I just saw this movie for the first time, and I found it just fantastic. Yes, I am a Bill Murray nut, but I just LOVED it, and I am surprised that I haven't heard more about it before now. I'm actually motivated to read the story and see what the differences might be - I'm guessing there was no taliking "like seals" in the book.
shareThe Razor's Edge is one of my favorite films and, in my opinion, one of Murray's best works. I don't recall it being either well reviewed or well received when it was first released but that has little to do with the quality of this or any film. I loved it, I'm glad you do, too, and that's all that really counts.
Writing about movies is like dancing about architecture
It is one of my favorites also. I don't know why people review it negatively, but here is my positive review:
I loved the movie. In fact, it inspired me to read the book. I was very disappointed with the book, which is ironic considering the opposite reaction from others. I did not like the earlier adaptation either. I suppose that this role and storyline shift a great deal from the novel, yet this is what saves the story. There is a lot that is unsaid, unexplained, and made humorous. The novel and film, however, are ruined because of over acting and over explanation. I would give all of the credit to the writer/director. He revitalized an outdated but potentially great story. If you haven't yet, read the novel or see the original version, you will see my point. They explain way too much and just drag things out. It took a modern director to fix what a good editor should have originally done with the novel. This is mainly to say, I got all the same points plus more in half the time.
Thanks to both of you for those awesome replies. I am definitely going to check that out. Also, I have bought the DVD, so I'm going to watch the film again tonight.
Thanks a bunch.
I had not watched too many of Bill Murray's films prior to "Rushmore". After seeing that film (for which he received a slew of critics' awards), I decided to check out his entire filmography. With the exception of several films that are not available, I've seen them all.
I watched "The Razor's Edge" a few years ago on rentals, and now own the DVD as well. Speaking for myself, I think the Murray version far exceeds the original 1946 version with Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney. The fact that it was panned by the critics and shunned by audiences certainly was a travesty.
I really believe that this film will come to be appreciated for the effort put into it. The acting, musical score and cinematography were all outstanding.
The line "You just don't get it" is so prophetic. Maybe the newer audiences finally will.
Amen. Well put.
shareWhat a flurry of activity today.
This is a favorite film of mine as well. I prefer newer version to the older, as it feels more authentic, and sincere. I see it as an honest representation of the benefits of Buddhist practice as well.
I remember when this film was released, and the skepticism about Murray in a dramatic role. I found his portrayal genuine and moving, and his humor kept sparkling through in wonderful ways. I'd say that in the years since this came out that his dramatic acting skills have been confirmed, especially since Lost in Translation.
I'm glad to see there are others who appreciate this film.
The reason this movie deserves to get panned, is because the novel is so much more amazing. The novel really isn't about Larry, the story just revolves around him. Elliot Templeton is the most prominant and talked about character in the novel. The movie does Elliot no justice whatsoever.
For those who haven't read the novel first, then I can see how one would really like this movie, even love it. For those that have read the classic novel first, this movie is a dissapointment.
[deleted]
I disagree. Larry is the focal point of the book, and its subject. Elliot Templeton is a very interesting character, in fact as I read the novel, his death scene was what really got to me...that he was so nearly destroyed by the frivolity of his life, besides being so successful, and obviously he is treated to so much space because he has achieved a very different kind of life than Larry and serves as good contrast to him; and it's through him that Maugham met the other characters in the book. But the focal point is Larry, and if you're going to make a film out of a long narrative like this that goes in a million different sidetrips, you really have to make it Larry's story. Maybe someone will someday make a movie about Elliot, that could be just as interesting. But putting them together in one movie just seems like it would come out unwatchable.
shareI thought in the novel, the "message" was about Larry, even if the plot wasn't always about him.
i thought it was a brillant writter's trick by Maugham: i thought at first it the story was about Elliot, because he describes him so elaboratly, but slowly I realized it's Larry.
I love Maugham for taking time to develop more than one character in his stories.
Maugham is sly.
I forget what book, but he had a female character named something like Sue D Nym.
As in: Pseudonym
Crafty.
It was a very interesting take on the material and Murray gave an excellent performance but I really do think a lot was glazed over in the transition. While Larry was the focal point of the novel, Maughm himself was the main character and while that character is never fully fleshed out it really goes a long way into the development of Larry's character. Larry doesn't work as a lead, he needs to be mysterious, in and out like a flash, dead pan but still very charming. Murray captured all of these qualities very well but I feel that in making him the protagonist it didn't necessarily fully grasp the character and ultimately leaves the film a bit flat. An uneven script and a terrible performance by Catherine Hicks (just terrible, she plays the entire film very aware that her character will take a treacherous turn) sort of muddle it further. Ultimately I enjoyed it because I feel Larry's journey is a very interesting one, regardless of the medium. Murray clearly really does get the source material very well but I don't know how well it would really transfer to the screen. And man, would I love to have see Denholm Elliot portray a fully realized Templeton... because damn if that's not brilliant casting.
shareSolid post.
But I have to disagree with you about Catherine Hicks. In that I’m not sure she’s a great actress but it is perfect casting for the role that she plays, akin to the casting of Thomas Hayden Church in Sideways. She nails the superficially deep American woman perfectly. She’s learned how to speak with a voice that carries, especially in public places with public noise, but that means nothing. Walk by a well-heeled happy hour patio or a funeral of someone "famous" to understand.
The “aware that she will take a treacherous turn” I took that as the woman she is playing isn’t really connected to herself, her emotions or her thoughts. I do agree about the casting of Denholm Elliot. Perfect. A very good movie.
[deleted]
I saw this film in the theaters in '84. I was 26 at the time. That movie changed my life. I am so grateful to Bill Murray. I left Los Angeles a very angry born again christian, moved to a small cabin in western New York, said my goodbyes to God, but promised that if God truly existed, I would find God on my own terms. I would find the truth. I still don't know what's out there, but I have more peace now than I ever did as a catholic or born again christian. This movie, especially the mountaintop scene really spoke to me. This movie broke my heart and helped me heal.
Paz y libertad...
[deleted]
I found your remark "a very angry born again christian" extrememly fascinating. I, too, saw this movie in the theatre and was completely blown away by it. I think that it is Bill Murray's greatest work ever. And Theresa Russell gives a performance that is tragic and lovely. I have always enjoyed her movies (Black Widow was a gem). Sophie's relationship with Larry is enchanting and the way he brings her back from the edge is so loving. If there is anyone out there who hasn't seen this movie, I recommend that they watch it twice.
Blessed Be.
Great movie indeed.
shareI liked it as a film and a book. I think the movie actually improves the character of Larry (which movies don't often do) - the novel's Larry is a little wooden. Murray make him into more of a "wild yogi" sort of character.
I agree that the book has a stronger Eliot character - his mix of worldly values and Catholocism is an interesting contrast of Larry's iterneracy and Buddhism.
Some good parts of the novel were cut (understandably) from the novel: I thought the part where Larry stays at a Christian monastery was effective, and also his searches into Greek philosophy interesting.
All in all, I would recommend both book and movie.
It kinda seemed like in the movie they mixed Larry's character with that of the book's narrator. The book was good but a little stiff because you never see the main characters' point of view.
shareSometimes there is a tendency to read too much into the whole thing. It is my favorite movie. Being able to identify with the character helped. The one other thing that really struck me was how well the moviie covers the whole idea of existentialism. It reinforces many of the tenants of the experientialists. I guess another way of saying what I'm saying is to say that it touched me in a reassuring and recognizable way.
shareI first saw this film when i was very young. It blew my mind. I still view it about once a year to keep the story fresh. I am glad that Bill is finally coming into his own as a serious actor, some 20 years after this film showed the true breadth of his abilities. I saw the same ability in Lost In Translation to relate the forlorn and despairing nature of a burdened man.
As a cinema critic i do have to say there isn't anything particularly exciting or original in the film, however the story itself drives my love for it. If you haven't seen this film, and aren't afraid to get so completely wrapped up in a story that your girlfriend walks in to find you crying on the couch (and believe me you will) then please do yourself a favor and rent it.
Peace,
James
Try seeing Insignificance if you like Theresa Russell's work. One bit of trivia, both of the main actresses in this movie portrayed marilyn monroe in other films... Insignificance is the one for Theresa Russell.
And I have seen this film many many times. It's one of my favorites. Blade Runner is one of my favorites too and the critics panned it but it's got quite a following now. I just don't listen to critics much anymore
Also check out Theresa Russell in BAD TIMING, now out on a Criterion Collection edition.
sharewI watched The Razor's Edge in my world history class a few days ago and was surprised at how good it was. I was excited at the presence of Bill Murray (one of my favorite actors) and the journey to enlightenment plotline that Murray's character followed really appealed to me because it reminded me of my own life. I got so angry though when Isabell's husband and son had died and she screams at the nun. It was such a moving scene and the majority of the class laughed at it. I hate the public school system.
sharePersonally I thought it was a great failure. Murray was excelent, and the story of his character was fascinating. But, the director put to much junk into it. For example, the whole WW1 part was pointless, the film should have began after he returned from the war. Secondly, the film concentrated to much of the supporting characters.
Also, i found the script to be baddly written - to much dialogue i htink (I cna't remember, been a while since i saw the film.)
Oh, andy_man70...
The point of "the whole WW1 part" was to show the reason for and beginning of Larry's transformation. The point was to show why Larry changed from a booze-swindling charming rogue on the fast track to riches into a soul-searching, world-exploring truth-seeker interested in purity and life. In other words, "the story of his character".
The film did not concentrate too (two "o"s when you mean more than enough, Andy!) much on the supporting characters. Each one, from Elliot Templeton to the coal miner to Coco, help shape Larry's outlook on life. In order to show Larry shape, the film needed to explore the external forces acting on him.
As to your argument that the script was poorly written with all that dialogue and stuff, even if one were to ignore your typographical errors, your admission alone of unfamiliarity with the material renders it impotent. That your spelling and grammar are embarrassingly poor dismiss you as an expert on any written material.
Well, spelling has never been my strong point, though i think its unfair to judge my intelligence by it!
As for the WW1 part, I understand your point about how it changed him etc, but my view is that something like that is a completley different film and owuld be much better left as something that is implied.
I also take your point about the supporting characters, what i meant was that specificaly focusing on the lives of the people in paris when they had no effect on larry.
Although a bit of time has passed since most of the comments here, I could'nt contain myself from adding my own. I was made privy to the wonderful book "A Razor's Edge" several years ago by a woman who said that the protagonist of the story reminded her very much of me. Being that this was a compliment, curosity got the best of me and at first chance I bought the book at a local used bookstore. To say I was overwhelmed by this story would be an understatement. Everything about Larry Darrell and those around him was mesmerizing to say the least. In my mindset, I could'nt possibly fathom how anyone could "not" like this story. This "new" version of the screen adaptation found it's way into my life tonight via zig-zag browsing of the internet. Although I have'nt seen it yet, the fact that Bill M. is in it is enough to have me foaming at the grill in anticipation. Thank-you each and everyone of you for your comments on this movie and especially the book that I hold close to my heart. The woman is no longer a part of my life, but just like reading the book...knowing her has made me a better person in doing so...
shareI'm sorry to say I don't agree with most of you about this version of this movie. I did love the original 1946 version with Tyronne Power, Clifton Webb, et al, but this newer version just doesn't compare. To be fair, I did like the Tibetan scenery and the costumes were fun, however that is as much as I could appreciate. Bill Murray is a very good comedic actor, but this movie was definitely not his cross over into drama. He always plays the same character with the same dead pan expression. In the original version there was a distinct change in Larry's demeanor after his stay in Tibet. Also, Sophie's downfall is made more tragic in the original because we witness the deliberateness of Isabel's treachery to keep Larry for herself. The new version never goes beyond the surface of the characters which leads to such shallow development that one is left with more questions about their motives. In the original we are shown just how selfish Isabel becomes, how weak Gray becomes, how tragic Sophie becomes, how petty and superficial Uncle Elliott becomes, and how enlightened Larry becomes. Uncle Elliott's (Clifton Webb)death scene is brilliant and touching, but we realize he has learned little of his own life. It is the same with the other characters, as well. Larry has put so much effort into learning about himself and life, but in the end comes to the realization that "It doesn't matter". However his quest for goodness has been an honest one, whereas the other characters simply come and go clutching to whatever reality they believe they have or want. At any rate, this is simply my opinion and although many of you may not agree with me, I felt compelled to express it. Watch both and see which rings true and affects you more and just enjoy. It is a good story to relate and THAT will not be a disappointment.
shareI like your title to this thread, cuz that was the one word I said when the movie ended. Wow.
I really wasn't expecting to like this movie - I'm such a fan of the '46 version, I didn't see how it could improve on that. But it really, really did. I loved how they focused more on Larry/Sophie's relationship, in the earlier version that happened almost exclusively offscreen. I'm such a fan of Anne Baxter, and she won the Oscar for playing Sophie back then - but, and I hate to say it - Theresa Russell nailed that part.
The one disappointing thing is how they have Uncle Elliot. Denhom Elliot was a great actor, but he just didn't enjoy the character. Definately gotta give the kudos to Clifton Webb in the earlier version. He was just a joy to watch.
But despite having the same name and the same source material, the movies are so different. They really focus on different things, so I guess it's easy to be loyal to both movies. *Sigh* now I just need to start reading that book :)
I don't care about money. I just want to be wonderful. - Marilyn Monroe
I read somewhere that Bill Murray really fought to get this movie made (by agreeing to make Ghostbusters) I was sadened to here it was panned by critics and lack of success at the box office.
Bill's interpretation of Larry was truly inspiring, the casting on this film was perfect and John Byrum did a great job with the direction.
A truly great film which will one day get it's well deserved recognition.
As I've mentioned in another post (hopefully not one of the ones that got wiped out when I got booted off a couple years ago), Bill Murray fought hard to get "The Razor's Edge" on the screen and agreed to make "Ghostbusters" to do it.
There's a great Rolling Stone interview where Murray talks about finishing his last shots for "Razor's Edge" and then flying directly to NYC for his first day on "Ghostbusters."
("Ghostbusters" would be released first in the summer of '84 and then "Razor" would come out in Oct.)
Not all the critics panned it: both Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel gave the film very good reviews!
I was wowed when I saw this film too. It's a wonderful story. It was the first drama I had seen Bill Murray in (Lost in Translation had just been released, I believe) and I, too, was surprised that not too many people were familiar with it. I tell people about it whenever appropriate. Not long ago I recommended this film to a guy I ran into in an airport reading Siddhartha.
I will have to read the book and watch the first version.
____
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/11/05/gal_frontpage_1105.jpg
It’s an unheralded movie that needs some more heralding.
But really, it never was about that.
Some scenes that stick with me: The scene with Larry and his dying army buddy when he says how his life doesn’t mean anything while really it means everything is some of the most emotionally bare acting I’ve ever scene. Heartbreaking. And the other scene where Elliot is dying and Larry lies about the letter to give his friend some dignity before he dies is spine tingling touching. And then the scene where the lady from 7th heaven simply. Doesn’t. Get. It. She plays shrill perfectly. That sums it up. About the movie. And that some people simply. Don’t. Get. It. I don’t know if you can have a man in an American movie be more in touch with emotions, and not be a retard or a loon, as opposed to the female characters.
That’s simply too much to take. For. People. Who. Just. Don’t. Get. It.
I'm with you on this. I've watched this film probably once every 2 years for the last 15 years. It's a bit raw, but I find it's differences from the original to be refreshing. Bill Murray was great in his first dramatic role, and the end is heartbreaking (I know some folks find Denholm Elliot's death scene to be bad, but I thought it was honest--Death is ugly).
This is just a superb film. It's available right now for instant play on your computer through Netflix. I just watched it. Still great!
I do YouTube videos. Check 'em out: www.youtube.com/adifferentview
I saw this film in the theater when it was released and have always considered it one of my favorite movies. I saw it again this evening and have changed my mind. I now consider to be my favorite movie.
shareThis is the kind of movie that stays with you, like the above person said. This is one of if not my favorite movie and Bill Murray did an excellent job in it.
share