The Hot Rock

Robert Redford is one of those iconic actors that I have, for whatever reason, never spent much time watching.  It's not a conscious omission, I just haven't happened to see his work; in fact, combing through his IMDb profile, I realized that I have only seen three of his movies that have been made in the last thirty years.  I mention this because The Hot Rock is not one of Redford's most famous films, and wouldn't typically be the movie someone watches to acquaint themselves with a Hollywood icon.  So, why The Hot Rock?  Well, I had access to it, it had Robert Redford in his prime, the director had recently made Bullitt, the screenplay was written by William Goldman (one of my favorite authors), and it was a heist movie.  Even though the film is not famous today, that sounded like a pretty good combination of things I like.

Career criminal Dortmunder (Robert Redford), literally minutes after he completes his most recent prison stay, is approached by his brother-in-law, Andy (George Segal), for a heist job.  It seems that the Brooklyn museum has a very valuable diamond that was once a cherished artifact for an unnamed African nation.  A representative of that nation, Dr. Amusa (Moses Gunn), wants to have the diamond returned to his people, but diplomacy hasn't worked, so he's interested in funding a heist.  Dortmunder is the master planner and Andy picks locks, but that's not enough.  They recruit a driver, Murch (Ron Leibman), and an explosives expert, Greenberg (Paul Sand), to round out the team.  There is just one small problem.  These guys are idiots.  What sets The Hot Rock apart from other heist movies is that the theft is successful, but also botched.  The plan is solid, and they execute it well, but there is a mishap that forces the group to fend for themselves.  This leads to more robbery attempts, which also work, but are also bungled.  To give you an idea of how goofy things get, the final robbery attempt includes hypnotic suggestion and the phrase "Afghanistan banana stand."

"People will remember this movie for what phrase?!?

How's the acting?  It's a little odd, to be honest.  Robert Redford does a solid job in the lead role, but he appears to be unaware that he is starring in a comedy.  He isn't acting as a straight man, he isn't playing anything for laughs...he's just doing a good dramatic role and occasionally getting frustrated at the incompetence of his coworkers.  It's an odd fit for a film that leans toward slapstick comedy.  George Segal is much more at home in his role, which plays to his strengths; he gets to whine, make comedic asides, and overplay some Jewish stereotypes.  I'm not a big Segal fan (I consider him a B-level Elliott Gould, who I also don't particularly like) and this didn't change my mind, but he wasn't too obnoxious here.  Neither Paul Sand nor Ron Leibman did anything too memorable, but I thought Moses Gunn was fine as the exasperated financier of the group.  Zero Mostel plays an important role in the final third of the film, although it isn't groundbreaking; he plays a dishonest lawyer with tricks up his sleeve.  While I won't say that Mostel was very funny or acted particularly well, I will admit that his tendency for overacting was more subdued here than in other films.

Peter Yates did a good job directing portions of this movie, but seemed less sure of his talents in other parts.  I thought the heists were all shot and edited well, and would have fit in a serious crime movie with no problem.  My problem comes from the comedic moments.  I don't think Yates has much of a comedic touch or a sense of timing.  Perhaps he was counting on William Goldman's script to provide the humor, but he shouldn't have.  This isn't a witty script; it needed help from the direction and editing.  Sure, the action sequences looked good, but the fact that the goofier moments didn't pack more comedic punch and Redford's apparent disconnect from the rest of the film detract from Yates' successes in the film.  And the whole hypnosis thing was out of left field.

There are only two screenshots from this movie online, and this was one of them.  Huh.

I was not expecting The Hot Rock to be a goofy crime caper.  That's fine.  I don't require movies to conform to my expectations...but this one probably should have.  The acting from Redford, the pretty cool heist sequences, and the general tone of the movie would have lent themselves better to a less slapstick film.  I think Great Britain agreed with me; the title of the movie was changed to a kookier one for the UK theatrical release:

While I may have preferred the movie more if it had been more serious (or at least less silly), it's still a decent watch.  I wouldn't say that it is anything special, and I completely understand how it has become a lesser-known work for all those involved, but it's a lightweight and inoffensive popcorn flick.

Three Days of the Condor

Three Days of the Condor is a Robert Redford thriller based on the novel, Six Days of the Condor, by James Grady.  I'm assuming that the tag line for the film was "All the thrills of the book in half the time!"  The director was a frequent Redford collaborator, Sydney Pollack.  I'm  not a huge fan of Redford or Pollack, to be honest --- I'm sure they make good films, but they rarely pique my interest --- but this one is actually pretty solid.

This film has a sense of plausibility that rings true, and it feels like the flip side of Redford's Spy Game.  In that movie, Redford is the ultimate CIA insider, pulling strings and playing games to get things done; in Condor, Redford is a novice in the spy game, trying to figure out what the pros are doing.

The plot is relatively simple for a spy movie.  Redford works, in a non-spy capacity, for the CIA.  His job, and that of his entire department, is to read fiction and enter the relevant plots and codes into a computer, which compares the fictional data with actual CIA missions (planned or otherwise).  One day, while Redford is out getting lunch for the office, his entire department is assassinated.  Suitably alarmed, he contacts his superiors at the CIA to arrange for them to take him into protective custody.  This would make for a short movie, but it turns out that he is double crossed, and is almost killed at the pick up.  From that point on, Redford has to use his own knowledge of CIA plots to figure out why somebody wants him dead.  Like I said, it's not a terribly complicated plot.  In fact, there is a part where Redford has been up all night trying to puzzle out his situation and the camera shows the paper he has been writing on; the paper had maybe four things on it.  Whoa, there, Robert!  Don't get caught up in the details!

With a plot that sparse, the actors must carry a heavier load.  Here, Redford does a fine job as a man out of his element, but clever enough to know what to do and how to counter some basic spy techniques.  Faye Dunaway plays a random woman that Redford forces to help him, and her character's emotional arc is pretty natural. Still, I think being kidnapped, more or less, by someone who looks like Robert Redford made her character's compliance a little more believable.  Somehow I doubt that John Cazale would have had such an easy time telling a beautiful woman "I'm not going to hurt you, I just need some place to rest."  Well, he could say that, but he wake up in prison.  Max von Sydow does a very good job playing an assassin-for-hire.  His second scene with Redford was both charming and disconcerting at the same time.  Unfortunately, he only shares the screen with Redford twice; the rest of his scenes show significantly less depth and character.  Cliff Robertson (Uncle Ben in the Spider-Man movies) is Redford's CIA contact; his everyman looks may lend credibility to the role, but I felt that his acting was mediocre.  Not good, not bad, but maybe just a little above Charles Bronson.

Overall, the lack of a convoluted plot was refreshing to see in a spy movie.  Redford and Dunaway did their jobs well, and von Sydow turned in one of his better performances here.