This is a sensitively-made picture by all involved, with especially moving performances by Arkin and Locke, both of whom were Oscar-nominated. I saw it recently at a screening which was attended by Locke, McCann, Keach, and director Robert Ellis Miller. (The widow of cinematographer James Wong Howe was there, too, as the screening was part of a tribute to the great cameraman.)
After the screening, Keach told Miller that the movie had aged "like a fine wine." I think that's true. While the music and some aspects of the shooting style have dated (e.g., there are several zooms), the emotions of the story have not. This is a quite absorbing and affecting movie, and Arkin is simply astonishing in the way he is able to emote so much without uttering a word.
However, this movie overall feels good more in the way that a novel feels good, rather than the way that an originally-written movie does. I believe it has to do with the structure of the story, which is episodic and delves into several characters' points of view without a truly unifying visual thread. In other words, it feels literary. (This is analagous to movie adaptations of plays suffering from "staginess," which they almost always do. The problem is not as common with novel adaptations, but it still happens. Even "To Kill a Mockingbird" suffers somewhat from this problem.)
Still, the film is beautifully shot by the great James Wong Howe, and again, the performances overcome the inherent script problems to make this a satisfying experience.
After the screening, Keach told Miller that the movie had aged "like a fine wine." I think that's true. While the music and some aspects of the shooting style have dated (e.g., there are several zooms), the emotions of the story have not. This is a quite absorbing and affecting movie, and Arkin is simply astonishing in the way he is able to emote so much without uttering a word.
However, this movie overall feels good more in the way that a novel feels good, rather than the way that an originally-written movie does. I believe it has to do with the structure of the story, which is episodic and delves into several characters' points of view without a truly unifying visual thread. In other words, it feels literary. (This is analagous to movie adaptations of plays suffering from "staginess," which they almost always do. The problem is not as common with novel adaptations, but it still happens. Even "To Kill a Mockingbird" suffers somewhat from this problem.)
Still, the film is beautifully shot by the great James Wong Howe, and again, the performances overcome the inherent script problems to make this a satisfying experience.