks he's a gonner.
But wait. . . the hitman, named Jobair, informs him that he's been hired to kill the boss instead of Condor. But he warns Condor that they will get around to killing him too. Condor somehow contains all his anger and revenge towards his girlfriend's killer and says "You seem to understand it all - what would you do?" Jobair says "Personally I prefer Europe". After chatting like newfound friends, Jobair gives back Condor's pistol. Condor doesn't shoot Jobair, instead he lets Jobair give a lift to the station.
Dumb scenes like this prevent this otherwise great action thriller from making a five.
Movie Review: to the writer of the review entitled "an especially prescient film"
Summary: 2 Stars
The many toubled, undemocratic areas of Africa don't have leaders that have sworn to stop at nothing until the United States is destroyed. Whether or not he actually had the capability to do so, the leader of Iraq did so swear and he did lead the world to believe that he had such capability. But thanks for commenting.
As for the film, I know it won a couple Oscars and all, but I just didn't like it. I thought the editing was poor, that the scenes were long and often unnecessary. Although the story was good, a modern director would have put it together a lot better.
Movie Review: Should have been a sequel
Summary: 5 Stars
This is a great movie with plenty of twists and turns. The only thing I think should have been done is the creation of a sequel and it could still be done now, especially now. The ending leaves you wondering with a sliver of doubt and that's why a sequel should be made. This is one of Robert Redoford's better movies and Fayle Dunway does a remarkable job. Max Von Sydow is cold and calculating. The rest of the cast blend in naturally. I've seen this movie so many times but the plot is so real and the chances of probability well done. The director did an excellent job of directing the actors. I recommend this movie and after growing up and working at a Drive-In theatre I have seen my share.Movie Review: an especially prescient film
Summary: 5 Stars
This film has long been one of my Top Ten favorites for the quality of the acting and the screenplay, and for the importance of the theme: that a secret network could operate within the intelligence community beneath the radar of legitimate agency oversight.
The film seems especially prescient now, given that the fictional network's goal was planning a U.S. invasion of the Mideast. Voila, 30 years later, the U.S. has invaded the Mideast. When the Redford character finally confronts the rogue C.I.A. leader of the plan, he connects the dots and says, "This whole damn thing is about oil, isn't it?" Exactly.
Let's be clear about why the U.S. Armed Forces are in Iraq, rather than, say, Ecuador or Nepal: it's the strategic importance of the region's oil. Yes, the plan is to transform Iraq into a democratic nation, which will lead the entire region in that direction. But the U.S. isn't committing its treasure and citizenry to all troubled regions of the globe equally; we are in Iraq because it is the strategic linchpin of the region. Without access to the Mideast oil reserves, the world economy would be shaken to its foundations.
There are many troubled, undemocratic regions in the world--for example, much of Africa; yet we fight now to establish democracy in only one troubled region, the Mideast. Coincidence? No. Simple self-interest. As the Cliff Robertson character says at the film's conclusion: "When the people are cold and their engines stop running, they're not going to ask us why; they'll just want us to go get it."
Realizing that he is an embarrassment to the C.I.A. (the inevitable role of any whistleblower, even a reluctant one), at the film's end Redford gives the entire story to the New York Times. The Robertson character, a C.I.A. station chief who was caught off-guard by the hidden conspiracy, says, "But will they print it?" Redford is taken aback at the implication--that the government could pressure the media to suppress the story--and then he avers, less confidently, "They'll print it."
This is the core of democracy: that a free press keeps a government answerable to its people. Without a free and skeptical press, all the elections in the world mean nothing.