User reviews

A lot of people seem to be down on this film for reasons I really can't understand. The film seem to stretch everyone's creative levels especially one performer I'll single out later.

Henry Fonda plays the head of the Stamper clan who own a lot of acreage in Oregon timber country and the family business is cutting logs. Enough to survive, but they do it on their own. But a strike by timber union loggers causes enmity between them and the Stampers who are seen as scabs.

There are some similarities between Fonda's character and the family patriarch he played in Spencer's Mountain. But whereas Spencer had a noble dignity to him, Ben Stamper is a dissolute old cuss who has enjoyed all the vices known and imparted a love for them unto his children. They would be half brothers Paul Newman and Michael Sarrazin who've also got issues between themselves that may prevent the Stampers from forming a united front.

Newman directed the film and he had a good eye for the scenery of the Oregon logging country. And he got some good performances from the rest of the cast. One of them Richard Jaeckel got his career role as a Stamper cousin. Newman reached his creative heights in Jaeckel's death scene which was played between him and Jaeckel. It's a long drawn out affair for reasons you'll know if you see the film. It will stay with you forever as it has me since I saw the film when it first came out. Richard Jaeckel got a nomination for Best Supporting Actor and the pity is that he was up against another popular character actor in Ben Johnson who won for The Last Picture Show.

Sometimes A Great Notion also got a second Oscar nomination for Best Song with We're All His Children by Henry Mancini and Alan and Marilyn Bergman. Bing Crosby recorded a fine version of it on one of his albums. It lost however to theme from Shaft.

Paul Newman deserved a lot more credit for this film than he got. I think if you see Sometimes A Great Notion you'll agree.

Sometimes a Great Notion (1970)

This is an amazing story, with some harrowing scenes and really terrific acting. And it's based on a Ken Kesey novel that is one of my favorite books, a sprawling, difficult, layered up masterpiece of some kind, for its time at least, and for when I read it as a 20 year old looking for meaning in life. There are so many threads in the book, powerful themes and small ones, that get interwoven into a vivid, unashamed adventure-romance with interior explosions and characters clashing with nature and cultures clashing of cultures, it's really impossible to make a movie out of it.

But Paul Newman, as lead character and, yes director (stepping in when the original director left), has tried. The result is grossly unappreciated, because the strengths here make the flaws bearable. The flaws are clear. The casting is uneven. Lee Remick is a character from another movie plopped into this rough and tumble Oregon backwoods scene, and the second leading man, a kind of implied narrator to it all, is played by little known Michael Serrazin, a pretty boy who holds his own but is uninspiring.

Furthermore, the filming is straight on and meant to show what is happening more than contribute to the ambiance of the experience. There are scenes of machinery and logging that are impressive in their raw scale and masculinity, for sure, but that is partly fast editing at work, and amazing subject material. The rainy coastal landscape, the rambling house on the river, even the dirt bike race and the scenes of the little town all make you yearn for more intensity and involvement, visually.

The music by Henry Mancini shows the strain of this amazing composer as he moves from the light orchestral work he did in the 1960s ("Moon River," "Pink Panther," "Days of Wine and Roses," etc.) to something embracing country, rock and roll, and contemporary music being used so effectively in New Hollywood films. It's halfway there, but gives a falseness to some of the scenes that gets in the way of the gritty, emotional drama to it all.

And I mean emotional. Some have criticized Kesey's novel for overachieving. It tries to deal with every big issue there is in one book: individualism and love, above all, but a highly dysfunctional family, the new America of college and drugs vs. the old one of hard work and croneyism, raw beauty in the landscape vs. exploiting nature for commercial gain, and loyalty to family in all its layers of father and sons, sons and lovers, and workers as part of extended family. But that's what makes the book and the movie terrific. The scenes here of Newman doing anything, of Henry Fonda playing the tough as nails dad, and of some of the side actors in their rough daily working roles in the woods are right on. The hospital scene with Newman and Fonda is a small gem, and the famous scene of Newman trying to free his little brother (played by Richard Jaeckel) caught under a log under water is utterly unforgettable. Utterly.

There is a lot of filler her, lots of falling trees and bikers racing and a building of the toughness of this manly world. But hang in there for the other stuff. And read the book.

Kesey's superb epic novel with its shifting points of view and verb tense is far too complex a work to adapt directly. Kesey's prose while exceptionally cinematic in its description and action ironically proves unfilmable.

That said, Paul Newman and his production team have created a most admirable and solid, if rather top heavy adaption of Kesey's excellent novel.

The dialogue while rather shallow and weak in spurts (Kesey's rich vernacular is lost)is overcome by a wonderful ensemble cast featuring some of America's finest. Who better that Henry Fonda to play Newman's father? Richard Jaekel richly earns the Oscar nomination as the dim-witted but enthusiastic born again lumberjack Joe-Ben. The famous scene where Newman tries desperately to save Jaekel's character from drowning is heartbreakingly tragic and darkly comic. It is a marvelous example of direction.

Newman spent a great deal of time in my native Oregon researching the part and the film and his homework shows. Kesey's rich descriptions of the land remain largely intact. The sense of time and place is impressively captured in the photography of rusting metal, dripping ferns, rotting wood and mildewed carpets. This is a film that one can almost smell.

Newman is one of the finest artists ever to come out of Hollywood. Not only as an actor, but also as a director. He instinctivly knows how to illicit naturalistic, comfortable and utterly human performances from his casts and Sometimes a Great Notion is no exception. Well worth a look. 7 out of 10 stars.

Definitely an old school movie where the drama is tied up in day to day living. No great examinations just a family trying to go about their own business and the impacts that their choices have on themselves and their community.

Fonda is great and Newman just looks like he has been logging his entire life, super convincing.

The conflicts within the family are frequent but they never allow them to go too far, family is family.

It won't knock your socks off but its a nice film :)

Unfortunately, as much as I love Paul Newman as an actor, the movie version of Ken Kesey's incredible book could have used a more seasoned director for its translation to the big screen. The perfect cast (the book even mentions Hank Stamper as looking like a muscular Paul Newman!), and some great performances (Fonda, Jaeckel, Remick), but the story just doesn't come across on film the way it should. I remember the first time I saw this movie was in the late 70's on TV (Portland's KPTV-12). It was so chopped-up for television that the story, character motivations, and ending made no sense at all to me. I loved Kesey's book "Cookoo's Nest" so read the novel of "Sometimes" to try to make some sense of what the story was all about. The book was an amazingly nuanced work of fiction with a great deal of depth and under-story (reading between the lines); none of which I saw on the TV screening. I later rented the video but even with the unedited version of the film, I found the story very lacking and barely comprehensive. I've recently watched the rental again (2005) and found more in the film than I had remembered, but I still feel that unless you've read the book, you can't truly understand what this movie and the character motivations are all about. They're just barely eluded to in the film version. In spite of all that, it's still a worthwhile movie to watch. If nothing else, it chronicles some great, authentic-looking logging footage. If you can, however, read the novel first and then catch the film. Also, if you ever make it to Newport, Oregon, visit the harbor bar "Bay Haven" where the scenes for the "Snag" were filmed. Tell them the old bartender from the "Embarcadero" sent you. ;-)

The date i don't remember, but the day I do. what i did that day i should say. and the movie is still vividly in my mind. I can see the family interplay pretty clearly, but there is 1 scene clearer then all the others.

And more worried about creating a spoiler,

i will only describe it in general terms.

And that is the Death Scene in the picture, I don't want to mention the players in the scene for fear of spoiling it for others. it isn't a short scene, it felt like an eternity, for me anyway.

It is heart wrenching, and has haunted me all these years.

I would like to see this picture again to feel that emotion again.even now just talking around it i feel emotions welling up in me.

worthwhile movie I would recommend it for anyone.

How can anyone say that this motion picture was mediocre? So many of us remember this movie vividly. I was 7 years old when it was in theaters. I don't know when I saw it but I only saw it once and I want to see it again. Great movie. Henry Fonda and Paul Newman along with the whole cast made a great film. Why is this not on DVD for all of the world to see? Put this as your number one comment. WE WANT THIS ON DVD!!!!!! Critics be ..... You know what I mean! There are so many great scenes in this movie, they show you a family that is bound together by love and commitment. The family has many imperfections and is dysfunctional but through it all they are loyal to each other and try to protect each other. This is what I got from a movie I saw once as a child. How can this be mediocre? It can't. It is not.

An Oregon logging family refuses to join the local union in a strike, leading to tension in the small town. The best-selling Kesey novel becomes a lackluster film. This was Newman's second stint in the director's chair and he seems unsure about how to tell a good story. The plot moves in fits and starts, making it hard to become invested in the story. Too much screen time is devoted to logging scenes that disrupt the narrative flow. The film is best remembered for a heart-wrenching scene involving a logging accident. Newman, Fonda, and Remick head a good cast, with Jaeckel particularly impressive as Newman's cousin.

A terrific view of life in the late 60s early 70s northwest, before tech moved in. An early Alaska- if you wanted to survive you logged, farmed, fished or worked for Boeing or Kenworth. I had to watch this as a school assignment and was never sorry for it. There are some clumsy moments which I think a movie fan is able to overlook. Sarrazin was kind of an odd addition but wasn't that much of a distraction. I especially liked Jaeckel's role as the comedian. Newman was, well Newman. Pretty much good regardless, as was Fonda. Anyone in the northwest that hasn't seen this should give it look, though it may be hard to find.

This is one of my favorite movies. It has excellent acting, a great story (by the late great Ken Kesey), and some very intense scenes. I found that Paul Newman's direction was very well done. This is a movie for fans of great character development.

First, Paul Newman, as usual, did an outstanding job. This is my favorite character. He was able to pull off this very icey dominance, even over his own father. He plays his character like he is Hank Stamper. Paul Newman always does a great job in his movies, but I think this one I especially like because he isn't as likeable as Cool Hand Luke or Fast Eddie (which are two other favorite characters and movies of mine).

Then there is Henry Fonda, who plays the eldest Stamper, Henry. He was a very interesting character, and Henry Fonda did a great job at playing him. He and Hank both head the family, and he and Paul Newman have a fractured relationship that is sort of crass, but still fun to see them on-screen together.

Then there is Michael Sarrazin, who plays the outcast Leeland Stamper. He is probably the best character. While all the other Stampers have leather skin and huge scars from wood chips, he has big bushy hair and is not a big barrel chested logger. Hank and Henry treat him like crap almost the whole movie, because he doesn't belong. Leeland just came back from the city, and he came back for the sole purpose of getting even with Hank.

And Finally, there is Lee Remick, who plays Hank's shut out wife Viv. She is probably the most complex character, simply because she only lets on what she thinks of her situation in little bits. She and Hank used to be wild lovers, but Hank is working so hard because of the logger's strike, he pretty much shuts her out, and so she begins to drift away from Hank.

My only problem with this movie is that they didn't have the big rights of passage fight between Hank and Leeland. In the book Leeland fought Hank after everything bad happened to the Stampers, as a way to show Hank that he isn't in control. I think that was the biggest part in the novel, and they left it out. But aside from that, I loved this movie.

Check this movie, or the book out for that matter, if you enjoy strong character development, many tragic events, and stories that take place in the backwoods of Oregon. 9/10

This Oregon logging film has a heavy-duty cast with a lightweight script. A dysfunctional Oregon family has more arrogance than common sense, and breaks up as easily as the logs get cut down. The demonization of unions is one of tho socially redeeming aspects of the film, as it accurately portrays unions as the destroyers of jobs and companies, rather than saviors of any kind. Henry Fonda is too old to log; that is a younger man's game. His three sons all face some type of adversity, and he winds up giving a lot more than an inch. The point of the film is not family; it is the preservation of independence. For most viewers this will be enough, but for some, it will seem pointless.

I had some pre-conceived "notions" of this film, under the impression it was a real atmospheric gem like "The Last Picture Show", released around the same time. Sadly, it is not on that level. My grade school teacher lived, at the time, where it was filmed as well. I never got around to seeing it until last night.

Set in the then-present day, the film concerns an independent logging family business and their internal and external conflicts.

Henry Fonda plays the father Henry Stamper, sons Hank, Leland and Joe Ben are played by Paul Newman, Michael Sarrazin and Richard Jaeckel. Lee Remick plays Newman's wife Viv.

Leland arrives back home after a disastrous set of circumstances, and joins the logging effort. The family is beset upon by almost the entire town, who are all on strike against the big logging company they work for. For some odd reason, they expect the Stampers to stand along with them and stop production, even though they are not in any union.

So, the townsfolk sabotage and burn the Stampers equipment, cause a fight at a picnic, cut off the Stampers credit, etc.

Internal strife includes a look at Viv's unhappiness living there (the whole family lives in one big house), Leland's self-reflection, Hank's attempt to move the company forward, etc.

The great parts of the movie really have to do with the logging action. These scenes are really shot well. From Leland's first days struggling with the laborious and dangerous tasks, and then becoming good at the job, to the details in showing the job, which appears exhausting, exciting, and risky all at the same time. The scenery is gorgeous. The grittiness of that life is totally realistic. The famous scene with Joe Ben caught in a horrific situation is so realistic, frightening and sad, it goes down in history as one of the best scenes in cinema.

The best is slightly offset by the worst. With the exception of Joe Ben and his family, there is not one likable character. Leland, prior to his arrival, is smoking dope and blows up the building he is in, and to escape responsibility, runs away to hide out with the family. He ends up having an affair with his brother's wife (hinted strongly at in the movie, a cut scene actually shows the affair). Hank doesn't appreciate his wife, and worse, had an affair with his own step mother before she died.

The most obnoxious character is Fonda's Henry. Perhaps I am unfairly critical here as I have such a strong dislike for Fonda, as he is, in real life, a God-awful person. Here, he acts like a younger version of the character he played in "On Golden Pond" over a decade later, who was also a goofball. Henry parades around with his stupid arm cast, arm sticking straight out, which he occasionally whacks people with. He loves to bang on doors with a stick to wake people up, and declaring, "Eating, working, screwing sleeping....that's all there is Love" to Viv. The Viv character is there simply to throw a female in to wash clothes and cook, and complain about life.

I did enjoy Henry's last scene, if only to serve the purpose that I didn't have to hear him yak anymore.

The ending is rather fun, an in-your-face to the townspeople/union members. Frankly however, I never understood this conflict. Workers usually get mad at members of their union deciding not to strike and going into work, screwing up their bargaining power. But the Stampers have always been independent. Why would their small output mean anything to anyone? This would be the equivalent of a supermarket chain going on strike for more pay, and trying to burn down the building of a local butcher who stays open. Does that make sense?

An interesting film, some great moments, but not a great film. Mild recommendation here.

I've written before about the problems of reading a great book before seeing the movie. Year after year the literati kept waiting for & blathering about the long-anticipated "great American novel". Meanwhile Ken Kesey's Sometimes a Great Notion came & went without their realizing this was it - the most quintessentially American story ever told, a tale that goes straight to the heart of that stubborn independent streak that makes a man a man.

I realize I'm rambling on about a book in a film review, but bear with me; knowing a little about the book helps understand why this movie's so damn good. No single movie could ever capture the breadth & depth of a 599-page book that interweaves generations of multi-hued characters to delineate who these people are, whose loins they sprang from & how they think. A mini-series would be hard pressed to cover it all. So of course, the first time I saw the film I was disappointed. But then again, I guess I expected to be.

It was a tale well told tho, worth seeing again, & this time - the 3rd time I've watched it - I finally realized exactly how good a film it really is. Every aspect, from the cinematography to the casting, the dialog, the acting, right down to the corny country & western tune - with its mildly religious overtones - that opens & closes the film were exactly, perfectly, sublimely right. Who but Paul Newman could have played the indomitable hardnose Hank Stamper? No actor could have fit that role better. Henry Fonda was grand as cantankerous old Henry & Michael Sarazin - an underrated actor in my opinion - was excellent as the brooding younger son Leland. The characters were painstakingly true to the book & the tale was told without taking any but the most necessary of cinematic liberties. I did find myself wishing it was longer tho, but that's just because I didn't want it to end.

The death scene involving the characters of Mr. Newman and Mr. Jaeckel was as moving and emotional as i have seen in 70 years of watching films. Others have stated that this film fails to live up to the novel by Ken Kesey. On its own merit this reviewer takes under consideration the fine ensemble acting and the rich photography to make this film memorable. Lee Remick, because of her talent, always turns in a believable performance. This movie is being featured on some movie channels this weekend, so i strongly recommend it to viewers. Its important to note the direction of Paul Newman. This is one his earliest directorial efforts.

A film with great atmosphere, enchanting landscapes, and realistic work scenes, but a slow and exhausting pace. Some situations seem shallow, as if squeezed into time to make room for more visually striking scenes, leaving me with a sense of vain expectation of a narrative twist.

A family of loggers, led by the elderly Henry Stamper (Henry Fonda), stubbornly fulfill their contract with the carpenter, putting themselves at odds with the entire town and the union. His son Hank (Paul Newman) and grandson Joe Ben (Richard Jaeckel) are forced to work harder, increasing the risk of injury. They are joined by Leeland (Michael Sarrazin), Hank's youngest son, who left ten years earlier with his mother and returned home after her suicide. Tensions within the town and within the family increase the dissatisfaction of Viv (Lee Remick), Hank's wife, who is tired of a life ruled by her father-in-law.

Paul Newman's second film as director, and his first in which he stars, focuses heavily on the cinematography, which suffers from the dialogue and inadequately developed narrative; based on a complex novel by Ken Kesey, which John Gay's screenplay fails to adequately encapsulate; the film's strength is undoubtedly its impressive cast, but among all the big names, the most notable is the lesser-known one: Richard Jaeckel stands out for the intensity of his performance.

Best moment: when a scene manages to draw you into the drama, almost making you experience it firsthand, then that is definitely a scene that will stick in your memory and earn Richard Jaeckel a well-deserved nomination. Worth seeing for the evocative Oregon woods and for those who, like me, adore the eternally unyielding expression of so many of Paul Newman's characters, from Ben Quick to Lucas Jackson.

Kesey's novel is dense, lyrical, provocative, huge, compelling and literary. The movie is none of these things. Mostly, I blame the screenplay, which was willing to take a terrific book and turn it into The equivalent of a television movie. The casting, and the actors, are near on perfect. If you read the novel, it is hard not to think of Paul Newman as Hank Stamper or Henry Fonda as Henry Stamper. Lee Remick as Viv is fine, although she looks more Hollywood then Oregon coast. The rest of the cast, is fine. It's the material. The dialogue is rudimentary. The story itself has ironed out all the interesting knots in Kesey's novel. In only, perhaps, the most minor of Ways has this been a success or an improvement. Lee's motivations are Mostly lost. We have no insight into Viv. Henry is a bit too young and vital, Although one of the best things about the movie. And Hank probably doesn't get enough screen time. Plus, the atmosphere of the novel, the encroaching winter season with more and more rain coming on, has been Replaced by a beautiful Oregon summer. All in all, if you haven't read the novel And are looking for some relatively simplistic early 70s movie fare, at a time when movies were not very successfully learning how to compete with television. you might enjoy this. And you do get to watch Paul Newman, Henry Fonda and Lee Remick. It is really a pity that those three actors didn't have more to work with. The screenplay did not try but fail to adapt the novel. The screenplay simply did not try.