I was in grade school when this came out, and I remembered it as a crime/caper film. It later became known as Michael Cimino's directorial debut. Of course, his next film would be "The Deer Hunter" (one that I am not a fan of). Watching this movie in 2011, it's clear why his career floundered after "The Deer Hunter." Here is a movie with no sense of story or even character. We move from scene to scene and the film's ongoing motivation seems to be to stage something that looks "neat".
"Thunderbolt" never recovers from its opening sequence. Clint Eastwood is seen as the preacher of a small Idaho church. Jeff Bridges, at the same time, is a leather pants-wearing huckster that makes off with a used car. The character we later learn to be Dunlap enters Eastwood's church and shoots at him in the middle of a sermon. Clint runs off into the field behind the church and is picked up by Bridges in the stolen used car, who runs over Dunlap for good measure. And just like that, Bridges and Eastwood are a team.
This may be good enough for some people, who are quick to label the merely absurd as "poetic", but try another adjective: nonsense. From the get-go "Thunderbolt" lets us know that it really has no interest in being coherent or grounded in some kind of reality where people behave with any reason. Let's just make a movie where "neat" stuff happens, irregardless of what's happened 10 minutes before or after.
Case in point- later on, Clint and Jeff are hitchhiking. They are picked up by a guy who appears to be drunk and has a raccoon in his front seat. As soon as they are in the car he proceeds to drive all over the road until they nearly crash. Upon getting out of the car, and decking the driver, the duo finds the trunk of the car full of rabbits. The whole sequence stands apart from the movie, adding neither humor or insight. But I guess it seemed "cool" to Cimino and company.
BTW, save the "70s filmmaking sensibility" arguments. As if every complaint about incoherent storytelling (which this is) is coming from someone too programmed by super-obvious narratives like old TV shows to "appreciate" something that is "diffent". Er, try again. I'm not expecting "Hawaii Five O", and there are plenty of 70s films that hold up by simply adhering to basic conventions of movie-making while still being "different" (i.e. "The Last Detail").
Kudos to the photography, which is also aided by stunning locations (perhaps inspiring Cimino to return to the area for "Heaven's Gate" later). However, while this is certainly a "guy's film", did it have to be so incredibly sexist? If a woman appears in the film and she's under 25, she's probably in the shortest skirt possible, and/or flaunting cleavage. Not that some women don't dress this way some of the time, but all of them? And it's hard to imagine a more gratuitous nude shot than the one of the suburban wife who merely stands completely naked in her window for Bridges to see. Other than solidify the R rating and give a few guys in pre-cable/video 1974 a thrill, what's the point of that?
"Thunderbolt" never recovers from its opening sequence. Clint Eastwood is seen as the preacher of a small Idaho church. Jeff Bridges, at the same time, is a leather pants-wearing huckster that makes off with a used car. The character we later learn to be Dunlap enters Eastwood's church and shoots at him in the middle of a sermon. Clint runs off into the field behind the church and is picked up by Bridges in the stolen used car, who runs over Dunlap for good measure. And just like that, Bridges and Eastwood are a team.
This may be good enough for some people, who are quick to label the merely absurd as "poetic", but try another adjective: nonsense. From the get-go "Thunderbolt" lets us know that it really has no interest in being coherent or grounded in some kind of reality where people behave with any reason. Let's just make a movie where "neat" stuff happens, irregardless of what's happened 10 minutes before or after.
Case in point- later on, Clint and Jeff are hitchhiking. They are picked up by a guy who appears to be drunk and has a raccoon in his front seat. As soon as they are in the car he proceeds to drive all over the road until they nearly crash. Upon getting out of the car, and decking the driver, the duo finds the trunk of the car full of rabbits. The whole sequence stands apart from the movie, adding neither humor or insight. But I guess it seemed "cool" to Cimino and company.
BTW, save the "70s filmmaking sensibility" arguments. As if every complaint about incoherent storytelling (which this is) is coming from someone too programmed by super-obvious narratives like old TV shows to "appreciate" something that is "diffent". Er, try again. I'm not expecting "Hawaii Five O", and there are plenty of 70s films that hold up by simply adhering to basic conventions of movie-making while still being "different" (i.e. "The Last Detail").
Kudos to the photography, which is also aided by stunning locations (perhaps inspiring Cimino to return to the area for "Heaven's Gate" later). However, while this is certainly a "guy's film", did it have to be so incredibly sexist? If a woman appears in the film and she's under 25, she's probably in the shortest skirt possible, and/or flaunting cleavage. Not that some women don't dress this way some of the time, but all of them? And it's hard to imagine a more gratuitous nude shot than the one of the suburban wife who merely stands completely naked in her window for Bridges to see. Other than solidify the R rating and give a few guys in pre-cable/video 1974 a thrill, what's the point of that?