Thanks for the memories!

Sorry, this movie sucks

A different way of telling a story

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

I loved every minute! I just can't get over the ending, it's so deep. Like he's dragging her into madness. Just... Wow! :) I thoroughly appreciated the Don Quixote references. The title itself is a direct reference. I just lost it with laughter when he started to play the fiddle badly, and wondered why he even had it. And the Scarlet Pimpernel reference just completed it. And then we had Grandpa from the Munsters in the first five minutes of the film :D The Munsters is one of my favorite TV shows Also, the acting was top notch. The characters were believable and honest.This movie is perfect. It makes a point, it's deep, and it leaves you wondering. GO WATCH THIS AWESOME MOVIE RIGHT NOW!

'They Might Be Giants' is a modern fairy-tale, steeped in the trippie- hippie sixties but knowing of the dark cynicism of the seventies. George C. Scott as Justin Playfair is an eminent Judge who, in the depths of grief for his late wife, lays down his melancholy burden of sanity and becomes Sherlock Holmes. He broods in his den, of conspiracies real and imagined. Moriaty, the scourge of the western world mocks him in newspaper headlines of murder and mayhem, his brother plots to have him committed to plunder his wealth. Compelled to visit a psychiatrist adroitly played by fellow Oscar winner Joanne Woodward, he spies in her a sympathetic soul after first rebuffing her as yet another meddler. For she, much to his surprise is Doctor Mildred Watson. Her efforts to analyze him to ascertain if she should sign the committal papers are scuppered, for 'The game is a-foot!' As she grows disapprovingly into Holmes' ever ready assistant they travail the streets of New York picking up the flotsam and jetsam. A visit to a telephone exchange where a damsel in distress is saved, among a rooftop garden gangsters are vanquished, speeding taxis, clues hidden and found, new cohorts aligned to the cause. He leads them to the nethermost reaches of Central Park to face Moriaty, but as did the giant turn into a windmill, he is denied victory. However, a thought dawns; Moriaty's biggest crime was to hide from us the fact that we never left the garden of Eden. It is still here, beneath the soot and grime we have created and for us to find again. But as the enemy closes in it is just Holmes and Watson who remain. A bond not merely of companionship but of love and affection has blossomed between our heroes. The oncoming light and sound of hooves at the close of the movie could be literally explained; our heroes stand holding hands ready to face Moriaty or is it the Police or Gangsters? The light envelops them into total whiteout and roll credits. Those who look upon the end as a puzzle to be solved are sadly deluded. Must all movies be packaged up neatly for lazy audiences who can not fathom ambiguity. The joy of the end is that we will never know what their fate was, simply that it was a perfect moment of harmony in which Giants may yet again walk the earth.

I was a projectionist once, and I showed this film when it had its theatrical release. One aspect of being a projectionist back then was that you got to see certain parts of the films over and over, to the point that you not only could relate scenes and repeat lines, but you began to understand the films in a deeper way than the audiences.The previous reviews miss enough that I feel compelled to write a review of the film. First, the same author wrote "Lion In Winter," so it is pretty obvious he knew the craft. Second, this started as a London stage play, and according to the admittedly loopy Wikipedia, he didn't like the production and stopped further attempts at mounting the play.Once you take the concept that it is a stage play adapted for film, some of the oddities of this production become more apparent. Much like the concept expressed in "Shakespeare in Love," where everyone expects and looks forward to the dog in a play, movie audiences expect a romantic relationship and a happy ending where good triumphs over evil, the Hayes code is satisfied, and insipid movies are safe for kids to watch.The intent of the original work is darker than that, but in order to perceive that you have to look underneath the surface, much as Holmes would do.Start with the title "They Might Be Giants." Yes, it is an homage to Cervantes, but it is a double-entendre as well. In ignoring the dross of everyday life and focusing on existential topics to the point that the world calls them crazy, the "mentally ill" just might be the giants of humanity, exploring the boundaries of who we are as humans and good and evil. Certainly the Justin (justice) Playfair (play fair) character turning into a Holmsian sleuth represents that. The couple who shut themselves off from humanity for years and were very happy is another exploration of the concepts under consideration. It is only when Holmes goes looking for evil in their world that it suddenly appears.Who is to say that a person who believes himself to be a silent film star isn't, in some small measure, that person? The entire concept of empathy, as well as the concept of method acting, both require "getting into the head" of the character. Do we not all have a bit of Scarlett Pimpernel in us somewhere? Is expressing that so bad that we need to relegate our lives to being nebbish librarians forever in our existence? On the subject of the varying versions - Many years ago, I worked in a couple of television stations. The movies we showed came in on 16mm film and one of my jobs was to cut the films to fit the time slot allotted. I learned never to trust a televised version of a film as being accurate to the intention of the director. Networks modify film as well, and in some cases they have access to ADD footage as well as clip it.*Major spoiler here* - The "enigmatic" scene at the end is only enigmatic if you are blind to the modern version of the Hayes code and the inevitable studio interventions which bow to the low common denominators of "How can we maximize the money this makes?" and "Will it upset the audience?" Start with the supermarket scene and descent into "Mad Mad Mad Mad World" slapstick. The duality is that the author did want to show how, when confronted, the "establishment" is a group of enforcers of the status quo, some dressed in enforcer (police) uniforms, and some masquerading as those who would help you become sane, while wielding rubber hoses if you don't follow their instruction. At the same time, the studio wanted a feel good slapstick to lighten up a film with an underlying dark theme. Ergo: chaos in a market, where the materialism of the enforcers of status-quo becomes their temptation and undoing. The most powerful figure in the scene is reduced to saying "My wife will kill me if I don't take advantage of this bargain." The end scene is the most dark of all. Once the reality of the world Holmes has been fighting is shown to be a farce, he has nowhere to go. Death is the inevitable conclusion. The tunnel in Central Park is again double entendre and metaphorical. Tunnel - the passage into the unknown. Tunnel - the accepting of a confined world where there is no escape from whatever comes towards you. There are others that I'll let you deduce for yourself. However... the tunnel was ALSO a metaphor for a RAILROAD tunnel. The horse being heard is a clue to an IRON horse, which is borne out by the comment and visual that they will be in the light (train headlight - also metaphor for truth/God/etc.) and be found close together. He has convinced the analyst to trust him right into death.There is no way that the film company and distributor would allow a scene of Geo. C. Scott and Joanne Woodward standing in front of a railroad (or more likely subway) tunnel, and being run down by a train. All feel-good aspects of the film (and chances of repeat customers) would be lost. What surprises me is how few people "get" the ending and theme of the film.

A man who thinks he is Sherlock Holmes is treated by a woman whose name happens to be Dr. Watson. It's a whimsical premise that could have turned into a decent comedy, but the script here is far too uninspired and meandering to amount to anything more than a curiosity piece. There are mildly amusing moments here and there but there is too little humor, drama, and action to sustain the narrative. The final act, including a ridiculous scene in a supermarket, is supposed to be hilarious but falls flat. It's a shame the script is so lacking because Woodward and Scott seem to be trying really hard and show great flair for comedy. This was Harvey's follow-up to "The Lion in Winter," making him a one-hit wonder.