Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[cropduster]

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

Picked up Eureka and Cutter’s Way from the sale based on (Elric’s recommendations from) the Twilight Time episode of Pure Cinema Podcast. The trailers and subject matters sold me even more. Anybody else have any strong feelings on either of these?

Cutter's Way is one of the best lesser known/hidden gem titles in the TT catalogue. Jeff Bridges and Lisa Eichhorn give stellar performances but John Heard completely steals the show with his mesmerizing over the top performance as war vet "Alex Cutter". Heard's performance in Cutter's Way makes me wish that Heard took his acting career more in the direction of this film's acting style instead of going into a more mainstream, safer acting career, which I believe Heard kinda regretted not doing later on in life.

The soundtrack by Jack Nitzsche is very beautiful and haunting and perfectly fits the mystery that slowly unfolds for the three main characters as they try to uncover whether plutocrat J.J. Cord is the man who Bone saw dump a murdered young girl's body in the garbage during the cynical time of post-Vietnam era America.

Cutter's Way also has one of the saddest and most un-erotic sex scenes in film history. What makes it even worse is that, as a viewer, you want the two characters to hook up with each other because there is an obvious chemistry between them both. But these are characters that are damaged and broken in different ways as well as haunted by their past and their bleak future. Their scars are deep and their romance isn't going to have a fairy tale ending.

Cutter's Way is the kind of film that makes me fall in love with cinema all over again and keeps me searching for those often neglected masterpieces that are just waiting to be re-discovered or, in some cases, discovered for the first time. It's one of the greatest films that most have never heard of and gets my highest recommendation.

[Richard Graham]

Quick shot of the Walter Hill sig for anyone curious.

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by cropduster

Cutter's Way is one of the best lesser known/hidden gem titles in the TT catalogue. Jeff Bridges and Lisa Eichhorn give stellar performances but John Heard completely steals the show with his mesmerizing over the top performance as war vet "Alex Cutter". Heard's performance in Cutter's Way makes me wish that Heard took his acting career more in the direction of this film's acting style instead of going into a more mainstream, safer acting career, which I believe Heard kinda regretted not doing later on in life.

The soundtrack by Jack Nitzsche is very beautiful and haunting and perfectly fits the mystery that slowly unfolds for the three main characters as they try to uncover whether plutocrat J.J. Cord is the man who Bone saw dump a murdered young girl's body in the garbage during the cynical time of post-Vietnam era America.

Cutter's Way also has one of the saddest and most un-erotic sex scenes in film history. What makes it even worse is that, as a viewer, you want the two characters to hook up with each other because there is an obvious chemistry between them both. But these are characters that are damaged and broken in different ways as well as haunted by their past and their bleak future. Their scars are deep and their romance isn't going to have a fairy tale ending.

Cutter's Way is the kind of film that makes me fall in love with cinema all over again and keeps me searching for those often neglected masterpieces that are just waiting to be re-discovered or, in some cases, discovered for the first time. It's one of the greatest films that most have never heard of and gets my highest recommendation.

Cutter's Way remains my favorite Twilight Time blind buy. Even though it came out in 1981, it's got that feel of a 'lost 70s movie'. I think it's a real shame that United Artists was in such a shambles by the time this film was released that this film didn't get the love it deserved. These are three incredibly well-drawn characters given three superb performances by Heard, Bridges and Eichhorn. And the last scene definitely stays with you long after the film is over, that's for sure.

[billy pilgrim]

Originally Posted by lilboyblu

Picked up Eureka and Cutter’s Way from the sale based on (Elric’s recommendations from) the Twilight Time episode of Pure Cinema Podcast. The trailers and subject matters sold me even more. Anybody else have any strong feelings on either of these?

I think Eureka is one of Roeg's best and one of his most neglected films. I have included a review I wrote a while back. Hope this helps!


Yesterday I watched Nicholas Roeg's incredible film, Eureka. I had previously watched Psychomania earlier in the evening, so now I felt I was in the mood for something completely different; a well made film's yang to the low budget, very enjoyably bad Psychomania's yin.

I had seen this film way back, Mr. Peabody, when it was first released to the theaters. I guess at that time, even though I was a dedicated Roeg fan from Performance and Don't Look Now to Man Who Fell To Earth, I was evidently not ready for this film at that time. I did not enjoy it. Now, 30 plus years later, I revisited this same film and had a completely different experience.

If ever a film required repeat viewings, this one is it (along with other strange, dense endeavors, a la Mulholland Drive). This film is a collection of strange images and wtf moments on top of a story line very similar to the much later There Will Be Blood. In fact, I would call TWBB almost the sibling film in tone and plot to Eureka.

Some basic plot details follow, so be advised.

Gene Hackman gives one of his finest performances as prospector who is driven to find gold in the Yukon. It is his life's passion and total ambition. After 15 years of searching and finding the strike of a lifetime (in a wildly surrealistic scene), he retires and buys his own island and has a life that has everything money can buy, but he becomes more and more unhappy and miserable. The one thing he loves passionately is his daughter, played by Theresa Russell, who is the light of his life and his one weakness. She is married to a philandering French playboy (in an inspired performance by Rutger Hauer) who, Hackman believes, is using his daughter for his money.
On top top of that, there is a Jewish mobster from Miami (a somewhat odd performance by Joe Pesci) accompanied by his slimy Italian American lawyer (a perfectly oily performance by a still handsome pre reconstructive surgery Mickey Rourke) who are threatening Hackman to sell his property for the construction of a casino. That's the basic plot, but there is so much more going on here.

A strange occult theme runs through the entire film and some very graphic images appear at intervals, including a very prescient scene where [Show spoiler]

The interwoven violence that permeates this film is brought to a horrific crescendo during the [Show spoiler]
It shook me and took me totally by surprise. (I had forgotten most of the film from when I first viewed it.)

I'm a bit compulsive on how I like to approach films. I don't want to know much of anything about the plot and therefore studiously avoid watching trailers (which are so poorly made anymore and take all the mystery and adventure out of film watching, giving away almost all plot points along the way). So, when I advise prospective new viewers to watch a commentary first prior to watching the film, you know that there must be a lot going on here.

I had already watched the film on the TT Blu Ray, which had very good PQ and AQ BTW, and felt that although I enjoyed this viewing so much more than the first, this film required a lot of attention and some of the plot points are quite obscure to a first or second time viewer. I subsequently watched the interview with Paul Mayersburg, the screenwriter for the film. Mr. Mayersburg gives a well spoken and a very welcome explanation of the images and themes interwoven in this film. It's rare that I listen to one of these commentaries that I find to be so helpful in understanding and enjoying all the layers of such a difficult, yet fascinating film. I highly recommend watching this either before or immediately after the film, it's that good.

Rarely do I find such a wonderfully challenging film experience. From surrealistic imagery, to great performances (Theresa Russell is the weakest link here), through truly shocking violence, this film wears its weirdness on its sleeve and the whole combines into a flawed, yet magnificent film that takes it (IMHO) to the status of a stone cold classic.

One of Roeg's best and comes highly recommended for those who enjoy strange films with multiple layers of meaning, surrealistic images, and story lines that require some interpretative effort on the part of the viewer.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by BagheeraMcGee

Cutter's Way remains my favorite Twilight Time blind buy. Even though it came out in 1981, it's got that feel of a 'lost 70s movie'. I think it's a real shame that United Artists was in such a shambles by the time this film was released that this film didn't get the love it deserved. These are three incredibly well-drawn characters given three superb performances by Heard, Bridges and Eichhorn. And the last scene definitely stays with you long after the film is over, that's for sure.

It also didn't do much for the career of Ivan Passer, the film's director. Passer directed one of the great films of the Czech new wave, Intimate Lighting, before moving to the U.S. after the Soviet invasion in 1968. He made a few movies in the U.S., but none delivered on the promise of his first film until Cutter's Way. That film's quiet slide into obscurity is a shame because it deserved a much better fate.

By the way, I didn't notice, until I read a recent interview that Passer gave, that there is no blue in Cutter's Way. Apparently, Passer and his cinematographer wanted to make a black and white film in color. Of, I now realize, that's why it looks that way!

[mja345]

Originally Posted by belcherman

It also didn't do much for the career of Ivan Passer, the film's director. Passer directed one of the great films of the Czech new wave, Intimate Lighting, before moving to the U.S. after the Soviet invasion in 1968. He made a few movies in the U.S., but none delivered on the promise of his first film until Cutter's Way. That film's quiet slide into obscurity is a shame because it deserved a much better fate.

By the way, I didn't notice, until I read a recent interview that Passer gave, that there is no blue in Cutter's Way. Apparently, Passer and his cinematographer wanted to make a black and white film in color. Of, I now realize, that's why it looks that way!

"Born to Win", Passer's first American film, is also really good. Not quite on the same level as "Cutter's Way", but it's another forgotten gem. 1976's "Crime and Passion" is supposed to be pretty interesting as well, but is practically impossible to find these days.

[lilboyblu]

I thank you gentlemen for the solid reviews and insights. I didn't really have any doubts about either, but wanted to at least get some more perspective. Thanks again!

[BagheeraMcGee]

Just checked my account at SAE and it's showing SHIPPED with a tracking number for my 5-title sale order placed on Friday!

[SeanJoyce]

Jeff Bridges has to the "cult classics" king, right? I'm continually astounded with how many great movies he made that tread in obscure waters. After I see one another pops its head above the surface.

TT has really expanded my viewing, and hence, appreciation of Bridge's talent and career. He's a lot like Robert Duvall, another fixture in American films who may not have always made the biggest splashes but just quietly and consistently churned out a lot of great work over the years.

I guess that's my preface for Cutter's Way which, to echo several respected board members, is just dazzling cinema. There's enjoying a blind buy and there's getting floored by one; it was the latter for me. Just the FEEL of the movie, it sucks you in and ensnares you just like the best noir is capable of doing. And for me personally, I've always had a penchant for small groups of people in over their heads against malignant forces, and Cutter's Way does such a miraculous job of creating a palpable danger from their perhaps self-created plight.

Get it watched.

[thinredline]

For those that missed it and are Region B or Free, Under fire comes in September in a digibook in Germany:
https://www.amazon.de/Unter-Feuer-Limitiertes-Mediabook-Blu-ray/dp/B079FLYB7V

[jarrod_inf]

Anyone have experience with that Japanese release of Major Dundee? Due to my obsessive focus on horror I’ve completely neglected westerns for years and I missed out on this and other TT westerns.

[moviflicilm]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Jeff Bridges has to the "cult classics" king, right? I'm continually astounded with how many great movies he made that tread in obscure waters. After I see one another pops its head above the surface.

TT has really expanded my viewing, and hence, appreciation of Bridge's talent and career. He's a lot like Robert Duvall, another fixture in American films who may not have always made the biggest splashes but just quietly and consistently churned out a lot of great work over the years.

I guess that's my preface for Cutter's Way which, to echo several respected board members, is just dazzling cinema. There's enjoying a blind buy and there's getting floored by one; it was the latter for me. Just the FEEL of the movie, it sucks you in and ensnares you just like the best noir is capable of doing. And for me personally, I've always had a penchant for small groups of people in over their heads against malignant forces, and Cutter's Way does such a miraculous job of creating a palpable danger from their perhaps self-created plight.

Get it watched.

What puzzles me about Jeff Bridges is how he never become a huge movie star, because he's just so damn likable and charming. Maybe it's the quirky and off-beat nature of his best films that never translated to large box office sales that lessen Bridges dent among leading men in Hollywood. Whatever the reason Bridges deserves to have bigger statue then just being the actor who appeared in a movie revered among college stoners. Bridges just has this naturalism ability where he brings life into the character in very nuanced ways. He just happens to be one of those actors that has a brand of simplicity that is much harder to depict on screen then any scene-chewing Oscary performance that gets nominated on yearly basis.


Cutters Way is one of the great hidden gems in American cinema and glad you finally gave the film a shot blindly.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by moviflicilm

What puzzles me about Jeff Bridges is how he never become a huge movie star, because he's just so damn likable and charming. Maybe it's the quirky and off-beat nature of his best films that never translated to large box office sales that lessen Bridges dent among leading men in Hollywood. Whatever the reason Bridges deserves to have bigger statue then just being the actor who appeared in a movie revered among college stoners. Bridges just has this naturalism ability where he brings life into the character in very nuanced ways. He just happens to be one of those actors that has a brand of simplicity that is much harder to depict on screen then any scene-chewing Oscary performance that gets nominated on yearly basis.

Yeah he is and he isn't. Bridges is a really interesting case because he doesn't quite have the "status" of some of his peers, but he's well-liked and respected, has an Oscar (to go with a chest of nominations) and an iconic movie character on his resume.

But like you said, I just think he made so many "little" films compared to the "big" ones, and it's in these where he really shines. Going through Bridges' filmography is like stumbling upon an antique store off the beaten path; so many neglected but endlessly charming trinkets to uncover.

And I agree with you that affability and the ease with which he slips into his characters has probably made people overlook him or take him for granted.

But he's really a gift to movie fans. When will somebody get their hands on Bad Company?

[oildude]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Yeah he is and he isn't. Bridges is a really interesting case because he doesn't quite have the "status" of some of his peers, but he's well-liked and respected, has an Oscar (to go with a chest of nominations) and an iconic movie character on his resume.

But like you said, I just think he made so many "little" films compared to the "big" ones, and it's in these where he really shines. Going through Bridges' filmography is like stumbling upon an antique store off the beaten path; so many neglected but endlessly charming trinkets to uncover.

And I agree with you that affability and the ease with which he slips into his characters has probably made people overlook him or take him for granted.

But he's really a gift to movie fans. When will somebody get their hands on Bad Company?

He's also been happily married to the same woman since 1977. She was working at a dude ranch when he met her while on a film shoot.

I also want to thank TT for making me fully aware of his career and range of roles. My first exposure to Jeff was when I was as a kid in the 1970s and watched him on TV reruns of Sea Hunt, where he was a kid about my age and appeared with his dad, Lloyd. But I really only "discovered" him in the home video era, especially on Blu-ray.

From what little I have read, he is a good guy, humble, and down to earth. Of all the current actors in Hollywood, he has become my favorite.

[RCRochester]

I've liked Jeff Bridges ever since I saw him in Tron as a kid, and Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (released by Twilight Time) is one of my all time favourite films, I had to buy two copies.

Also, as someone whose father was an alcoholic, I can say that he nailed it in Crazy Heart. Any time I see any other movie star playing a drunk, it comes across as so phony but his performance was so absolutely spot-on, I can't even bring myself to watch that movie again.

[moviflicilm]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Yeah he is and he isn't. Bridges is a really interesting case because he doesn't quite have the "status" of some of his peers, but he's well-liked and respected, has an Oscar (to go with a chest of nominations) and an iconic movie character on his resume.

But like you said, I just think he made so many "little" films compared to the "big" ones, and it's in these where he really shines. Going through Bridges' filmography is like stumbling upon an antique store off the beaten path; so many neglected but endlessly charming trinkets to uncover.

And I agree with you that affability and the ease with which he slips into his characters has probably made people overlook him or take him for granted.

But he's really a gift to movie fans. When will somebody get their hands on Bad Company?

Yeah, he's definitely well-liked in the industry as evident by his Oscar win and past nominations. What you said about his affability is just made so effortless that I do think for a long period of time Bridges was taken for granted by film geeks. His laid-back persona should have made him a bigger star in my book. He's blessed us geeks with many wonderful gems through many decades that I can't complain about his lack of stardom.


Many actors would die to have a character/film that is endlessly endearing to millions that it inspires a religion. It makes you think about the great actors who don't have an iconic role in their resume.

[Fat Phil]

Husbands and Wives has just arrived on my doorstep in merry old England. Step aside old plans! There's a new itinerary for the evening.

[cropduster]

Originally Posted by billy pilgrim

I think Eureka is one of Roeg's best and one of his most neglected films. I have included a review I wrote a while back. Hope this helps!

[Show spoiler]Yesterday I watched Nicholas Roeg's incredible film, Eureka. I had previously watched Psychomania earlier in the evening, so now I felt I was in the mood for something completely different; a well made film's yang to the low budget, very enjoyably bad Psychomania's yin.

I had seen this film way back, Mr. Peabody, when it was first released to the theaters. I guess at that time, even though I was a dedicated Roeg fan from Performance and Don't Look Now to Man Who Fell To Earth, I was evidently not ready for this film at that time. I did not enjoy it. Now, 30 plus years later, I revisited this same film and had a completely different experience.

If ever a film required repeat viewings, this one is it (along with other strange, dense endeavors, a la Mulholland Drive). This film is a collection of strange images and wtf moments on top of a story line very similar to the much later There Will Be Blood. In fact, I would call TWBB almost the sibling film in tone and plot to Eureka.

Some basic plot details follow, so be advised.

Gene Hackman gives one of his finest performances as prospector who is driven to find gold in the Yukon. It is his life's passion and total ambition. After 15 years of searching and finding the strike of a lifetime (in a wildly surrealistic scene), he retires and buys his own island and has a life that has everything money can buy, but he becomes more and more unhappy and miserable. The one thing he loves passionately is his daughter, played by Theresa Russell, who is the light of his life and his one weakness. She is married to a philandering French playboy (in an inspired performance by Rutger Hauer) who, Hackman believes, is using his daughter for his money.
On top top of that, there is a Jewish mobster from Miami (a somewhat odd performance by Joe Pesci) accompanied by his slimy Italian American lawyer (a perfectly oily performance by a still handsome pre reconstructive surgery Mickey Rourke) who are threatening Hackman to sell his property for the construction of a casino. That's the basic plot, but there is so much more going on here.

A strange occult theme runs through the entire film and some very graphic images appear at intervals, including a very prescient scene where [Show spoiler]

The interwoven violence that permeates this film is brought to a horrific crescendo during the [Show spoiler]
It shook me and took me totally by surprise. (I had forgotten most of the film from when I first viewed it.)

I'm a bit compulsive on how I like to approach films. I don't want to know much of anything about the plot and therefore studiously avoid watching trailers (which are so poorly made anymore and take all the mystery and adventure out of film watching, giving away almost all plot points along the way). So, when I advise prospective new viewers to watch a commentary first prior to watching the film, you know that there must be a lot going on here.

I had already watched the film on the TT Blu Ray, which had very good PQ and AQ BTW, and felt that although I enjoyed this viewing so much more than the first, this film required a lot of attention and some of the plot points are quite obscure to a first or second time viewer. I subsequently watched the interview with Paul Mayersburg, the screenwriter for the film. Mr. Mayersburg gives a well spoken and a very welcome explanation of the images and themes interwoven in this film. It's rare that I listen to one of these commentaries that I find to be so helpful in understanding and enjoying all the layers of such a difficult, yet fascinating film. I highly recommend watching this either before or immediately after the film, it's that good.

Rarely do I find such a wonderfully challenging film experience. From surrealistic imagery, to great performances (Theresa Russell is the weakest link here), through truly shocking violence, this film wears its weirdness on its sleeve and the whole combines into a flawed, yet magnificent film that takes it (IMHO) to the status of a stone cold classic.

One of Roeg's best and comes highly recommended for those who enjoy strange films with multiple layers of meaning, surrealistic images, and story lines that require some interpretative effort on the part of the viewer.

Thanks for the great write up, I've been contemplating ordering Eureka for a while now but Roeg's films have been kind of hit or miss with me. I'm definitely ordering it with my next sale order though, as $9.95 sounds like a steal for this film.

[cropduster]

Originally Posted by BagheeraMcGee

Cutter's Way remains my favorite Twilight Time blind buy. Even though it came out in 1981, it's got that feel of a 'lost 70s movie'. I think it's a real shame that United Artists was in such a shambles by the time this film was released that this film didn't get the love it deserved. These are three incredibly well-drawn characters given three superb performances by Heard, Bridges and Eichhorn. And the last scene definitely stays with you long after the film is over, that's for sure.

I agree. Cutter's Way was most likely filmed in the first year or so of the new decade, in that transition period before the fashions and culture of the 1970's vanished and the culture of the 1980's had come into being. And it's a better film because of it. I think Passer's use of universal themes set during a transitional time in America gives it this feeling of being outside of time despite the film being set during an unspecified time period after Vietnam. The film could take place in the mid 1970's, much less 1981.

Originally Posted by belcherman

By the way, I didn't notice, until I read a recent interview that Passer gave, that there is no blue in Cutter's Way. Apparently, Passer and his cinematographer wanted to make a black and white film in color. Of, I now realize, that's why it looks that way!

I watched a 35mm print of Cutter's Way last year on the big screen and the print was faded red so it was like watching a red and brown colored version of the film. The film was still just as potent, though it was akin to watching a sepia tinged neo noir in Grindhouse mode.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Also, as someone whose father was an alcoholic, I can say that he nailed it in Crazy Heart. Any time I see any other movie star playing a drunk, it comes across as so phony but his performance was so absolutely spot-on, I can't even bring myself to watch that movie again.

While I don't have any real-life experiences living with a full-blown alcoholic, the element of Crazy Heart that annoyed me (as they so often do in movies about addiction) is that the film has a cut in-between the rock-bottom "I need to get sober" scene and MONTHS later when Bridges has been off the sauce. It trivializes the recovery process to do that. The 2012 alcoholism drama Smashed did the same thing. These movies so often don't want to get into the long-term hardships of the road to recovery, and just want to skip ahead to the "brand new day" happy ending.