Here's another movie I thought was terrific 40 years ago but now don't exactly look at it in positive terms. The film didn't change: I did.
Maybe after watching thousands of movies since then I got tired of seeing people mocking the clergy, or pretending to be a minister so as they could rob, steal and whatever. It's the same message wants the film world always wants to deliver: clergymen are corrupt, and don't trust them. In this case, the "minister" robs a family of its car.
This year - 1967 - was a landmark one in that the old moral codes were thrown out the window. There was no profanity in this film but it did continue what had been coming since the beginning of the '60s: the age of the anti-hero. In this film, we are supposed to root for a con man (George C. Scott) and his young assistant (Michael Sarrazin), who make a living by lying and cheating people. That's supposed to be funny, I guess.
Maybe after watching thousands of movies since then I got tired of seeing people mocking the clergy, or pretending to be a minister so as they could rob, steal and whatever. It's the same message wants the film world always wants to deliver: clergymen are corrupt, and don't trust them. In this case, the "minister" robs a family of its car.
This year - 1967 - was a landmark one in that the old moral codes were thrown out the window. There was no profanity in this film but it did continue what had been coming since the beginning of the '60s: the age of the anti-hero. In this film, we are supposed to root for a con man (George C. Scott) and his young assistant (Michael Sarrazin), who make a living by lying and cheating people. That's supposed to be funny, I guess.