movie review gene

Advertisement

Supported by

‘Genie’ Review: Wishing for a Better Movie

Melissa McCarthy grants unlimited magical requests in this holiday fantasy film.

• Share full article

By Glenn Kenny

In conventional, old-fashioned stories about wish-granting genies, the number of wishes is limited to three, the better to deliver a solid punchline or useful lesson. In our consumerist and content-crazy times, a mere three wishes won’t do. “Genie,” a new film directed by Sam Boyd, stars Melissa McCarthy as Flora, a genie unleashed by an overworked dad as he massages an old jewel box he tried to pass off as a birthday present for the daughter whose celebration he missed.

Flora offers Bernard (Paapa Essiedu) unlimited wishes by which to save his marriage, delight his daughter, take revenge on his bad boss (Alan Cumming) and enhance his home art collection. Predictably, at least if you’ve seen “Aladdin,” Flora is an ancient being who speaks colloquial American English with a deft command of idioms, but also doesn’t know what pizza is. Her riffing is typically McCarthyesque but feels strained at times. Guessing her new master’s desires, she reaches: “Girls? Gold? Golden girls?” When pressed, would McCarthy claim credit for that bit, or would the screenwriter Richard Curtis?

The flights of fancy Curtis (“ Love, Actually ”) concocts here include the “Mona Lisa” finding a new home in New York. And the ostensible rules of the fantasy shift according to mere plot whim: While Flora supposedly has the power to manifest anywhere, when Bernard is pinched for art theft, Flora can’t help him on account of their physical separation.

Fantasy movies are of course free to be far-fetched, but some of the plot turns here are so wide as to suggest shrugging contempt. The holiday themes feel arbitrary and tacked on; one guesses the script was rescued from Curtis’s bottom drawer and spruced up with some Christmas fairy dust. The story, finally, is only about a man who learns the true meaning of punctuality.

Also, the flying carpet special effects are lousy.

Genie Rated PG for a little salty language. Running time: 1 hour 34 minutes. Watch on Peacock.

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

The Netflix stalker series “ Baby Reindeer ” combines the appeal of a twisty thriller with a deep sense of empathy. The ending illustrates why it’s become such a hit .

We have entered the golden age of Mid TV, where we have a profusion of well-cast, sleekly produced competence, our critic writes .

The writer-director Alex Garland has made it clear that “Civil War” should be a warning. Instead, the ugliness of war comes across as comforting thrills .

Studios obsessively focused on PG-13 franchises and animation in recent years, but movies like “Challengers” and “Saltburn” show that Hollywood is embracing sex again .

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Remembering Gene Wilder: new documentary sheds light on a comedy titan

A new film uses the late actor’s voice to illustrate a career of neurotic humor on the big screen and a gentleness in real life

Generations of viewers first got to know Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, and with a new documentary about the beloved actor, director Ron Frank argues that that’s as good a place to start as any.

The twinkling strains of Pure Imagination open the affectionately wrought Remembering Gene Wilder, transporting the audience back into fond memories of the candyman’s immortal introduction: he hobbles out to meet his adoring public with cane in hand, staggers a bit, starts to stumble, then somersaults himself into a sprightly upright stance. Like so many of Wilder’s finest moments, it was a surprise to his scene partners proving his nimble versatility as performer. He could mine humor from tension, aggravation or anxiety, but his desire to keep the public on their toes always gave way to a welcoming friendliness in his art as in his life.

In surveying the broad strokes of Wilder’s biography, however, Frank’s film acknowledges that his brilliance often posed challenges for which America wasn’t always ready. The spiky take on Roald Dahl’s famed chocolatier enchanted Roger Ebert, whose four-star review declared the adaptation the finest kids’ picture since The Wizard of Oz. But parents bristled at this Wonka, a mercurial oddball delighting in bad things happening to bad apples. “When [Willy Wonka] came out in the 70s, they thought that what it did to children – and Gene outlined this in his own book – was cruel,” Frank tells the Guardian from his home in Connecticut. “One kid disappears in a chocolate tube, another one blows up, one shrinks down. Mothers thought it wasn’t good for their children, and it died in the box office. It was only revived with the home video sales.”

In ways that weren’t always comfortable for the public to accept, the antic and serious coexisted in uneasy cooperation in the work of Wilder, starting from childhood. He often repeated a boyhood memory in which a doctor informed him that with his mother’s heart condition, he had to make her laugh instead of making her angry, or she could drop dead. Wilder grew up under the premise that comedy and pain were close cousins, evident in the development of a screen persona constantly teetering on the brink of a breakdown. (“He was good as the ‘Why is this happening to me?’ guy,” Frank says.) Family stoked his passions along with his nerves, as Wilder set a track for the footlights of New York to follow his sister. “The first time he saw his sister act, he was 11 years old, she was onstage doing a solo act,” Frank says. “The lights went down, the audience applauded, she commanded the stage, and Gene was swept away by it all. He was overcome with emotion and saw himself up there, too.”

He entered the entertainment biz just as the hilarity of neurosis was breaking out of Borscht Belt standup stages and into the mainstream, his combination of shtick and personal dysfunction a hit with an America dipping its toe into therapy and pop-psych. After cutting his teeth on and off Broadway, he landed his first film role in Bonnie and Clyde as a hostage who develops Stockholm syndrome in record time before his captors give him the heave-ho; he played a doctor wrapped up in amour fou with a sheep for nebbish extraordinaire Woody Allen in Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex* (But Were Afraid to Ask). At the same time, beneath the mania, “he had a very sincere gentle quality”, Frank says.

Wilder got to show off both sides to himself with his name-making role in The Producers, the first collaboration with frequent director and lifelong friend Mel Brooks. Frank structures his film with Wilder as narrator, providing voiceover from beyond the grave via the audiobook of his memoir. “I did not want to see another interview-type film with Gene,” he says. “He died in 2016, so we didn’t even have that option. We let him tell his own story, first-person.” In one such anecdote, the Embassy Pictures head, Joseph Levine, ordered Brooks to fire Wilder, who had been deemed off-putting and insufficiently famous. “You bet”, replied Brooks, only to continue shooting with Wilder until they had so much footage, it would’ve been impossible to start over. “That’s how Mel worked,” Frank laughs. “He would listen to producers, nod in agreement, and then not do anything they said.”

In addition to sharing a great love of French wines, Wilder and Brooks gave the world some of the most indelible comedies defining a bawdy, subversive era. Young Frankenstein – thrown together by Wilder’s agent, casting his only three clients in the lead roles – allowed both men to indulge their love of old Hollywood by meticulously recreating it, the studio suits persuaded to allow black-and-white cinematography. Blazing Saddles gestured to a different sector of the past while looking forward, its satire on race relations and the western using now-outmoded language to put forth progressive ideas about prejudice. “I get asked a lot if Blazing Saddles could be made today,” Frank says. “I think it depends more on who the audience is. Some tastes and sensitivities are so different now, that even though it pokes fun at racism, there’s a risk that it might not be seen that way.”

Wilder’s buddy-buddy dynamic with co-star Cleavon Little on Blazing Saddles pointed to the next partnership that would shape his career, with that film’s co-writer and initial lead Richard Pryor. (The executives at Warner Bros declared him uninsurable and insisted on a replacement.) Over the course of four films together, they’d forge a close bond as friends even as Pryor struggled with addictions that often threw wrenches into the production process. Wilder harbored a humanitarian streak that also colored how he chose his roles, as in their third picture together, the crime caper See No Evil, Hear No Evil. He worked closely with the New York League for the Hard of Hearing to portray a deaf man with honesty and sensitivity, and found his fourth wife in lip-reading coach Karen Webb. “[His work] was an extension of his character,” Frank says. “He was a gentle soul. He wouldn’t hurt a fly – literally, according to Karen. He got along with people, fabulously, even ones who were said to be difficult.”

Wilder’s final team-up with Pryor on the roundly rejected Another You also marked his final film appearance, his later years filled by less ambitious projects. He did a short-lived sitcom called Something Wilder and a two-episode stint on Will & Grace, but didn’t much like making TV, finding the pace of shooting more hurried than he’d gotten used to in the days of riffing with his buddies. He found pleasure in writing both memoir and fiction novels, painting, playing music and returning to his roots in the theatre. Never much of a Hollywood guy – he never got a star on the Walk of Fame boulevard – he felt more in his element at the old Connecticut farmhouse he shared with his wife until his death. Frank’s documentary suggests that acting proved most valuable to Wilder as a means of connecting to his fellow human beings, whether on set or through the screen.

“When we talked to Alan Alda, he shared a story about worrying before one of the films he directed came out, what the critics might say,” Frank recalls. “He was commiserating with Gene, who told him, ‘What difference will it make? If they pan the film, so what? Big deal! You made it, it’s finished, it’s over. Be proud of it.’ He shared that comfort with him. Gene knew how to live life well.”

Remembering Gene Wilder is out in US cinemas on 15 March with UK and Australia dates to be announced

• Gene Wilder
• Documentary films

Most viewed

Film Review: ‘Remembering Gene Wilder’ is a Lovely Tribute to a Legend of the Screen

Who doesn’t love Gene Wilder ? Whether it’s a Mel Brooks movie like Blazing Saddles , The Producers , or Young Frankenstein , or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory , there was a work that made you fall for the actor. Now, we have the documentary Remembering Gene Wilder to pay tribute not just to his career, but his life as well.

Remembering Gene Wilder is incredibly respectful and downright reverent, but it never comes off as fan service. The doc legitimately plays like a filmmaker, as well as his colleagues/friends over the years, wanting to talk about their love for Gene. That intimate feeling from the talking heads, as well as plenty of clips, gives any fan of Wilder’s a fitting tribute to the man. If you somehow have no clue who he is, well, you need to fix that, but this is also a solid entry point.

The documentary celebrates not just the life, but also the legacy, that Gene Wilder left behind. Whether it’s his first collaboration with Mel Brooks in The Producers , his iconic turn as Willy Wonka, or the buddy comedies he made with Richard Pryor , we see how these roles shaped the love that the industry has for the man. There’s also plenty about himself, showcasing a portrait of an incredibly talented individual who also happened to see the world in a very unique manner.

Alongside the talking heads that show up, including Alan Alda , the aforementioned Brooks, and Carol Kane , Wilder himself helps to narrate. Pulling from his audiobook memoir, you hear some of his life and thoughts in his own words. That makes the feeling even more intimate. By the end, when the friends are giving final tributes, you’ll feel like you’ve known him as long as they have.

Director Ron Frank and writer Glenn Kirschbaum keep the warm feelings flowing. There isn’t a lot of style on display here, but the let the late Wilder often tell his own story. The talking heads are solid, with Brooks certainly the most compelling, and the clips chosen are excellent, but it’s in observing Wilder himself that this pays off most consistently. Frank and Kirschbaum aren’t reinventing the wheel, but they’ve found an effective way to share in the love that so many have for this man.

Remembering Gene Wilder is a very pleasing experience. You’re not necessarily going to learn anything new here, but it’s a celebration, as well as somewhat of a vibes piece. Unless you somehow don’t enjoy Gene Wilder’s comedy, you’re going to get something out of this documentary. It’s a fitting tribute to a wonderful talent.

Share this:

Loading…

Gene Wilder Mel Brooks Remembering Gene Wilder

Written by Joey Magidson

Yorgos Lanthimos Brings His ‘Kinds of Kindness’ This June!

Interview: Rita Moreno, Connor Kalpopsis, Ramona Young, and Director Maureen Bharoocha Discuss ‘The Prank’

© 2020 Awards Radar | All rights reserved.

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Privacy policy.

To use social login you have to agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website.

Add to Collection

Public collection title

Private collection title

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

Always Be On Our Radar

Subscribe now to be added to our newsletter and to automatically be entered for upcoming drawings!

Don't worry, we don't spam

• Cast & crew
• User reviews

A genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel. A genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel. A genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel.

• Andrew Niccol
• Ethan Hawke
• Uma Thurman
• 850 User reviews
• 171 Critic reviews
• 64 Metascore
• 6 wins & 16 nominations total

• Director Josef

• Delivery Nurse

• Pre-School Teacher

• Younger Vincent
• Younger Anton

• Young Vincent

• Young Anton
• Personnel Officer

• All cast & crew
• Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

More like this

Did you know

• Trivia Jude Law 's character asks to be called by his middle name, Eugene. "Eugene" comes from the Greek for "well born," which he is. "Eugenics" (the science of improving the hereditary qualities of a race or breed) is the central theme of the film.
• Goofs When Vincent is confessing to Irene, he tells her he doesn't have 20 or 30 years, his heart is already 10,000 beats overdue. In an average male this would only be about 2 1/2 hours, not several years as the story suggests.

Vincent : You want to know how I did it? This is how I did it, Anton: I never saved anything for the swim back.

• Crazy credits All instances of the letters A, C, G, and T (representing the four nucleotides of DNA -- see trivia entry) are emphasized in almost all names of people and companies credited in the film. These letters appear in a different typeface from the rest of the name; also, in the opening credits they appear onscreen a little before the rest of the name, while in the closing credits they appear in blue instead of white.
• The original version of the "Eight Day Center" scene. Here the doctor offers Vincent's parents the possibility to further enhance the future Anton, charging $5,000. This is refused by both of them.
• A briefing about the upcoming mission done by Director Josef. He is interrupted by Irene who tells him that the investigators wish to start their testing on all members of Gattaca.
• Detective Hugo exposes Anton to be Vincent's brother.
• Caesar tells Vincent to put the books away and accept his life.
• Shortly before Vincent leaves for Titan, he visits Caesar and gives him a telescope.
• A short sequence which shows some famous people who may had not been born if science had decrypted the human DNA sooner: Abraham Lincoln (Marfan's Syndrome), Emily Dickinson (Manic Depression), Vincent van Gogh (Epilepsy), Albert Einstein (Dyslexia), John F. Kennedy (Addison's Disease), Rita Hayworth (Alzheimer's Disease), Ray Charles (Primary Glaucoma), Stephen Hawking (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), and Jackie Joyner (Asthma). The last sentence is: "Of course, the other birth that may never have taken place is your own."
• Also included is an outtake where Dr. Lamar drinks one of the "urine" samples.
• Connections Featured in Siskel & Ebert: Gattaca/The House of Yes/A Life Less Ordinary/FairyTale: A True Story/Sunday (1997)
• Soundtracks Nuages Music by Django Reinhardt

User reviews 850

• john in missouri
• Oct 12, 2004

Everything New on Prime Video in May

• What is Gattaca about?
• How did Irene cross the highway that easily? Isn't that extremely dangerous?
• Is in fact that song only playable if you have twelve fingers?
• October 24, 1997 (United States)
• United States
• Official Facebook
• The Eighth Day
• California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, USA (house)
• Columbia Pictures
• Jersey Films
• See more company credits at IMDbPro
• $36,000,000 (estimated)
• $12,532,777
• Oct 26, 1997
• $12,533,504

Technical specs

• Runtime 1 hour 46 minutes
• Dolby Digital
• Dolby Atmos

Related news

Contribute to this page.

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More to explore

Recently viewed

Review: Gene Hackman is listening and 1974’s ‘The Conversation’ is more relevant than ever

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

The Times is committed to reviewing theatrical film releases during the COVID-19 pandemic . Because moviegoing carries risks during this time, we remind readers to follow health and safety guidelines as outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and local health officials .

Celebrated in its time yet ahead of it, powerfully entertaining as well as prescient, Francis Ford Coppola’s writing and directing triumph “The Conversation” is back in town as disturbing and unnerving as ever, if not more so.

Starring Gene Hackman in one of his signature roles, this 1974 film did not lack for accolades back in the day, winning the Palme d’Or at Cannes and getting nominated for three Oscars, including best picture (the award went to that other Coppola film, “The Godfather, Part II.”) Not only is “Conversation” back for a full week run at Landmark’s Nuart in West Los Angeles, it is being screened in a newly struck 35 mm print, which means the marvelous grain and texture of Bill Butler’s edgy cinematography is on full display.

Also much to be admired is Walter Murch’s legendary sound design and an unsettling score by David Shire that resulted from Coppola giving the composer the script to read long before the film was shot.

But the heart of “The Conversation’s” appeal, then and now, is the way it combines an exceptional character study, a thriller plot and an ability to superbly convey the unease of a society where blanket surveillance is getting to be the norm.

Harry Caul, impeccably played by Hackman with a fine combination of technique and intuitive feeling, looks like the most ordinary of men as he schlumps around San Francisco, his translucent raincoat flapping in the wind, but he is anything but.

Brilliant, obsessive, deeply religious and possibly damaged, Harry is a master of surveillance technology, a legend his competitors call “the best bar none.”

Awkward and enigmatic in person, Harry goes to great pains to avoid human interaction. His apartment is guarded by three locks and an alarm system, he has no home phone anybody knows about, and his most revealingly personal moments come when he takes out his saxophone and plays along with jazz records.

Harry has managed to maintain a sort of relationship with the insecure Amy (a tip-top Teri Garr) but though he insists to her that “I don’t have any secrets,” when she innocently asks him ordinary questions he gets completely unnerved.

On the job, however, Harry is focused and unstoppable, and “The Conversation” opens in San Francisco’s Union Square, where young couple Ann (Cindy Williams) and Mark (Frederic Forrest) are wandering among the mimes and the homeless people (another unexpectedly contemporary touch) having what appears to be the most innocuous of conversations.

But if their conversation is so innocent why, as we gradually become aware, are Harry, his top assistant Stan ( John Cazale , jittery as always) and an entire team of surveillance technicians using the most up-to-date technology to record their every word.

Stan is curious about that, but not Harry, at least not initially. Harry didn’t get to the top of the heap by being curious, and sound quality, he insists, is the only thing that matters to him.

But as we watch and listen to Harry painstakingly forcing the tapes he’s made to give up their secrets, he almost against his will starts to have his doubts, to break his first law and feel a sense of personal interest.

Though the officious Martin Stett (Harrison Ford in his last pre-“Star Wars” big screen role) warns him “don’t get involved with this,” Harry can’t help himself. He starts to fear that he has gotten in over his head. Whether he has, whether he even has any idea of what being in over his head means, is what “The Conversation” gradually reveals.

Character is obviously key to “The Conversation’s” success, with, in addition to those mentioned, Allen Garfield being especially good as Bernie Moran, a fellow surveillance expert and Harry’s bête noir .

Harry may use reel-to-reel tape, but it is finally in its portrayal of a world where everyone is listening all the time that “The Conversation” truly feels both timeless and of the moment. The consequences of that world for the surveillant as well as the surveilled is a lesson for this day and age for sure.

'The Conversation'

Rated: PG Running time: 1 hour 53 minutes Playing: Starts Jan. 28, Landmark Nuart, West Los Angeles

More to Read

Classic film lovers: See James Dean’s apartment and more on new TCM tour at Warner Bros.

April 16, 2024

Eleanor Coppola, matriarch of the Coppola filmmaking family, dies at 87

April 12, 2024

An addictively readable history of the Hollywood Renaissance, with one glaring omission

April 8, 2024

Only good movies

Get the Indie Focus newsletter, Mark Olsen's weekly guide to the world of cinema.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Kenneth Turan is the former film critic for the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Susan Buckner, ‘Grease’ actor who played cheerleader Patty Simcox, dies at 72

May 7, 2024

A new doc contains fresh allegations against Kevin Spacey. Our takeaways from ‘Spacey Unmasked’

Company Town

Justin Chang wins criticism Pulitzer for Los Angeles Times

May 6, 2024

We strap in with director George Miller, the ‘Mad Max’ mastermind, back with ‘Furiosa’

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• The Fall Guy Link to The Fall Guy
• I Saw the TV Glow Link to I Saw the TV Glow
• The Idea of You Link to The Idea of You

New TV Tonight

• Doctor Who: Season 1
• Dark Matter: Season 1
• The Chi: Season 6
• Reginald the Vampire: Season 2
• Bodkin: Season 1
• Blood of Zeus: Season 2
• Black Twitter: A People's History: Season 1
• Pretty Little Liars: Summer School: Season 2
• Hollywood Con Queen: Season 1
• Love Undercover: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• A Man in Full: Season 1
• Baby Reindeer: Season 1
• Fallout: Season 1
• The Sympathizer: Season 1
• Hacks: Season 3
• Them: Season 2
• Dead Boy Detectives: Season 1
• Ripley: Season 1
• Sugar: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Hacks: Season 3 Link to Hacks: Season 3
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

All Star Trek Movies Ranked by Tomatometer

100 Best Netflix Series To Watch Right Now (May 2024)

Asian-American Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander Heritage

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Furiosa First Reactions: Brutal, Masterful, and Absolutely Epic

New Movies & TV Shows Streaming in May 2024: What To Watch on Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, and More

• Trending on RT
• The Fall Guy
• The Idea of You
• Best Movies of All Time
• Play Movie Trivia

The Package

Where to watch.

Rent The Package on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, or buy it on Fandango at Home, Prime Video.

Critics Reviews

Audience reviews, cast & crew.

Andrew Davis

Gene Hackman

Sgt. Johnny Gallagher

Joanna Cassidy

Eileen Gallagher

Tommy Lee Jones

Thomas Boyette

Col. Glen Whitacre

Dennis Franz

Lt. Milan Delich

More Like This

Movie news & guides, this movie is featured in the following articles..

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• ARTS REVIEW
• 11 November 2019
• Update 15 November 2019
• Correction 04 December 2019

CRISPR: the movie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

David Sanchez appears in the documentary: he has sickle-cell anaemia, which could one day be addressed using gene editing. Credit: Wonder Collaborative

At the start of Human Nature , a documentary about the gene-editing tool CRISPR, we meet a young man with sickle-cell anaemia. David Sanchez is wise beyond his years, driving home the injustice of his gruelling blood infusions and shortened lifespan. Researchers are testing a therapy for his condition in clinical trials using CRISPR.

This is a film probing the unknown future of a technology that, within the past decade, has skyrocketed from obscurity to become the subject of a Netflix series called Unnatural Selection that debuted on 18 October (the trailer promises provocation by leading with biohackers injecting the editing tool). Human Nature does not take a shock–horror approach. This is the film that scientists would probably prefer the public to see.

The project began with a meeting between the Wonder Collaborative, a scientific documentary organization based in San Francisco, California, and CRISPR co-discoverer Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist at the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), and her colleagues. The scientists guided the film-makers, led by a team of co-producers (including former cell biologist Sarah Goodwin and journalists Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner) and director Adam Bolt, on the scientific and ethical issues. And the film-makers read up on the technology themselves. When the film was nearly complete, they sought feedback from members of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.

As a result, the film is high on the thrill and potential of discovery, and every scientist and bioethicist featured is passionate and thoughtful. Notably, the documentary sidesteps academic politics, such as the ongoing patent battle over who will reap CRISPR’s financial rewards. And it lacks input from scientists outside the United States and western Europe — such as from China, where the first human embryos have been edited — or from policymakers with the power to restrict what research is permissible. However, it does feature a handful of people who have genetic disorders as well as parents of children with these maladies.

Jennifer Doudna, one of the CRISPR pioneers central to the film. Credit: Wonder Collaborative

Human Nature follows a straight path, beginning with the seeds of genetic engineering in the 1960s and ending in the ethical quagmires of making changes to human DNA that future generations could inherit. The film will be educational for people who haven’t heard of CRISPR before; little will be new for those who have. Having covered the story from the beginning, I enjoyed watching the who’s who of CRISPR’s early years speak for themselves.

And the technology itself is covered beautifully. The camera swoops over crystalline salt pools in Spain, where Francisco Mojica, a microbiologist at the University of Alicante, ponders the repeated genetic letters in bacterial genomes — and the ‘spacers’ of unidentified DNA sequences in between. In 2005, he revealed that the enigmatic spacers mimic genes from viruses that once infected the microbes, and that these sequences form a kind of ‘memory’ that allows bacteria to recognize and attack the invaders in future. Animations of double helices clarify what happens; they reappear when Doudna’s team adapts CRISPR as a laboratory workhorse. Even this scene has a pulse, due to the ever-enthusiastic Fyodor Urnov, science director at the Innovative Genomics Institute, UC Berkeley’s centre focused on CRISPR. Together with the enzyme Cas9, CRISPR spots and snips genes that it’s been programmed to find.

Feng Zhang at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, appears briefly. But scant attention is devoted to his groundbreaking studies from 2013 enabling CRISPR to edit animal DNA (these are the experiments at the centre of the Broad’s contested patents). And although a montage of headlines shows a subsequent flurry of experiments in which scientists edit various organisms, little is said about how these studies have pushed forwards fields ranging from evolutionary biology to agriculture. Nor do we learn about scientists’ continuing struggle to insert genes using CRISPR in most organisms other than mice and flies. Their attempts often fail, or result in side effects or death.

The film-makers probably feared that audiences would weary of details. But I was hungry for an update on what scientists are actually doing right now. That’s especially true when it comes to editing people. But rather than dwell on a couple of dozen CRISPR-based therapies in early stages of testing, the film bounds into the possibilities of engineering humans using CRISPR with an ominous clip of Russian president Vladimir Putin speaking in 2017. Soldiers, he says, could be endowed with the ability to fight without pain. And Urnov explains how: CRISPR could be used to delete a gene that transmits pain signals to the brain. He says he’s sure that this will become an analgesic treatment offered to cancer patients in pain.

The rest of the film centres on the ethics of human editing, as if everything were possible. George Daley, a stem-cell biologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, draws a line between editing embryos and editing adults; in the former case, children would be born with the alteration in all their cells and changes would be passed down through generations. All the scientists (the protagonists of this film) are conscientious. Doudna, for example, says that Hitler showed up in one of the nightmares she had that were triggered by her anxiety over the potential misuse of the tool. In 2015, Urnov and his colleagues argued that editing embryos, sperm and eggs should be banned for now 1 . And earlier this year, Zhang and others recommended that scientists come up with a framework that governments could use to evaluate research proposals as the science of gene editing progresses 2 .

Still, other scientists can’t contain their excitement. Stephen Hsu, a co-founder of Genomic Prediction, a genetic testing company for in vitro fertilization in North Brunswick, New Jersey, suggests that, eventually, editing could advance humanity by making people healthier, longer-lived or smarter. The documentary pushes him on this point, and flashes a Nazi propaganda clip. Hsu counters that his vision is different from eugenics because the choice to edit is made by parents.

Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, also dismisses certain fears, pointing out, for example, that characteristics such as intelligence are controlled by multiple genes and by the environment. But she concedes that there is a risk to editing, and therefore it shouldn’t be used frivolously. Just 30 out of 195 countries have banned the editing of human embryos, sperm and eggs in the clinic with CRISPR, and the rules might not govern pure research.

Human Nature traces CRISPR up to a pivotal moment. The film was nearly finished when the news was reported last November that twin girls had been born after Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui had used CRISPR to edit their embryos. So the film-makers just spliced it in as an afterthought. After the heroes of the film had spent so much time expounding on the need to prevent this outcome, its sudden fruition is troubling. Asked why the film-makers didn’t revise the documentary to focus on the case, Kirschner says that they decided there was value in what they had: a film on CRISPR’s origins. Plus, we truly don’t know what will happen next. Kirschner writes: “It is impossible to tell whether it will ultimately be seen as an inflection point or an aberration.”

The Wonder Collaborative had considered creating just a brief CRISPR explainer. I’m glad they opted for a full-length feature: it gives them time to strike a nerve. For me, this happened in the scenes with Sanchez. At the end of the film, after so many researchers have gushed about the power of CRISPR to cure disease, the interviewer asks Sanchez if he wished his parents had used the tool to prevent his being born with a deadly condition. Sanchez pauses, and says no: “I don’t think I’d be me.”

Nature 576 , 206-207 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03479-3

Human Nature can currently be seen in some cinemas in Canada and Germany, and opens in the United Kingdom on 29 November at the Science Museum in London. It is due to be broadcast in other European countries in 2019, and on the BBC in 2020. It will be released in some US cinemas in early 2020. See Wonder Collaborative’s website for more details.

Updates & Corrections

Update 15 November 2019 : This article has been updated to include more screening dates.

Correction 04 December 2019 : An earlier version of this review described George Daley as a bioethicist.

Lanphier, E. et al. Nature 519 , 410–411 (2015).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lander, E. et al. Nature 567 , 165–168 (2019).

Download references

Genomics reveal unknown mutation-promoting agents at global sites

News & Views 01 MAY 24

Paternal microbiome perturbations impact offspring fitness

Article 01 MAY 24

85 million cells — and counting — at your fingertips

Technology Feature 29 APR 24

Hunger on campus: why US PhD students are fighting over food

Career Feature 03 MAY 24

US National Academies report outlines barriers and solutions for scientist carers

Career News 02 MAY 24

We need more-nuanced approaches to exploring sex and gender in research

Comment 01 MAY 24

Faculty Positions in School of Engineering, Westlake University

The School of Engineering (SOE) at Westlake University is seeking to fill multiple tenured or tenure-track faculty positions in all ranks.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

High-Level Talents at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

For clinical medicine and basic medicine; basic research of emerging inter-disciplines and medical big data.

Nanchang, Jiangxi, China

The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

Technician / Senior Technician in Structural Biology of Membrane-Less Organelles

Job description APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: June 15th, 2024. Human Technopole (HT) is a distinguished life science research institute founded and sup...

Human Technopole

Research Associate (part-time) / Ph.D. candidate in Surface Science

The University of Bonn is an international research university with a wide education and research profile. With a 200-year history, approximately...

Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen (DE)

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

Research assistant (praedoc) (m/f/d) - Department of Physics

Department of Physics - Institute of Experimental Physics   Research assistant (praedoc) (m/f/d) with 75 %part-time job limited up to 4 years salar...

Berlin (DE)

Freie Universität Berlin

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Cookie banner

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy . Please also read our Privacy Notice and Terms of Use , which became effective December 20, 2019.

By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.

Follow The Ringer online:

• Follow The Ringer on Twitter
• Follow The Ringer on Instagram
• Follow The Ringer on Youtube

Site search

• Drake vs. Kendrick
• What to Watch
• Bill Simmons Podcast
• 24 Question Party People
• 60 Songs That Explain the ’90s
• Against All Odds
• Bachelor Party
• The Bakari Sellers Podcast
• Beyond the Arc
• The Big Picture
• Black Girl Songbook
• Book of Basketball 2.0
• Boom/Bust: HQ Trivia
• Counter Pressed
• The Dave Chang Show
• East Coast Bias
• Every Single Album: Taylor Swift
• Extra Point Taken
• Fairway Rollin’
• Fantasy Football Show
• The Fozcast
• The Full Go
• Gambling Show
• Gene and Roger
• Higher Learning
• The Hottest Take
• Jam Session
• Just Like Us
• Larry Wilmore: Black on the Air
• Last Song Standing
• The Local Angle
• Masked Man Show
• The Mismatch
• Mint Edition
• Morally Corrupt Bravo Show
• New York, New York
• Off the Pike
• One Shining Podcast
• Philly Special
• Plain English
• The Pod Has Spoken
• The Press Box
• The Prestige TV Podcast
• Recipe Club
• The Rewatchables
• Ringer Dish
• The Ringer-Verse
• The Ripple Effect
• The Rugby Pod
• The Ryen Russillo Podcast
• Sports Cards Nonsense
• Slow News Day
• Speidi’s 16th Minute
• Somebody’s Gotta Win
• Sports Card Nonsense
• This Blew Up
• Trial by Content
• Wednesday Worldwide
• What If? The Len Bias Story
• Wrighty’s House
• Wrestling Show
• Latest Episodes
• All Podcasts

Filed under:

• The Ringer Podcast Network

Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert: Movie Critics for the People

In this excerpt from The Ringer’s narrative podcast series ‘Gene and Roger,’ Brian Raftery explores how Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert set the standard for movie reviewing in the ’80s

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert: Movie Critics for the People

When Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert first started working together, they worried they’d end up embarrassing themselves on TV. Instead, they became cult icons—and then, ultimately, full-on superstars.

“If you did a huge survey of the country, there aren’t that many people, probably, who give a darn about movie criticism as it goes on,” Tom Shales, a Pulitzer-winning TV critic for The Washington Post said. “But they got people to care, and tricked them into watching, sort of, by turning it into a kind of a soap opera: The adventures of Roger and Gene.”

But it took a lot of practice to make the “soap opera” that was Sneak Previews work. Before each taping, the critics spent the week taking in as many films as possible. Once the screenings were done, everyone would gather at the fake movie-balcony for the show’s Thursday taping.

The Sneak Previews format didn’t change much in those first few years. What did change was Siskel and Ebert themselves. After a few stiff early appearances, the critics began to loosen up: Their conversations felt easy and natural—even when they were arguing. And they got a kick out of celebrating the kinds of films that critics weren’t supposed to take seriously.

Keep in mind, this was on PBS—which back then wasn’t known for monster-movie reviews. It was “prestige TV” before that even became a thing. PBS was where you watched Masterpiece Theatre and the Kennedy Center Honors. But even though Siskel and Ebert were on a respected national network, they never came off as too lofty. And much like superstar-chef Julia Child, another public-TV celebrity, Siskel and Ebert had a talent for making something that seemed intimidating feel accessible. As film critic Carrie Rickey points out, that relatability was a big part of Gene and Roger’s early success.

“Here are these Midwest guys,” Rickey said, “and the thing about being in the Midwest is that you could be an intellectual, but you didn’t flaunt it. They had this very refined palate, but they talked about the things they loved like Joe Six-pack. ... They could make sophisticated arguments in that language.”

Quentin Tarantino, who came of age in the ’70s, when local newscasts and TV shows had their own on-air movie critics, knew that the competitors couldn’t connect with viewers the way Gene and Roger did. “Siskel and Ebert put all those guys out of business,” Tarantino said. “Once everybody knew who they were, then they were the movie critics for the people. And everyone was kind of interested, watched the show to see what they said. And then you saw thumbs-up or thumbs-down. You knew, without knowing the content of the review, you know what they thought about it.”

On Sneak Previews , Gene and Roger tackled issues you rarely heard being discussed on television back then. Entire episodes were devoted to how Hollywood treated Black characters, and to how horror movies treated women. Nowadays, these kinds of in-depth movie conversations can be found anywhere, 24 hours a day: on podcasts, subreddits, and Twitter threads. Or even just in a text chain between you and a friend. The modern film discourse is everywhere you read, everywhere you look, everywhere you listen.

But in the Sneak Previews era, for millions of people, Siskel and Ebert were the discourse. Within two years of its debut, the show was being carried on nearly 300 PBS stations around the country. That meant Siskel and Ebert were reaching smaller cities and towns too.

By the spring of 1982, Sneak Previews was drawing millions of viewers each week. Enough to make it the most popular half-hour show in public-TV history. And Gene and Roger had finally landed in powerful markets like Los Angeles and New York—hugely influential cities that had once shut the show out.

With Sneak Previews taking off across the country, Gene and Roger were suddenly in demand. It wasn’t just the late-night shows like Saturday Night Live and Late Night With David Letterman that were after them. At one point, they were even asked to play themselves in the ’80s comedy Strange Brew —an offer they declined.

That newfound fame had an unforeseen side effect as well: It made the competition between the two critics all the more intense.

Brian Raftery is the author of Best. Movie. Year. Ever.: How 1999 Blew Up the Big Screen . His work has appeared in Wired , New York , and GQ .

Next Up In Gene and Roger

• The Lasting Impact of Siskel and Ebert
• Tragedy Strikes Siskel and Ebert
• Siskel and Ebert vs. the Academy
• The Siskel and Ebert Wannabes
• Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert vs. the ’80s Blockbuster
• “Is the Room Big Enough for Both These Guys?” 

Sign up for the The Ringer Newsletter

Thanks for signing up.

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

What If the T-Wolves Sweep Denver? Plus, the NBA’s Media Deal and Freshman-Year College Lessons With Ethan Sherwood Strauss and Zoe Simmons.

What will happen if the Nuggets get swept in Round 2? Bill explores some scenarios.

Celtics Blow Out the Cavs. Plus, Scott McLaughlin on Bruins-Panthers.

Brian and Jamie also chat about the Tom Brady roast

Rethinking FedEx Cup Scoring, Brooks Heating Up, and Wells Fargo Championship Preview

Is Brooks Koepka positioning himself for a major victory this season?

Odell to Miami and the Top Five Washed Wide Receivers. Plus, Investigating All 32 Team Names.

The guys also dive into all the teams’ mascots and logos

‘The Acolyte’ Trailer Breakdown, Plus Baseball x Fandom Crossover Doubleheader

In a mash-up of baseball and fandom, Mal, Jo, and Ben talk about which real-life baseball legends would make great superheroes

“Sleeping Beauties: Reawakening Fashion” Met Gala 2024

Juliet and Amanda talk theme, favorite and least favorite looks, who came with who, after-parties, and more!

Movie Review: Human Nature

https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/movie-review-huma…

Human Nature , a documentary about gene editing that had been due to open in many theaters in March, is suddenly available for streaming. The movie had its premiere in March 2019 at the South by Southwest Film Conference and Festival, followed by various showings around the world. Some (including one in San Francisco ) were followed by panel discussions. The reviews are generally positive ( 95% on Rotten Tomatoes ); being able to see it at home for four or five dollars may well attract a larger audience. It’s worth a look but in some ways it’s disappointing, even disturbing.

This documentary is really three movies in one, plus a preface and epilogue. It starts with clips of molecular biologist and UC Santa Cruz chancellor Robert Sinsheimer in 1966, neatly foreshadowing today’s debates about editing genes. There follows a strikingly substantial exposition of the biology behind CRISPR, with excellent animations of the DNA editing process. The movie does not skimp on the history of CRISPR – it includes several scientists whose prior work informed the famous discoverers – and conveys a good sense of the collegial nature of modern science. That’s the best part.

Running through the film are the stories of two young patients. David Sanchez is a delightful and articulate boy with sickle-cell disease, who insists on living as best he can, despite his essential blood transfusions (“you can’t just not play basketball”). Ruthie Weiss is an equally charming girl with albinism who is also into basketball; she wants to play professionally, “but I don’t think that’s going to happen.” These are not sob stories: the patients and their families have struggled but seem to have come to terms with their lives. 

And then there are the experts, pontificating on the possible ethical ramifications of applying the technology to humans before birth. They include:

• CRISPR co-discoverer Jennifer Doudna, who trots out her well-worn Adolf Hitler nightmare but seems enthralled by the idea of editing nature
• Antonio Regalado, who has committed notable acts of journalism at MIT Technology Review , most famously in prodding He Jiankui into the limelight
• George Daley, Dean of Harvard Medical School, who actively supports germline gene editing, once it is fully developed 
• Matthew Porteus, a Stanford professor who is an expert on sickle cell disease, and was a member of the National Academies Committee on Human Gene Editing .
• Hank Greely, Director of the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences, who is notoriously unmoved by the controversy, largely on the grounds that we’ll muddle through somehow
• Bioethicist and lawyer Alta Charo, who co-chaired the National Academies Committee on Human Gene Editing and clearly agrees with Greely (citing the failure of the Nobel sperm bank ), channeling her inner Trekkie and eventually, maybe, accepting germline intervention to avoid cancer for her child 
• George Church, a Harvard-based advocate for heritable human genome editing, being quite charming in his lab and also talking about transplanting organs from genetically modified pigs into humans, and inevitably about reviving mammoths
• Michigan State University vice president for research Stephen Hsu, who actively encourages eugenics as long as the government is not coercive; unfortunately, not pressed about his pursuit of IQ genes or his trait-selection company , though a clip of a Nazi propaganda film shown during his presentation rather undercuts his optimism

Having the ethical concerns laid out by people who clearly don’t find them compelling undercuts the film’s attempt at exploring these issues. Does it also reflect a general slant in favor of germline editing? After all, three of the four members of Human Nature’s Scientific Advisory Board – Doudna, Daley, and Church – have openly expressed support for heritable genome editing. (The fourth, Rodolphe Barrangou , Editor-in-Chief of The CRISPR Journal, appears in the film as a bacterial scientist, technologist, and businessman.)

Human Nature offers a very narrow slice of ethical perspectives and no serious discussion of social disruption or class implications. There is a brief but clear suggestion that germline enhancements will be purchased on the open market and thus confined to the wealthy — but barely a mention of the social consequences implied by this assumption. There is also a pervasive sense that editing DNA is, or soon will be, flawless: just a quick snip here and, hey presto! a T has become an A. This message, which reinforces the false notion that we have already written down the entire Book of Life and now are merely annotating and editing it, is a major shortcoming of the movie. 

The task of explaining a firm opposition to germline editing is largely left to the redoubtable UC Berkeley geneticist Fyodor Urnov, who does double duty (as does Doudna) as science teacher and commentator. He is the unabashed co-author, with four others, of “ Don’t edit the human germ line ,” published in Nature in 2015. He stands by the argument made in that article that “heritable human genetic modifications pose serious risks, and the therapeutic benefits are tenuous.” Other concerns are expressed, or at least implied, by Vladimir Putin , Aldous Huxley , a clip from the 1997 film classic Gattaca , and a cameo by Rachel Carson , speaking with her usual clear wisdom.

David Sanchez was gently pressed, near the end of the film, for his opinion about the prospect of editing embryos so that the resulting baby would not have sickle cell disease. His response:

Hmm. I guess that’s kinda cool, that they’re thinking they could do that in the future, but I think that would be up to the kid, later. … I don’t wish that I never had it, no. I don’t think I’d be me if I didn’t have sickle cell.

Note that the only hint of a discussion about parental control , disability rights , and ableism comes from a teenager. His views are informed by his experiences, but will his words carry the same weight for viewers as the experts' do? These are topics that elicit extremely strong and divergent opinions and none of the experts addressed them at all. Moreover, in counterbalance, there are highly emotive but sadly uninformed clips from the 2015 International Summit on Human Gene Editing showing lay people demanding cures for conditions that could never be touched by gene editing.

A lot of talent and production skill went into this picture. The explanatory technique of cutting fairly rapidly between experts works very well to maintain interest, much more effectively than an omniscient narrator. The animation and the overall look of the film are excellent, and it incorporates images from a huge variety of sources. Technically it’s a fine piece of work, but the arguments seem a little stale and incomplete.

Peter Bradshaw’s review in The Guardian is nuanced (four stars out of five) and accurate:

The film is at its most intriguing in its earlier half, when it simply takes you through the growing excitement within the scientific community as the reality of Crispr emerges. … The technology is excitingly new, but the debate isn’t. Rightly or wrongly, this film ends on a note dismissing worries as overblown moral panic.

Indeed it does. The film ends with Sinsheimer, speaking about human genetic engineering more than 50 years ago: 

Ours, whether we like it or not, is an age of transition. After two billion years, this is, in a sense, the end of the beginning.

Sinsheimer was actively suggesting that “humans could be the agent of transition to a wholly new path of evolution via designed genetic changes.” In 1985, he convened a meeting in Santa Cruz that is widely credited as the spur for the Human Genome Project . (It also helped promote the institution he headed to the forefront of biological research.) Thanks partly to him, heritable human genome editing has been on the agenda ever since. Steering powerful new tools into cures for existing patients rather than enhancements for future people is one of the most important tasks of our time. Portraying germline interventions as inevitable and downplaying the social and ethical risks, as Human Nature does, works against that urgent challenge.

Related Articles

End of the future of humanity.

Not the species, certainly, but the Institute of that name, which was founded by transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2005 as a research group at Oxford University. According to a recently posted Final Report , its goal was “to pursue the big questions in a transdisciplinary way” by pulling together “researchers from disciplines such as philosophy, computer science, mathematics, and economics.” This evolved before long into the study and promotion of  “ effective altruism ” and “ longtermism ” as...

How to Avoid a Genetic Arms Race

Aggregated News

A quiet biological revolution in warfare is underway. The genome is emerging as a new domain of conflict. The level of destruction that only nuclear weapons could previously achieve is fast becoming as accessible as a cyberattack.

Now for the...

Verve Halts Trial for Lead Gene Editing Program Due to Safety Concerns

Verve Therapeutics  has  suspended enrollment  in the Phase Ib Heart-1 study evaluating its lead gene editing program VERVE-101 following a serious adverse event, the company announced Tuesday.

A patient, who received a 0.45-mg/kg dose of VERVE-101, developed a grade 3...

The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence

The stated goal of many organizations in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI), an imagined system with more intelligence than anything we have ever seen. Without seriously questioning whether such a system can...

The Center for Genetics and Society is fiscally sponsored by Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Please visit www.tides.org/state-nonprofit-disclosures for additional information. © 2023 Tides Center, through the Center for Genetics and Society. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy . Terms of Use .

Gene Hackman Is a Smug and Greedy Villain in This John Grisham Adaptation

Gene Hackman delivers a fiery performance alongside Rachel Weisz, John Cusack, and Dustin Hoffman.

The Big Picture

• Gene Hackman delivers a brilliant performance as Rankin Fitch, making the money-hungry jury consultant a likable and intimidating character.
• Runaway Jury revels in its outlandishness, with ludicrous storytelling and cinematic bully tactics, but effectively explores and critiques gun control and the justice system.
• The entire cast, including John Cusack, Dustin Hoffman, and Rachel Weisz, deliver stellar performances, but it is Hackman who steals the show with his portrayal of a devious antagonist.

Gene Hackman is a household name when talking about brilliant villain actors. Hackman's critically acclaimed career has spanned six decades, and he has portrayed more than his own fair share of iconic characters onscreen. He was Lex Luthor after all, and also played one of the best cinematic heavies as Little Bill in Clint Eastwood 's Unforgiven . However, one of his more underappreciated roles was in a John Grisham adaptation. In Runaway Jury , Hackman plays Rankin Fitch, an intelligent and shady jury consultant who is involved in a potential swaying of a verdict. It is one of his finest roles, and one where he also had the opportunity to finally share the screen with his good friend and former roommate, Dustin Hoffman .

Runaway Jury

A juror on the inside and a woman on the outside manipulate a court trial involving a major gun manufacturer.

What Is 'Runaway Jury' About?

Runaway Jury follows Nick Easter ( John Cusack ), a young man who works in a video store, chosen to be a jury member for one of the biggest cases in the United States. Jacob Wood was killed inside his office building by a man wielding a semi-automatic pistol, and his wife Celeste is suing the guns' manufacturer, Vicksburg Firearms. The company has procured the services of Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman), an expert jury consultant who pulls out all the stops through technology, surveillance, and downright disregard for right or wrong. Little by little, Fitch finds out that Easter is no ordinary juror, and is in cahoots with his girlfriend Marlee ( Rachel Weisz ) to manipulate the entire jury and play the trial. Marlee asks both Fitch and prosecutor Wendell Rohr ( Dustin Hoffman ) for $10 million in exchange for a verdict, both of which initially deny.

Things seem to be going the way of the prosecution until the whistleblower and star witness of the prosecution fails to appear in court . Rohr assumes it was the work of the defense, and begins to accept that the trial is slipping out of his hands. He requests access to the firm's emergency fund to pay off Marlee, securing the victory for his client and his own morals. However, his values get in the way, and he backs off the deal, telling Marlee that he will take his chances. Fitch, on the other hand, absorbing pressure from Vicksburg Firearms, wants to get in on the deal. The amount is raised to $15 million after a botched attempt on Marlee's life. The money was successfully wired by Fitch, but the verdict goes to the prosecutors. It is revealed that Nick and Marlee are survivors of a school shooting in Indiana, and wanted to get revenge on Fitch for representing the gun company in the subsequent lawsuit.

'Runaway Jury' Revels in Its Outlandishness

One of the most commendable things about the Gary Fleder picture is its adherence to its ludicrous storytelling. There are dozens of offenses committed in this entire film, particularly in the methods Fitch uses to gain information about the prospective jurors, such as blackmail and espionage. The montages of Fitch and his team fishing information out of his targets are hilariously unrealistic, reminiscent more of a spy movie rather than a court drama. These are all bully tactics that are quite cinematic, but with a narrative that's so enticing, it pushes the viewers to go along. ​​​​​Its ending where the jury decides for the prosecution because of their disdain for one of the jury members lies a bit on the fantastical side of things, but goes along with the entire motive of suspending the audience's disbelief. However, it is also interesting to note that it is in this outlandishness that the film drives home its point: it explores and critiques both the politics of gun control and the justice system .

Runaway Jury 's central tenet is achieving justice, and it illustrates how a system may ultimately be corrupted despite the existent moral and social codes. Bringing in the case of the ever-raging debate on gun control and the Second Amendment, Runaway Jury makes it more compelling, and it becomes a battle between values and the strict boundaries of the law. Trials are often boring and tedious for some, but the weight of its premise partnered with the film's wackiness puts viewers on the edge of their seats. It is an ingenious maneuver, effectively hammering home its heavy message. This is exemplified in the instances where Nick Easter's fellow jurors' past misdeeds are put into question by Fitch's men. A cheating wife is told that her husband will know of the news, the secrets of a man with HIV will be revealed to his conservative environment, and a money-hungry husband will be sent to jail should the verdict fall in favor of the prosecution. It presents an interesting perspective because in the eyes of the picture, and most of the time in real life, people can be bought. The price and currency just fluctuate depending on the circumstances.

Gene Hackman Is Brilliant as Rankin Fitch in 'Runaway Jury'

Whenever Gene Hackman plays the antagonist in a movie , the project immediately becomes memorable. In the case of Runaway Jury , it is no exception. Hackman's brilliance shines in portraying the money-hungry Fitch, filled with the gravitas of a seasoned actor who is so in tune with his abilities. Despite the ill-intentions of the character, his performance delivers a likable aura around Fitch. If you think about it, who wouldn't want to be represented by a person who puts all of their time, effort, and expertise into meeting the objective? Fitch is calculating, manipulative, and downright intimidating, and one would only wish that he was on their side.

He is someone who audiences hate to love, and Hackman extracts every single bit of his acting chops to make it so. It is also put front and center in the film's heart, a sequence between Rohr and Fitch, represented by two acting juggernauts in Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman. The confrontation is one of two polar opposites. Fitch is greedy for that corporate loot, while Rohr is hanging on to his moral compass. Rohr bemoans his opponent's dirty way of doing things, arguing that this is not the way it's supposed to be. Rather than acceding to his contemporary's pleas to do the right thing, Fitch doubles down on his acts and basically says that that's the way things are. Fitch wins this round and becomes one of the most essential scenes in Hackman's entire filmography. Hackman's brilliant mixture of subtlety and smugness in this particular series of events is his signature volcanic outburst in disguise. Going toe-to-toe with a fellow heavyweight, and coming out the better man is indicative of the magnificent job he has done.

This Epic '90s Western Featured the Genre's Best Villain

The entire cast of this film delivered as well, acting-wise. John Cusack, with his signature bravado , becomes a sympathetic character who the audience can identify with. Hoffman is humanistic in his approach, becoming the much-needed emotional center of a world slowly accepting anarchistic tendencies. Weisz is nothing short of spectacular and is the driving force of the film's entire narrative. Despite these stellar performances, it is Gene Hackman who ultimately steals the show, and brought audiences one of the most devious antagonists in his myriad of dastardly villain roles.

Runaway Jury is currently available to stream on Hulu in the U.S.

WATCH ON HULU

Inside the Christian TV show rallying Trump superfans with apocalyptic warnings

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — The audience of about 1,500 people waved small American flags and chanted “USA! USA! USA!” as television cameras began filming last Friday inside a Regent University ballroom. Many in the crowd wore red “Make America Great Again” hats. Some carried Bibles.

They had paid $60 each to attend a live taping of “FlashPoint,” a national TV program that’s won loyal viewers with a unique blend of pro-Trump political commentary and prophetic messages about God’s divine plans for America.

Over the next three hours, the audience heard the same overarching message that “FlashPoint” broadcasts three times a week on the Victory Channel television network and various streaming platforms: The world has entered its final years. Jesus will soon return. But Christians are not meant to wait idly while evil runs rampant; they are called to occupy positions of power and influence in society. And in the short term, that means putting Donald Trump back in the White House.

“I watch to get the truth,” said one “FlashPoint” attendee, who described a “supernatural” rush of clarity the first time she found the show while flipping channels two years ago.

“This is the only news show where you hear what Jesus thinks,” said another attendee, a mother of three school-aged children who’d driven four hours from central North Carolina for the taping.

Launched in 2020 and hosted by pastor Gene Bailey, “FlashPoint” at times looks and sounds like other right-wing cable programs. But unlike Fox News hosts, the rotating panel of conservative pastors and commentators on “FlashPoint” pepper their political analysis with messages that they say come directly from God.

Viewers hear regularly from Lance Wallnau, a self-described prophet known for popularizing the Seven Mountains Mandate, a philosophy increasingly embraced on the right that says Christians are called to claim positions of power atop seven key “mountains” of society, including government, education, business and media. “FlashPoint,” which presents itself as an alternative to mainstream news, embodies that strategy.

In a January broadcast, pastor Hank Kunneman, another “FlashPoint” mainstay, said the Lord told him that 2024 would be a year of “divine reckoning” and “vengeance against the wicked.” In the months since, the show has portrayed the presidential election as a spiritual clash while depicting Trump as a flawed leader — like a modern King David — who’s been anointed by God to save the nation.

The show draws a monthly cable TV audience of roughly 11,000 households, according to Comscore data, while clips of the program reach hundreds of thousands more viewers online. With a rabid following, it has “become incredibly popular and even gravitational” on the Christian right, said Matthew Taylor , a senior scholar at the nonprofit Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies in Maryland. Trump is one of several prominent Republicans who have appeared as guests on “FlashPoint,” including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA.

The program fits into a growing evangelical movement that calls on followers to “think of themselves as soldiers in a cosmic conflict,” said Bradley Onishi, a former megachurch pastor and author of “ Preparing for War ,” which documents the history and rise of Christian nationalism in America. To “FlashPoint” loyalists, political debates are no longer just about who wins the next election, Onishi said; they are about the fate of eternity.

“When you explain it that way to folks,” he said, “you’re able to prime them, not only for action, but I think for extreme measures.”

Trump has embraced elements of this framing, warning in speeches that the left wants “to tear down crosses” and promising that his return to office would restore Christian power . He also has promised to eliminate the Johnson Amendment, a rarely enforced federal law that prohibits nonprofit foundations and religious organizations — including the one that operates the Victory Channel — from endorsing political candidates.

White evangelical Protestants remain among Trump’s most loyal voting blocs, with more than 80% planning or leaning toward voting for him in November, a recent Pew Research survey found. Hoping to push that number even higher, “FlashPoint” has called on pastors to start preaching a pro-Trump message on Sunday mornings. 

Bailey, the “FlashPoint” host, did not respond to messages requesting an interview. 

Rick Green, a regular “FlashPoint” panelist, is the founder of Patriot Academy, a Texas nonprofit that teaches courses about what it calls the nation’s explicit Christian origins — an idea disputed by historians . He told NBC News that he believes many critics of the show’s mixing of religion and politics are ignorant “about the founding principles of America.” Others, Green said, harbor “hatred and intolerance of differing views.”

“You get more truth from ‘FlashPoint’ than any news program in the nation,” Green said. 

To rally the show’s most loyal fans, known as the FlashPoint Army, the Fort Worth, Texas-based Victory Channel, a Christian network run by the nonprofit Kenneth Copeland Ministries, has hosted tapings across the nation as part of its Rescue America Tour. The live programs, even more than the regular broadcasts, take on the feel of a Christian revival service.

The episode filmed in Virginia Beach opened with brief remarks from each of the night’s panelists, who included Dutch Sheets, a self-described apostle who led a series of prayer rallies in the months after Trump's 2020 election defeat in a bid to keep him in office.

“We are in a dark place in this nation, maybe as dark as it’s ever been,” Sheets told the “FlashPoint” audience last week. “But God is coming with the light of his glory, and he’s going to save this nation through his people.”

A moment later, a husband and wife duo stepped forward to lead the crowd and those watching at home in worship. With hands stretched upward, audience members sang, “There’s power in the mighty name of Jesus. Every war he wages he will win.”

Between songs, Bailey invited anyone suffering from physical ailments to approach the stage. The election was coming soon, the host said, and they weren’t going to be able to save the country if people were sick.

“America needs you for the long haul,” Bailey said, as dozens came forward, including a woman who said she’d been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Bailey, Sheets, Wallnau and the other panelists placed their hands on each person and, one by one, declared them healed in the name of Jesus.

Some audience members dropped to the floor in a euphoric rush that, in some charismatic Christian faith traditions, is described as being slain in the spirit. Others sat quietly in their chairs, tears streaming down their cheeks.

Moments later, the conversation on stage shifted back to politics and the urgent need to mobilize local churches to get out the evangelical vote and re-elect Trump in November.

This seamless weaving of immersive religious expressions, apocalyptic preaching and right-wing political organizing worries some religion and extremism experts, including Onishi, who pointed to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as evidence of what can happen when people come to believe a candidate has been chosen by God. There’s long been a strain of American evangelicalism that portrays current events as signs of the coming apocalypse. But tying the fate of humanity to a particular candidate is “something new and novel in modern U.S. history,” Onishi said. 

Several attendees at Regent University — a private Christian college founded by the late televangelist Pat Robertson — said the show’s blending of prophecy and bare-knuckle politics is what they love most about “FlashPoint.”

Speaking to a reporter outside, Tom Jones, a military veteran from Virginia Beach, said he used to watch Fox News but started watching “FlashPoint” instead after someone at church told his wife about it three years ago. Jones, wearing a “FlashPoint Army” hat, said he likes that the program doesn’t shy away from applying “God’s truth” to current events.

“If you look at what our Constitution says and the rights that we have, they’re all based on the 10 Commandments,” Jones said. “And we’re losing it.”

Terry and Barry Pawelek said they try to attend every “FlashPoint” live event. This was their seventh. The couple had driven 21 hours from Oklahoma to be there. 

“They balance both Bible and news,” Barry Pawelek said of FlashPoint. “That’s the thing that we need to hear.” 

“It’s encouraging,” Terry Pawelek said.

It’s also inspiring, she said. After hearing MyPillow founder Mike Lindell at another “FlashPoint” taping discuss his debunked theory about rigged voting machines corrupting the 2020 election, the Paweleks said they decided to become election precinct chairs in Caddo County, Oklahoma.

“‘FlashPoint’ encouraged us to make a difference,” Barry Pawelek said.

Several other attendees, citing their distrust of mainstream news, which “FlashPoint” routinely depicts as a tool of Satan, declined to share their names with an NBC News reporter, who bought a ticket to attend the taping. One woman, invoking Wallnau’s Seven Mountains teachings, prayed that the journalist would become an ambassador for God in the media mountain.

Back inside, the final hour of the program focused on the presidential election. The panelists criticized conservative Christians on the fence about voting for Trump — currently on trial in New York on charges of faking business records to cover up an alleged affair with an adult film star — because he hasn’t come out in support of a national abortion ban.

Wallnau, comparing Trump to King Solomon, a biblical figure renowned for his wisdom, said the former president was deploying a complex political strategy that would, over time, deliver major victories for conservative Christians, including on abortion.

Nodding in agreement, Green, the Patriot Academy founder, said he was furious that some evangelicals might turn against the former president.

“If you are so self-righteous as to think, ‘I’m not going to vote for the man because he’s not perfect,’” Green told the audience, “you are helping the destruction of America.”

Pastor Tony Suarez, executive vice president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, acknowledged that he initially didn’t support Trump in 2016. But he said God opened his eyes. Suarez then referred to what he described as a prophecy that says “a certain president” would come to fully embrace Jesus “in a second term.” 

“I’m just praying that in that second term,” Suarez said of Trump, his voice raising to a crescendo, “that that Holy Ghost fire will get a hold of him, and we’re going to see something great happen.” 

The FlashPoint Army was now back on their feet, hands in air and cheering as Suarez completed his prayer for Trump and for America.

“In Jesus’ name!”

Mike Hixenbaugh is a senior investigative reporter for NBC News, based in Maryland. 

• Featured News
• Artificial Intelligence
• Bioprocessing
• Drug Discovery
• Genome Editing
• Infectious Diseases
• Translational Medicine
• Browse Issues
• Learning Labs
• eBooks/Perspectives
• GEN Biotechnology
• Re:Gen Open
• New Products
• Conference Calendar
• Get GEN Magazine
• Get GEN eNewsletters

What Lies Ahead? Shaping the Future of Cell and Gene Therapy

By Michelle Fraser, PhD

Credit: janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sponsored content brought to you by

The launch of Revvity, Inc. in May 2023 signaled the rebranding of an 85-year-old company with a dedicated focus on the diagnostics and life sciences sector. Bolstered through strategic acquisitions over the four years leading up to its launch, such as Sirion Biotech for gene delivery, Horizon Discovery for gene editing and modulation, BioLegend for flow cytometry, antibody development, and cell culture, and Nexcelom Bioscience for cell counting and morphological assessment, Revvity positioned itself as a key player in the cell and gene therapy industry.

What excites us about cell and gene therapy?

We are in the midst of one of the largest transformations in our understanding of the link between genes, proteins, cells, and diseases. The era of precision medicine is underway, leading to improved diagnosis and treatment. With the advent of cell and gene therapies, enabled by CRISPR and next-generation gene editing technologies, we are seeing therapies emerge that have the potential to address and correct the genetic causes of disease, offering a possibility for permanent treatment. This transformation is rapidly accelerating our insights into biological complexities and allowing us to develop more precise, safer, and individualized therapies that directly address the root cause with reduced side effects. Cell and gene therapies are transforming the landscape of personalized medicine within our lifetime.

How are we contributing to advance this therapeutic modality?

Over the past four years, Revvity has embedded itself within the cell and gene therapy space. For example, our innovative Pin-point™ base editing platform has been out-licensed for therapeutic use and launched as research-use reagents, democratizing access to this next-generation gene editing technology. Our LentiBOOST ® lentiviral transduction enhancer is contributing to the success of two approved cell therapies and featuring in over 40 active clinical trials. Additionally, our novel AAVs have been intelligently designed, evolved, and selected for tissue specificity using in vivo models, and are being used in gene therapy clinical development programs. Complementing these advancements, we have also launched a range of assays to measure CAR T-cell proliferation, cytokine release, and cytotoxicity, while our AAV empty/full microfluidic assays have been tailored specifically to support gene therapy manufacturing. These achievements demonstrate how Revvity continues to innovate and make a positive impact in the dynamic field of cell and gene therapy.

What lies ahead for Revvity?

Our mission is to make a positive difference in the cell and gene therapy space. By combining next-generation gene editing with highly efficient targeted viral and non-viral delivery systems, we are positioned to revolutionize the landscape of advanced therapeutic development. Our suite of advanced discovery platforms and accredited QA/QC assays are perfectly complemented by our diagnostics expertise and experience, enhancing our understanding of genes, proteins, and cells, and supporting the exploration of biological complexities. Collaborating with our pharma, biotech, and academic partners, our goal is to support the development of the next generation of transformative cell and gene therapies. We are fully committed to leveraging our breadth and depth of technical expertise to address the challenges ahead, propelling cell and gene therapies toward becoming the standard of care for oncology and rare diseases on a global scale.

For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.

Learn more www.revvity.com

Custom Manufacturing Accelerates Time to Market

Simplified small-scale harvest of cho cells for mab analytics.

‘Vida Karo’ Song From Amar Singh Chamkila: How Did AR Rahman Compose It?

By Debmitra Chatterjee

In a conversation with Radio Nasha, Imtiaz Ali shared an intriguing insight into the composition “Vida Karo .” This is the climactic song for his latest film, Amar Singh Chamkila. The song is a touching farewell to the central characters.

“Vida Karo” serves as an honest farewell to the film’s protagonists, Chamkila and Amarjot, portrayed by Diljit Dosanjh and Parineeti Chopra. Amar Singh Chamkila is about the singer couple who tragically lost their lives due to longstanding prejudices against their music. The lyrics are inspired by a poem by Shiv Kumar Batalvi. The song echoes Chamkila’s acceptance of his fate while highlighting societal biases.

Imtiaz Ali on ‘Vida Karo’: ‘some people started crying in the studio’

According to Ali, the composition process unfolded at 2:30 am in AR Rahman’s studio. “Rahman came and sat at his piano at 2:30 am when I and Irshad Kamil were getting ready to leave his studio. He said to switch off the lights and asked for some candles to be lit so that we enjoy the process. He started playing the tune while we spoke about old Hindi film songs… Rahman was talking about music in Guru Dutt films. I was simply enjoying the music as an audience,” Ali recounted.

The song’s lyricist, Irshad Kamil, was also part of this late-night session. “Irshad sat down and wrote the lines within 45 minutes. Rahman said let’s sit down and compose the song right now. While it was happening, some people started crying in the studio. Rahman joked ‘what have you done Irshad Kamil, you are making people cry,'” Ali added.

Imtiaz Ali also disclosed the decision-making process behind choosing Arijit Singh to lend his voice to this composition. He revealed that the suggestion came directly from Rahman. Praising Arijit’s dedication, Ali remarked, “When a composer sings their song, there is a gravitas and attachment to it. Sometimes you need a singer who can sing the melody with the same attachment. Arijit brings that to the music — he sings truthfully and without milawat. I also enjoy that he sings the whole song. He doesn’t sing one line to bring it in ‘sur’. In this era when people say you can auto tune or get AI to sing the song, he sings truthfully.”

“Vida Karo” is a collaborative genius from AR Rahman, Irshad Kamil, and Arijit Singh under the visionary direction of Imtiaz Ali. The song is now available across various platforms.

A self-proclaimed Bollywood enthusiast with a flair for funk and entertainment. She is a gold medalist from TISS and has contributed to different startups looking after their digital marketing section. She has always been an avid reader as well as a curious writer. In her leisure, she loves to spend time with her dogs and binge on organizational videos.

Share article

A Lifelong Love Streaming: Watch & Stream Online via Peacock

Diary of the Dead Blu-ray SteelBook Release Date Set for George Romero Zombie Movie

11817 Cast: Greta Lee, Kingsley-Ben Adir to Star in Sci-Fi Horror Movie

X-Men ’97 Clip Previews Titular Team’s Upgraded Suits

Bob Iger Details Marvel Plans to Limit Movies and TV Show Output

Superman: James Gunn Shares First Look at David Corenswet in DCU Movie

Imtiaz Ali Highlights the Issue of Casteism After Amar Singh Chamkila

Imtiaz Ali on Glorification of Amar Singh Chamkila in Diljit Dosanjh’s Latest Movie

Netflix’s Amar Singh Chamkila X (Twitter) Review: Diljit Dosanjh’s Latest Movie Receives Praise

Netflix’s Amar Singh Chamkila Ending Explained: What Happened in Diljit Dosanjh’s Latest Movie?

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, great seventies film noir.

Now streaming on:

Harry Moseby is played by Gene Hackman as a man who, in 1975 Los Angeles, still seems to be taking his cues from old film noir movies. The glass on his office door says:

Confidential

... and there is an understated romanticism in that curt wording that fits with his battered desk and the arched window that looks down, no doubt, on mean streets. His wife is always after him to join a big detective agency and enter the modern world, but he likes the life of a free-lancer, tooling around in his aging Mustang, jotting down license plate numbers in his little spiral notebook.

As the movie opens, he is summoned to the kind of client who would be completely at home in a Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe story. Arlene Iverson ( Janet Ward ) is a onetime B-movie sweater girl who married a couple of rich guys -- one dead, the other ex -- and must be lonely, because she greets Harry dressed as if she's hired him to look at her breasts. Her 16-year-old daughter, Delly, has run away from home, and she wants Harry to find her, although if Harry wants to have a drink with Arlene first, that would be nice.

Harry takes the job but first does a little sleuthing on his own time. His wife, Ellen ( Susan Clark ), asks if he wants to go see " My Night at Maud's ," but he tells her, "I saw a Rohmer film once. It was kinda like watching paint dry." Then he stakes out the theater and sees her meeting a man Harry doesn't know. Out comes the spiral notebook. The man is Marty Heller ( Harris Yulin ), who lives out in Malibu, and later Harry confronts him, although in a curiously lukewarm way: "How serious is it?" When his wife finds out he knows, she makes it his fault: "Why didn't you ask me first?" He leaves town to work on the case as a sort of therapy.

His trail leads first to a movie location, where he meets a mechanic ( James Woods ) who once dated Delly, and then a stunt pilot ( Anthony Costello ) who took her away from the mechanic, and then a stunt pilot who says Delly is probably in Florida with her stepfather, the charter pilot Tom Iverson (John Crawford). In Florida, Moseby finds her (played by Melanie Griffith in her movie debut) living with Tom and Tom's lover, Paula ( Jennifer Warren ).

Now we have most of the characters on board, and I will stop describing the plot, not so much because I fear giving it away as because I fear I cannot.

It is probably true that if you saw "Night Moves" several times and took careful notes, you could reconstruct exactly what happens in the movie, but that might be missing the point. I saw it a week ago with an audience at that holy place of the cinema, George Eastman House in Rochester, N.Y., and then I was joined in a discussion with Jim Healy, the assistant curator -- we talked for an hour with a room full of moviegoers and we were left with more questions than we started with.

Of course, we could fall back on the old filmcrit ploy, "we're not supposed to understand the plot." That worked for " Syriana ." But in "Night Moves," I think it's a little trickier. The plot can be understood, but not easily, and not on first viewing, and besides, the point is that Moseby is as lost as we are. Something is always turning up to force him to revise everything he thought he knew, and then at the end of the film he has to revise everything again, and there is a shot where one of the characters, while drowning, seems to be desperately shaking his head as if to say -- what? "I didn't mean to do this"? "I didn't know who was in the boat"? "In the water"? "You don't understand"?

Harry doesn't understand, that's for sure, and the last shot in the film, taken from high above, shows him in a boat that is circling aimlessly in the Gulf Stream, a splendid metaphor for Harry's investigation.

I was reminded of another Gene Hackman character named Harry. That would be Harry Caul, from Francis Ford Coppola's " The Conversation " (1974). Caul is a high-tech investigator who bugs people and eavesdrops on conversations and is fanatic and paranoid and, like Moseby, not nearly as clever as he needs to be. Harry Caul has his workplace invaded by a competitor, he's fooled by a hidden microphone in a ball-point pen, he gets calls on his unlisted number, his landlord walks right past the security system in his apartment, and although he has a tape recording of a crucial conversation, he has no idea what it means.

Moseby is as helpless as Caul. He vaguely understands that most of the people he meets in his investigation are connected in one way or another -- even people who should not know each other. He figures out that they're up to more than selling antiques, making movies, or chartering boats and airplanes. He sees some of the romantic connections and gets himself involved in others. Delly, who has a disconcerting way of taking off her clothes, is perhaps interested in Harry -- but in seducing him, or just rattling his walnuts? Harry falls hard for Paula, and she seems attracted to him, too. They have one of those conversations where two people talk in the abstract about important things that are code for, "Do you want to sleep with me?" The screenplay by Alan Sharp is literate and elliptical all the way through:

"Where were you when Kennedy got shot?"

"Which Kennedy?"

Paula lights some candles and talks about how her nipples misbehave in intriguing situations, and otherwise gives Harry reason to believe he may be getting somewhere. Then he and Paula and Delly take the glass-bottomed boat out in the middle of the night and Delly goes scuba-diving and by accident finds a plane on the ocean floor with a skeleton in it and those are fish where were once his eyes. Whose skeleton is it? At this stage of decomposition it's hard to say, but I thought it belonged to the James Woods character, and I was wrong.

I was wrong again and again, but so was Harry. There is a profound disconnect between his investigation and what is really happening, and essentially the movie shows him acting like a private eye while the case unfolds independently in front of him. When the movie was released, there was a lot of discussion about a second plane crash and the identity of the person in that plane, but at Eastman House it was very clear who the person was. Left unanswered, however, is what he was doing in the plane, how he was able to fly it with a machine gun in one hand and the other arm in a cast, and what he was trying to tell Harry, who watches through the glass-bottomed boat as he drowns. Those are very good questions.

"Night Moves" came after a lull in Arthur Penn's career; he and Hackman worked together in " Bonnie and Clyde " (1967) and then Penn made " Alice's Restaurant " (1969) and " Little Big Man " (1970). For Hackman, it was a period of astonishing work in such films as " I Never Sang for My Father " (1970), " The French Connection " (1971) and "The Conversation." What he brings to "Night Moves" is crucial; he must be absolutely sure of his identity as a free-lance gumshoe, even while all of his craft is useless and all of his hunches are based on ignorance of the big picture. Maybe the movie is saying that the old film noir faith is dead, that although in Chandler's words "down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid," when this man goes down those streets he is blind-sided by a plot that has no respect for him.

Also in the Great Movies series at rogerebert.com: "The Conversation" and "Bonnie and Clyde."

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Christy Lemire

A Man in Full

Rendy jones.

The Sympathizer

Nandini balial.

A Bit of Light

Peyton robinson.

The Greatest Hits

Matt zoller seitz.

Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead

Film credits.

Night Moves (1975)

100 minutes

Gene Hackman as Harry Moseby

Edward Binns as Ziegler

Harris Yulin as Marty Heller

Janet Ward as Arlene

Jennifer Warren as Paula

Susan Clark as Ellen

Melanie Griffith as Delly

Susan Clark as Ellen Moseby

Melanie Griffith as Delly Grastner

James Woods as Quentin

Produced by

• Robert M. Sherman

Photographed by

• Bruce Surtees

Directed by

• Arthur Penn

Screenplay by

Latest blog posts.

The Ross Brothers Made a Road-Trip Movie. They Didn’t Come Back the Same.

Book Excerpt: The World is Yours: The Story of Scarface by Glenn Kenny

Doctor Who Travels to Disney+ For a Lavish, Fun New Regeneration

The 10 Best Start-of-Summer-Movie-Season Films of the 21st Century