I Just Watched...

[film lover 293]

"Hombre" (1967)--Starring Paul Newman, Diane Cilento, Fredric March, and Barbara Rush.  Directed by Martin Ritt.

 

Cynical, uninvolving Western where all the characters except Newman's and Cilento's are racist, cowards, out only for themselves, or all three.  Newman plays his mixed-race character as stone faced, with minimal dialogue and expression.  March is good as the ex-Indian Agent.  Rush does well as his wife.  Cilento provides welcome humor and humanity to the film.

 

James Wong Howe's good photography can't disguise the fact that most of the film was shot on a set.  The characters hair may be snarled and tangled from the wind, but the scenery behind them is motionless.

 

"Hombre" was a real disappointment.  2.3/4

[Sepiatone]

I always liked "Hombre".  MY favorite performance in it though, comes from RICHARD BOONE, who played "bad guy" Grimes.

 

A buddy of mine observed once, while watching it;  "They gave HIS character the right name!  GRIMES.  He DOES look rather "grimy"  doesn't he?"  

 

Sepiatone

[kingrat]

I would gladly watch Hombre again just for Diane Cilento's marvelous performance. She would have my vote as the best actress of 1967. Richard Boone is a most dashing villain. Martin Balsam is a very hit or miss actor--he's fairly dreadful in Catch-22 and The Anderson Tapes--but he is truly outstanding in Hombre. Barbara Rush, as usual, gives a good performance. Hombre is a Paul Newman movie where Newman himself is rather peripheral to the best stuff in the movie.

[cigarjoe]

Hombre is one of the best American Westerns, hard to believe that some think it was shot on a set. That abandoned mine location was the real deal. Anyway for anyone interested in a comparison between the Film and the Elmore Leonard novel here goes:

 

 

The story is told sort of in flash back style by Menedez's helper the blonde kid Peter Lee Blake, who is the newly wed in the film but in the book he's not married to the blonde girl who in the book is an indian captive that's just been released. He meets her just before the stage takes off

 

Russel inherits a ranch not a boarding house in the book, so there is no Jesse (Diane Cilantro) boarding house manager part nor is there a Cameron Mitchell sherrif backstory though his character name Frank Braden is used in the book instead of Cicero Grimes. 

 

The incident at Delgado's is the first time the narrator sees Hombre, its also explained that Newman's character has three names John Russel, Ish-kay-nay, and Tres Hombre, he got the name in a fight with renegades and the muleskinners he was with said he fought like Tres Hombres.

 

Cicero Grimes (Richard Boone) is called Frank Braden in the book (the name of Cameron Mitchell's lawman gone bad character in the film) and his dialogue in the film is right out of the book. So with the coach are Menedez, Blake, McLaren, Dr. & Audra Favor, Russel and Braden. In the story there is no Jesse, Kathleen McLaren the girl (17 yrs old) who was taken captive ( by Apaches for about a month) and is being returned to her parents was split into two people in the screenplay. 

 

In the story she is an attraction to Carl Allen, Menendez's helper who becomes Peter Lee Blake in the screenplay and McLaren character splits into both his young unsatified wife Doris Blake, and tough as nails Jesse.

 

In the novel its Kathleen who eventually becomes the outspoken one, speaking for the "human" race rather than taking sides, always goading Russel to do whats right she says "people help other people."

 

In the novel its Kathleen who yells out to Dr. Favor at the San Pedro Mine and gives them away. 

 

Russell "I want to know why you helped."

 

Kathleen "Because he needed help! I didn't ask if he deserved it.....Like that woman (Audra Favor) needs to live, its not up to us to decide if she deserves it."

 

Russell "We only help her, huh?"

 

Kathleen "Do we have another choice?"

 

Russell "Not Help her."

 

Kathleen "Just let her die."

 

Russell "Thats up to Braden (Grimes). We have another thing to look at, if we don't give him the money he has to come get it."

 

Kathleen "You'd sacrifice a human life for that money, that's what you're saying."

 

Russell "Go ask that woman what she thinks of human life.  Ask her what human life is worth at San Carlos when they run out of meat."

 

Kathleen "That isn't any fault of hers."

 

Russell "She said those dirty Indians eat dogs. You remember that? She couldn't eat a dog no matter how hungry she was..... Go ask her if she'd eat a dog now."

 

Kathleen "That's why she insulted the poor hungry miserable Indians and you'd let her die for that!"

 

Russell  "We were talking about human life."

 

Kathleen "Even if there was no money, nothing to be gained, you'd let her die! ....Because she thinks Indians are dirty and no better than animals."

 

Russell "It makes you angry why talk about it."

 

Kathleen "I want to talk about it, .... I would like you to ask me what I think a human life is worth... a dirty human Apache life. Go on ask me. Ask me about the ones who took me from my home and keep me past a month. Ask me about the dirty things they did, what the women did when the men weren'y around and what the men did when we weren't running but were hiding somewhere and there was time to waste. I dare you to ask me!" ..... "I haven't seen my folks in two months....or my little brother. Just he and I were home and he ran and I don't know what happend to him, whether they caught him or what." .... "What do they think of an eight year old human life?... Do they just kill little boys who can't defend themselves?"

 

Russell "If they don't want them."

 

Kathleen silently dared Russell to say something else. 

 

A few pages later as Audra is screaming for help and Russell asks each of those in the cabin if they want to go and help Mrs. Favor, they all decline even Kathleen. Russell then takes off his Apache moccasins and throws them at Kathleen, "Wear those, You run faster when the shooting starts " He then takes out his boots and puts them on."

 

At end of book.

 

John Russell was buried in Sweetmary. It was strange that neither the McLaren girl nor Henry Mendez nor I said much about him until after the funeral, and when we did talk found there wasn't much to be said. 

 

You can look at something for a long time and not see it until it runs off. That was how we had looked at John Russell. Now, nobody questioned why he walked down that slope. What we ask ourselves was why we ever thought he wouldn't.

 

Maybe he was showing off a little bit when he asked each of us if we wanted to walk down to the Favor woman, nowing nobody would but himself.

 

Maybe he let us think a lot of things about him that weren't true. But as Russell would say that was up to us...... Russell never changed the whole time, though I think everyone else did in some way. He did what he felt had to be done. Even if it meant dying. So maybe you don't have to understand him. You just know him.

 

"Take a good look at John Russell. You will never see another one like him as long as you live" That first day, at Delgado's, Henry Mendez said it all.

 

end

 

 

[cigarjoe]

When Strangers Marry (1944) Low budget quickie with Robert Mitchum, Dean Jagger, and Kim Hunter. Directed by William Castle, interesting. 6/10

[Bogie56]

Her Night of Romance (1924).  This was a TCM Premiere and part of Ronald Colman Summer Under the Stars day when I recorded it.  Ben Mankiewicz looked quite a bit younger in the intro.  I had never seen a Constance Talmadge film before and this one did not disappoint.  She is great in this and Ronald Colman shows his ability at a subtler form of comedy too.

[film lover 293]

"The House That Dripped Blood" (1970)--Starring Christopher Lee, Denholm Elliott, Ingrid Pitt, and Peter Cushing.  Directed by Peter Duffell.

 

Anthology horror film has five stories.  The framing story is about a Scotland Yard Inspector who refuses to believe in the supernatural.  In order, the other tales feature: Denholm Elliott is a writer who is too sympathetic to his novels' character; Peter Cushing as a widower who becomes fascinated with a statue of Salome; Christopher Lee as a father who won't allow his daughter to own toys; and Ingrid Pitt as an egotistical actress and Jon Pertwee as an actor who demands authenticity.

 

Lee's and Pitt's stories are best: Elliotts story is good also; Cushing's tale is weakest, because the script is predictable and I guessed the ending shock less than halfway into that story.

 

Overall, an inconsistent but fun watch.  3/4.

[LornaHansonForbes]

"The House That Dripped Blood" (1970)--Starring Christopher Lee, Denholm Elliott, Ingrid Pitt, and Peter Cushing.  Directed by Peter Duffell.

 

Anthology horror film has five stories.  The framing story is about a Scotland Yard Inspector who refuses to believe in the supernatural.  In order, the other tales feature: Denholm Elliott is a writer who is too sympathetic to his novels' character;...

 

i'm drawn to the 197o's/80's British Horror Anthologies (and even some films like THEATER OF BLOOD and DR. PHIBES, which while not anthologies, are episodic in quality.) even when they don't quite work, they're memorable.

 

i think the most memorable- for me- would be ROY WARD BAKER'S THE MONSTER CLUB**, which is a trio of horror stories and vignettes. saw it as a kid and it FREAKED ME THE HELL OUT, rediscovered it recently and was most amused.

 

I love Denholm Elliot, such a gentle, eccentric, deeply touching actor....

 

PS- for those looking to go on a British horror anthology bender, i think they are just about all available online.

 

 

 

**Monsters rule, okay?

[Tikisoo]

I just watched my recording from last month of MEET THE PEOPLE '44 with Lucille Ball. Lucille was gorgeous in this, her dresses, her hair and gosh-what gorgeous legs she had!

 

Movie suffers from meandering plot, poor dialogue, but all acting is top notch. The musical numbers are this movie's saving grace, a few of them are outrageous. Fun to see Bert Lahr play Dick Powell's Dad! Strong resemblance (I dislike Dick Powell) For those who dislike June Allyson, I thought she was pretty in this & sang really well.

 

In contrast, I also just watched SUDDEN FEAR, the Joan Crawford/Jack Palance picture, due to recommendations of fellow posters here. I actually held onto my chair's arms for the ending-it was so dramatic! More suspenseful & exciting than a Hitchcock! Loved this one, it is scheduled this upcoming month, I think. 

 

Too bad Crawford insisted on doing her own hair/make up, she was not an expert & it aged her. She was so pretty, but she made herself look matronly.

[cigarjoe]

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) Cold War Noir

 

 

It's amusing to imagine the audience reactions to the film when it first premiered during the Cuban Missile Crisis. A film about an embedded communist assassin effecting a presidential election campaign with the world on the brink of a nuclear holocaust must have additionally upped the anxiety levels of many. I never saw the film when it was first released. I was too busy doing air raid drills, hiding under my school desk with my head between my legs getting ready to kiss my **** goodbye.

 

The film is both a thriller and a somewhat of a political satire. The communist brainwashers are juxtaposed against right wing buffoons.

 

 

Laurence Harvey is outstanding as the mama's boy/assassin, he's always struck me as phony, unreal, nobody really talks like that normally, but it all feeds into and builds the story. Sinatra is good as Marco the haunted Major who breaks the case. Angela Lansbury steals the show as Mrs. Iselin a duplicitous woman. James Gregory is entertaining as he sanctimoniously spouts baloney. Henry Silva and Khigh Dhiegh play the villains well. The only disappointment was Janet Leigh's Eugenie Rose Chaney a character that seems to be just a tacked on love interest for Marco.

 

Full review with screencaps in Film Noir/Gangster thread and with even more here: http://noirsville.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-manchurian-candidate-1962-cold-war.html

 

[Sepiatone]

I remember going with my parents to see it when it came out.  I was knocked out by the dream sequences where each POW survivor switches dreaming of their ordeal as being at a garden club meeting to being displayed in front of communist leaders and back again.

 

It STILL knocks me out each time I see it.

 

Sepiatone

[laffite]

Am I old-fashioned or is still appropriate to signal spoiler alerts.

[LawrenceA]

Am I old-fashioned or is still appropriate to signal spoiler alerts.

 

I appreciate them as well. I tend not to read any detailed reviews of films that I haven't seen, though, as to avoid them. When writing reviews, I always leave out anything that seems spoilery, too.

[midwestan]

TCM showed three pretty good noirs in the mid to late afternoon time slot (Central for me).

 

Detour from 1945 is a favorite of many TCM fans.  Ann Savage was awesome as Vera, the protagonist.  Tom Neal played the down-on-his-luck guy who only wanted to be with his girl.  Every time I see Neal in a movie, I just shake my head and wonder where it all went wrong for him.  He's great on film, but when the camera was off, seems like he was a real jerk.

 

The Woman on the Beach from 1947 is one I've never seen before.  Joan Bennett plays the vixen in this one, as she tries to charm a subdued, but studly Robert Ryan who has admiration and disdain for Joan's husband, Charles Bickford, who plays a blind artist.  Irene Ryan (Granny Clampett) has a supporting role in this one.

 

Born to Kill was made in 1949 and stars Lawrence Tierney, Claire Trevor, and Walter Slezak.  I hadn't seen this one before today either, and it was pretty good.  I don't remember seeing many films with Tierney in them, but the guy could have passed for a young William Randolph Hearst.  He was very convincing in his role.  Slezak was a big guy, but in this film, he was pushing Sydney Greenstreet proportions!  Elisha Cook, Jr. has a good supporting role and is pivotal to the plot.  What can you say about Claire Trevor?  I swear, I don't think I've ever seen a film of hers where she didn't get slapped or killed!

[laffite]

I stayed up late to see the end of Stormy Weather. (for the umpteenth time). Terrific! The sure-fire delivery of back to back to back musical numbers could be unprecedented, especially at such excellence. The long sequence surrounding the title song is a masterpiece in itself. How priceless it is to see this kind of talent of yore on film for today. I adore Lena. That lovely white dress for the final solo of the movie, ooh. Fat's Waller with his signature song (is it?) I have a rendition by Sarah which I play all the time on the pod. In '78 Cab Calloway appeared on a PBS Gala Series show (pledge week) where he did his immortal "Minnie the Moocher" and he seemed as robust as ever. Along with him was sweet Maxine Sullivan at age 67 singing "I have the world on a string..." in a measured tone, but very nice. O BTW, Cab did not wear his patented baggy long-tail King of Snazzy, uh, suit. (They may have had to talk him out of, though).

[speedracer5]

I stayed up late to see the end of Stormy Weather. (for the umpteenth time). Terrific! The sure-fire delivery of back to back to back musical numbers could be unprecedented, especially at such excellence. The long sequence surrounding the title song is a masterpiece in itself. How priceless it is to see this kind of talent of yore on film for today. I adore Lena. That lovely white dress for the final solo of the movie, ooh. Fat's Waller with his signature song (is it?) I have a rendition by Sarah which I play all the time on the pod. In '78 Cab Calloway appeared on a PBS Gala Series show (pledge week) where he did his immortal "Minnie the Moocher" and he seemed as robust as ever. Along with him was sweet Maxine Sullivan at age 67 singing "I have a ring on my finger..." in a measured tone, but very nice. O BTW, Cab did not wear his patented baggy long-tail King of Snazzy, uh, suit. (They may have had to talk him out of, though).

 

And how great was Cab Calloway's number followed by the amazing Nicholas Brothers dance?! How many performers could leap and land in the splits, then get up from the splits without using their hands and in such a fluid motion?! 

 

I also loved seeing Sam from Casablanca in a different film, though he pretty much seemed like the same character.  It's Sam if he moved away from Morocco and ended up in New York (Chicago? I don't remember where the movie took place). 

[speedracer5]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

 

I was told that this version of Robert Louis Stevenson's short story was the version to watch.  After seeing this film, I must agree that it is far superior to the 1941 version with Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner.  Fredric March's portrayal was more subtle than Tracy's.  March's Mr. Hyde is terrifying, especially in his scenes with Miriam Hopkins, but at the same time, he was able to imbue his "bad side" personality with sympathy, especially toward the end when he realizes the monster that he's become because he messed with his natural impulses through the use of chemical augmentation.  The scene where Jekyll is watching his fiancee cry and he desperately tries to control his impulses and keep himself from transforming was well-acted by March and was very sad to watch. I thought March did an excellent job and he earned his Oscar.

 

In Spencer Tracy's version, I thought that his Mr. Hyde was way too hammy and the makeup was ridiculous.  He reminded me of the Penguin from the Adam West Batman show of the 1960s.  I didn't like his portrayal at all.  It seemed forced and over the top, whereas March's portrayal of the two sides of his personality was more complicated.  Both Jekyll and Hyde had their bad parts.  Hyde, even though he did some awful things, may have had some good qualities despite his selfish and unconscionable behavior.  Based on March's portrayal, it seems that the best of human nature lies somewhere in the middle of Jekyll and Hyde.

 

I am not too familiar with Miriam Hopkins, except for my dislike of her in Virginia City (she's not bad persay, I just think she's miscast and she and Flynn have zero chemistry).  I liked her in Design For Living and also Old Acquaintance.  I really liked her in this film, I thought her cockney accent was a little uneven, but it didn't detract from her performance.  Her character was a bit of a bad girl and for that, she probably gets herself into questionable situations, but she didn't deserve the fate of being stuck with the abusive Mr. Hyde.  I really liked her opening scene with Dr. Jekyll where she flaunts her legs and ends up nude in the bed with a strategically placed sheet, that was pretty risque, even for a pre-code.  The scene where Mr. Hyde attacks her was very scary and I thought that Hopkins and March acted it well.

 

Dr. Jekyll's transformation into Mr. Hyde was visually impressive for a 1931 film and I thought it was much more effective than the bizarre Bergman and Turner as horses imagery from the 1941 film.  

 

Finally, I thought it was interesting that "Jekyll" which I've only ever heard pronounced as "Jek-ell" is pronounced in this film as "jee-kall." 

 

This genre of film is not typically one of my favorites, but I'm glad I watched this film.  It was excellent. 

[Tikisoo]

In '78 Cab Calloway appeared on a PBS Gala Series show (pledge week) where he did his immortal "Minnie the Moocher" and he seemed as robust as ever.

 

I was lucky enough to have met Calloway in the late 80's in Rochester NY, his hometown. He got a kick out of the fact my horse's name was Minnie the Moocher (the deciding factor to buy her) and asked what she looked like -a white horse- of course!

[Sepiatone]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

 

I was told that this version of Robert Louis Stevenson's short story was the version to watch.  After seeing this film, I must agree that it is far superior to the 1941 version with Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner.  Fredric March's portrayal was more subtle than Tracy's.  March's Mr. Hyde is terrifying, especially in his scenes with Miriam Hopkins, but at the same time, he was able to imbue his "bad side" personality with sympathy, especially toward the end when he realizes the monster that he's become because he messed with his natural impulses through the use of chemical augmentation.  The scene where Jekyll is watching his fiancee cry and he desperately tries to control his impulses and keep himself from transforming was well-acted by March and was very sad to watch. I thought March did an excellent job and he earned his Oscar.

 

In Spencer Tracy's version, I thought that his Mr. Hyde was way too hammy and the makeup was ridiculous.  He reminded me of the Penguin from the Adam West Batman show of the 1960s.  I didn't like his portrayal at all.  It seemed forced and over the top, whereas March's portrayal of the two sides of his personality was more complicated.  Both Jekyll and Hyde had their bad parts.  Hyde, even though he did some awful things, may have had some good qualities despite his selfish and unconscionable behavior.  Based on March's portrayal, it seems that the best of human nature lies somewhere in the middle of Jekyll and Hyde.

 

I am not too familiar with Miriam Hopkins, except for my dislike of her in Virginia City (she's not bad persay, I just think she's miscast and she and Flynn have zero chemistry).  I liked her in Design For Living and also Old Acquaintance.  I really liked her in this film, I thought her cockney accent was a little uneven, but it didn't detract from her performance.  Her character was a bit of a bad girl and for that, she probably gets herself into questionable situations, but she didn't deserve the fate of being stuck with the abusive Mr. Hyde.  I really liked her opening scene with Dr. Jekyll where she flaunts her legs and ends up nude in the bed with a strategically placed sheet, that was pretty risque, even for a pre-code.  The scene where Mr. Hyde attacks her was very scary and I thought that Hopkins and March acted it well.

 

Dr. Jekyll's transformation into Mr. Hyde was visually impressive for a 1931 film and I thought it was much more effective than the bizarre Bergman and Turner as horses imagery from the 1941 film.  

 

Finally, I thought it was interesting that "Jekyll" which I've only ever heard pronounced as "Jek-ell" is pronounced in this film as "jee-kall." 

 

This genre of film is not typically one of my favorites, but I'm glad I watched this film.  It was excellent. 

 

Hmmm....

 

MY opinion of both Jekyll and Hyde films is the opposite of yours.

 

I rather like TRACY'S version better, but do like both, and think MARCH's make-up is ridiculous.

 

I never did get around to reading Stevenson's book, so don't know if the PHYSICAL transformation is actually a part of the story, or just a PERSONALITY change.  In TRACY'S version, Hyde still resembles Jekyll somewhat, which may have been more in fitting Stevenson's intent.

 

Sepiatone

[JamesJazGuitar]

Hmmm....

 

MY opinion of both Jekyll and Hyde films is the opposite of yours.

 

I rather like TRACY'S version better, but do like both, and think MARCH's make-up is ridiculous.

 

I never did get around to reading Stevenson's book, so don't know if the PHYSICAL transformation is actually a part of the story, or just a PERSONALITY change.  In TRACY'S version, Hyde still resembles Jekyll somewhat, which may have been more in fitting Stevenson's intent.

 

Sepiatone

 

I really can't say which version I like more since I like both for various and different reasons.  

[SansFin]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

 

 

I recommend highly that you next view: Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again (1982). It is a free-wheeling romp. It is obvious in many ways that it was not made by Mel Brooks but it is in the same spirit as: Young Frankenstein (1974).

 

Customs Agent: Anything to declare, sir? 

Mr. Hyde: Man has not evolved an inch from the primordial slime that spawned him. 

Customs Agent: Very good, sir. 

[scsu1975]

Hmmm....

 

MY opinion of both Jekyll and Hyde films is the opposite of yours.

 

I rather like TRACY'S version better, but do like both, and think MARCH's make-up is ridiculous.

 

I never did get around to reading Stevenson's book, so don't know if the PHYSICAL transformation is actually a part of the story, or just a PERSONALITY change.  In TRACY'S version, Hyde still resembles Jekyll somewhat, which may have been more in fitting Stevenson's intent.

 

Sepiatone

There is definitely a physical change.

From the novel:

 

"Mr. Hyde was pale and dwarfish, he gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation, he had a displeasing smile..."

 

March's makeup was over the top, making Hyde look like the missing link.

[TomJH]

The 1931 Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde is my favourite, due to Rouben Mamoulian's inventive direction, the filters used in the still impressive transformation scenes, the pre-code sensuality and the performances of Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins. However, I have always thought the Hyde monkey man makeup was completely over the top, and hurt the credibility of those scenes in the tavern.

 

 

Viewers should try to catch 1968's The Strange Case of Dr, Jeykll and Mr. Hyde, which has Jack Palance's intrepretation of the roles. Palance's Hyde is more of a dangerous, sadistic roue who likes the nightlife, carrying a cane with a switch blade for anyone who angers him. Palance is my favourite screen Mr. Hyde.

 

[EricJ]

There is definitely a physical change.

From the novel:

 

"Mr. Hyde was pale and dwarfish, he gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation, he had a displeasing smile..."

 

March's makeup was over the top, making Hyde look like the missing link.

 

 

That was MGM's idea, not only to make Hyde a "monster" in the Universal-envy sense, but also to suggest "primal Neanderthal" as Metaphor.

 

Hyde is originally smaller, since there is "less" evil in Jekyll, but he's clearly supposed to be a nasty whose "expression was one of wickedness".

John Malkovich did his usual calm-to-creepy dichotomy in "Mary Reilly", even if that version was spoiled because of the book's intent to focus on Julia Roberts' maid character as feminist/abuse-survivor metaphor.

 

My Last Watched was missing the debate on Wednesday to support my local TCM Fathom showing and see Taxi Driver (one of those 70's movies you think you've "seen already" just from hearing quoted ad nauseum but never really sat down and seen) and I'll save any more detailed criticism until someone else's, except:

A) Are TCM Fathom showings always that grainy?  It's a video of a 70's film-stock being shown on digital video, but since it's to promote a Blu-ray restoration, do the others look that bad blown up on big screens?  (I want to start seeing more Fathoms, now that they're starting to become a gravy train for theater chains during off seasons, and encourage more Blu-hesitant studios to start reviving more old-movie literacy...I've already seen Grease and Ferris Bueller, thank you.)

And B ) I know Scorsese and Schrader were trying to be "ironic" with the climax, or at least staying true to the original Dostoevsky source, but what the HECK was up with that "happy ending"??  Obviously, gun-toting loners were less of a cultural thing back in 1976, but looks like something the puzzled studio insisted on being tacked on at the last minute, so audiences wouldn't be confused by the antihero.

[LornaHansonForbes]

 

My Last Watched was missing the debate on Wednesday to support my local TCM Fathom showing and see Taxi Driver ) I know Scorsese and Schrader were trying to be "ironic" with the climax, or at least staying true to the original Dostoevsky source, but what the HECK was up with that "happy ending"??  Obviously, gun-toting loners were less of a cultural thing back in 1976, but looks like something the puzzled studio insisted on being tacked on at the last minute, so audiences wouldn't be confused by the antihero.

 

(nodding vigorously in agreement.)