The Conversation (1974) (mini-review++)


(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

The mini-review:

The Conversation (1974)

acting 9

directing 8

effects 7

editing 7

writing 9


4 out of 5 🐙


John Cazale was an underappreciated acting ninja. He was taken far too early at age 42. He always played odd characters but infused them with a kind sadness. This turn is no exception. But as good as he is, Gene Hackman is the obvious center of this movie. He’s the master of his craft and, what did Uncle Ben say, great power comes with great responsibility. And his latest job results in consequences that he cannot handle. But I have to wonder why a person in his profession would be so surprised at this particular consequence. Regardless, I’ve seen few movies that make the real appear surreal. And for Francis Ford Coppola to direct the Godfather movies after this opus is just bananas



Review process: (this is always evolving, I’m sad to say. I’m more of a watcher who makes mostly unhelpful observations about things I have absorbed. I am not unlike a pop culture blob.)

Two scores are assigned: (I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me)

(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)

Leave a Reply