Rabbit, Run

Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom (James Caan) and his pregnant wife Janice Angstrom (Carrie Snodgress) fight constantly. Life has not turned out well for the former high school basketball star. He reconnects with his strange struggling coach Marty Tothero (Jack Albertson). Marty and him go on a double date and he's introduced to Ruth Leonard (Anjanette Comer).

This is based on a John Updike novel. It's hard to get inside the character. The script is too loose. I don't know why he undresses and sleeps in front of his former coach. Does that indicate some sort of abusive relationship? I don't know. The movie doesn't expand on it. It's a very 70's movie where the character is aimlessly searching for something he doesn't know. It's a muddle. The filmmaking is weak. Updike was writing against the backdrop of 50's white Protestant middle America. The movie should play that up. This still has Jimmy Caan and that could save it. He did this instead of MASH. This guy is wandering in the wilderness of his life and it's not compelling.

An almost satisfying movie experience. The seldom seen film version of John Updike's novel has equal parts of good and bad. There are scenes that suffer from poor editing and dramatic continuity, especially for instance the first time Rabbit goes to Ruth's apartment, the scene feels rushed as though something was cut out to keep it moving and it loses coherence. A few other scenes are like this. I would guess the film might have been much longer, but it was cut down for unknown reasons. All the performances are good. James Caan has a challenge with Rabbit and he rises to it, you can't despise him for his actions and can almost understand his feelings. Same goes for Janice (Carrie Snodgress, very good) and certainly Ruth, played by the excellent Anjanette Comer. Jack Albertson deserves special mention for his sad characterization. Technically the film is uneven, with some pedestrian direction alongside some beautifully shot and staged scenes. The Reading, PA location is used very well and it's a strong part of the film.

The absolute, single WORST thing about this film is the soundtrack. Godawful, uninspired late sixties rock in place of film music. In 1969 I can assume the producers wanted the film to be 'hip' with current musical styles, but the songs and singers are so dreadful they nearly ruin the film for me. Not only is the music beyond terrible, but it often surges loudly into a quiet scene, adding nothing but irritation. The actors make and save this film. It's worth seeing for them. In finely played supporting roles are familiar faces from TV: Carmen Matthews, Don Keefer, Josephine Hutchinson, and Arthur Hill of course is excellent as always.

A good Anjanette Comer performance as a sassy hooker and location shooting in gloriously gritty Reading Pennsylvania in the late sixties are the only things that stand out in this muddled, dull adaptation of a great American novel. Scenarist/producer Howard Kreitsek founders on the same rock that did in Ray Bradbury when he tried to adapt "Moby Dick", and that wrecked the Ravitches when they attempted to bring "The Sound And The Fury" to the big screen, which is that an interior novel, where the characters' thoughts are what principally matter, simply does not lend itself to a MOTION picture where, by definition, action is paramount. In other words, enjoy Updike's memorable book and avoid this very forgettable film. Give it a C.

James Caan sells artificial stone facing for homes. His is married to Carrie Snodgrass with a son and a daughter on the way. Miss Snodgrass sends him out for cigarettes, and he moves in with Anjanette Comer.

It's half a century since I read the John Updike novel this was based on and found it a dull affair. To that extent, this is a good film version, because I found it dull. The characters are uninteresting, none of them very good at what they do. That is, I suppose the point of the novel. It came out in the 1960s, the post-war exuberance was fading, and Updike made a mantra of excoriating failure to the general applause of his colleagues on The New Yorker. Updike's pursed-mouth disapproval satisfied the literary lions and critics of the day, at least until he came out in favor of the Viet Nam War.

Some films pass the test of time. Others feel incredibly stale, dated, and stultifying. This film, I would wager, felt stale as soon as it hit the theatres. James Caan's and most of the other actors' acting is stiff, forced, and one dimensional, and the screen adaptation of a worthwhile book also is awkward and artificial, in the way that films that don't pass the test of time are.

As another reviewer remarked, the film was made 10 years too late--the mores and morals of the year 1960 had already completely shifted by 1970, so the film doesn't even make sense, and the film making and directorial style feel unpleasantly anachronistic.