I saw . . . this : Part 2

See Part 1 for instructions.

East of Eden (1955)

It's pretty good for a Steinbeck adaptation. Perhaps the best way to experience Steinbeck, in fact, is on the screen: you wouldn't have to read his ham-fisted FORESHADOWING or his "look at me! look at me!" style of symbolism. I have no idea why the intro had to be, at least, 8 minutes long, or why the girl's interest suddenly and definitely shifted to Cal (James Dean), but the competition between Cal and Aron (Richard Davalos) for their father's love was well done. I can see why they made such a big deal out Dean's big screen breakthrough. For all the imitation, nothing has ever come close to approximating his angst or the magnetic heat underneath it.

Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

Part one of my Sidney Lumet weekend. I liked it, and I can think of far worse movies to be locked up with, but I kind of don't see the big deal. Pacino was great (man always shows up to work), Durning was underused, nice to see John Cazale in anything else because he does sweaty and nervous with the best of them. The "Attica! Attica!" bit went over my head because I didn't get what he was referencing (he explains it in the film, but it was still sort of lost on me) and because the "true story" factor seemed slightly beyond my grasp. Maybe I'm just used to watching bank robbery movies with guys in mask who run around with machine guns and hurry to cover the cameras. I did like the way it focused on the robbers' perspective rather than a cat and mouse game between negotiator and criminal. The movie's a product of its time, I guess, but the performances, story, and dialogue have aged well enough to carry it through.

Network (1976)

Part two of said weekend. Eerily prescient and incredibly well cast (Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Peter Finch, and Robert Duvall in the leads), but it's too slow in spots (the famed "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" scene went on for the better part of forever), it gets repetitive quickly, and the dialogue had serious issues with the overuse of jargon and the under use of natural speech patterns. It's the same with any Aaron Sorkin script (idealistic, romantic language expressed beautifully), but you've got to be into it to work with it, and Paddy Chayefsky's script's difficult to get into. Great name, though.