Little Murders (1971) User Reviews

One of Donald Sutherland's most memorable scenes in a movie

[trailmeister · 7/10 · 1 July 2006]

Sutherland's wedding monologue is so delightfully inspired, it should be available SOMEWHERE on the internet via search engine, but since it is not, I have quoted Jules Feiffer's brilliant writing below. Remember this is supposed to be a marriage ceremony:

Rev. Dupas (Sutherland): You all know.. why we're here. There's often so much sham about this business of marriage. Everyone accepts it: ritual. That's why I was so heartened when Alfred asked me to perform this ceremony. He has certain beliefs, which I assume you all know; he is an atheist, which is perfectly all right, really it is; I happen not to be, but inasmuch as this ceremony connotes an abandonment of ritual in the search for truth, I agreed to perform it. First, let me state to you, Alfred, and to you, Patricia, that of the 200 marriages that I have performed, all but seven have failed. So the odds are not good. We don't like to admit it, especially at the wedding ceremony, but it's in the back of all our minds, isn't it: how long will it last. We all think that, don't we? We don't like to bring it out in the open, but we all think that. Well I say, why not bring it out in the open. Why does one decide to marry? Social pressure? Boredom? Loneliness? Sexual appeasement? Love? I won't put any of these reasons down, each in its own way is adequate, each is all right. Last year I married a musician who wanted to get married in order to stop masturbating. Please, don't be startled, I'm NOT putting him down. That marriage, did not work. But the man TRIED. He is now separated, still masturbating, but HE IS AT PEACE with himself because he tried society's way. So you see, it was not a mistake, it turned out all right. Now, just last month I married a novelist to a painter. Everyone at the wedding ceremony was under the influence of an hallucinogenic drug. The drug quickened our physical responses, slowed our mental responses, and the whole ceremony took two days to perform. NEVER have the words HAD SUCH MEANING. Now THAT marriage, should last. Still, if it does not, well, that'll be all right, for don't you see, any step that one takes is useful, is positive, has to be positive because it's a part of life, even the negation of the previously taken step is positive, that too is a part of life. And in this light, and only in this light, should marriage be viewed: as a small, single step. If it works, fine! If it fails, fine; look elsewhere for satisfaction. To more marriages, fine, as many as one wants, fine. To homosexuality? Fine! To drug addiction? I will not put it down, each of these is an answer for somebody. For Alfred, today's answer is Patricia. For Patricia, today's answer is Alfred. I will not put them down for that. So what I implore you both, Patricia, and Alfred, to dwell on, while I ask you these questions required by the state of New York to "legally bind you" -- sinister phrase, that -- is that not only are the legal questions I ask you, meaningless, but so too are the inner questions that you ask yourselves, meaningless. Failing one's partner, does not matter. Sexual disappointment, does not matter. Nothing can hurt, if you do not see it as being hurtful. Nothing can destroy, if you do not see it as destructive. It is all part of life, part of what we are. So now: Alfred. Do you take Patricia to be your lawfully wedded wife, to love -- whatever that means -- to honor, to keep her in sickness and health, in prosperity and adversity -- what nonsense! -- forsaking all others, -- what a shocking invasion of privacy! Rephrase that to more sensibly say, if you choose to have affairs, then you won't feel guilty about them. -as long as you both shall live, or as long as you're not tired of one another.. ?

Alfred: Yeah.

Rev. Dupas: And Patsy, do you take Alfred to be your lawfully wedded husband, to love -- that harmful word again, could not one more wisely say, communicate? -to honor,-- I suppose by that it means you won't cut his balls off, but then, some men like that! -to obey,-- well, my first glance at you, told me you were not the type to obey. So I went to my thesaurus, and I came back with these alternatives: to show devotion, to be loyal, to show fealty, to answer the helm, to be pliant. -General enough, I think, and still leave plenty of room to dominate. -in sickness and health, and all the rest of that GOBBLEDYgook, so long as you both shall live.. ?

Patsy: (confused, speechless.. finally stammers:) I do.

Rev. Dupas: Alfred and Patsy, I know now that whatever you do.. will be all right.

Rev. Dupas: To Patsy's father, Carroll Newquist -- I've never heard that name on a man before, but I'm sure it's all right -- I ask you sir, feel no guilt over the $250 check you gave me to mention the Deity in the ceremony. What you have done is all right. It's part of what you are, it's part of what we all are. And I beg you not to be overly perturbed, when I do not mention the Deity in the ceremony. Betrayal, too, is all right, it too is part of what we all are.

Rev. Dupas: And to Patsy's brother, Kenneth Newquist, with whom I had the pleasure of a private chat, I beg you feel no shame, homosexuality is all right, really it is.. it is perfectly all right..

Kenneth Newquist: (screaming) Sonovabitch!! Aarrggghh!! (assaults the minister.) (Marriage ceremony descends into a brawl.)

Twisted

[aimless-46 · 8/10 · 17 June 2008]

"Little Murders" is another of the obscure films I saw at base/post theaters during my military days. It was certainly better than average and many of the images (especially the wedding scene with Donald Sutherland) have stayed with me through the years.

While I found it less funny during a recent viewing than I remembered, the message was still disturbing and contemporary. It is certainly satire and black comedy, but you often lose yourself in the story. It is a very individual film, different people will laugh at different times and at different things. During a theater viewing it seemed to isolate audience members from each other.

Jules Feiffer's screenplay is about Alfred (Elliot Gould), a NYC photographer and self- described "apathist", sort of an unengaged existentialist. He is completely disillusioned and has deadened himself to the cries, smells, sights and pains of violent city living; in a Big Apple even more adversarial than that of "The Out-Of-Towners".

Alfred can't feel much anymore but he takes an interest in Patsy (Marcia Rodd), a controlling interior decorator optimist, who wants to change him. Patsy has been able to stay upbeat and involved despite daily encounters with muggers, snipers, obscene callers, and a family that leaves a lot to be desired.

The film seems to be saying that harsh urban life cuts its people off from gentler human emotion. As an interior decorator Patsy's life is largely defined by her ability to control her possessions and the attitudes of those around her.

Patsy's father, mother and younger brother are living a painful parody of "family life," and Alfred's weirdness eventually allows him to fit right in. The dinner scene where he first meets her family is one of the funniest in film history.

The film illustrates that neither apathy nor constructive engagement are successful mechanisms for coping with the modern world. It seems to be saying that the only rational response to living in an insane environment is to vigorously participate in the insanity.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

it'll murder you with laughs

[lee_eisenberg · 8/10 · 4 June 2006]

When they were all in their heyday, Elliott Gould, Alan Arkin (who also directed) and Donald Sutherland collaborated on the over-the-top black comedy "Little Murders", in which Gould plays emotionally vacant New York photographer Alfred Chamberlain, hooking up with vivacious young Patsy Newquist (Marcia Rodd) in the midst of several hundred unsolved homicides in the Big Apple. In the process of everything, the series of events exposes the flaws in all the characters, especially Patsy's parents (Vincent Gardenia and Elizabeth Wilson).

I think that my two favorite scenes are the appearances of Sutherland and Arkin. Sutherland plays a priest who seems to be a cross between Sutherland's characters from "MASH" and "Kelly's Heroes"; Arkin plays a detective who spouts out the craziest monologue explaining why there's a conspiracy behind the murders. Overall, this is very much a New York kind of movie. I should identify that there are several very long scenes during the movie, but it's certainly not a flick that you'll forget anytime soon. Impressive.

The kind of film you won't see everyday

[waldorfsalad · 11 February 2000]

A black comedy in every sense of the word. It's too bad that Alan Arkin doesn't direct more movies because he really scored with this one. It's a movie that still seems so fresh today because of its storyline, even after close to 30 years. It was pertinent back then and even more so today. It's great to see appearances here by Arkin and Donald Sutherland, and it's one of Elliott Gould's best roles.

Keep on the lookout for this in your late night t.v. schedule. It's really worth seeing again (and especially if you haven't seen it yet).

Sutherland, Gould and and Arkin. Need I say more?

[TheTwistedLiver · 7/10 · 29 June 2007]

I asked the clerk at my local video store to suggest a comedy from the 70's on VHS as my DVD player was broken. He recommended Little Murders and got a glazed over look in his eye and an idiots smile on his face, obviously reminiscing over a scene in the film. That was enough for me to want to rent it, and I'm glad I did. The acting in this film is outstanding, the highlight for me was Alan Arkin playing a Dr. Strangelove esquire police officer and of course the scene with Donald Sutherland as the minister. The film holds up remarkably well for having been filmed over 35 years ago, it must have been ahead of it's time when it came out. Aside from a few slang terms that were definitely from a by gone era, the film could easily take place today. All in all worth the effort if for nothing else than an outstanding cast of Arkin, Sutherland and Gould. Did it get any better than that acting wise in the 1970?

LITTLE MURDERS (Alan Arkin, 1971) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 4 July 2008]

High-pitched black comedy which descends into hysteria by the end and, being overlong for its purpose, becomes something of an exhausting experience. While the connotations to the urban/social malaises being satirized are decidedly disturbing, the film is nonetheless anchored by an excellent script (Jules Feiffer adapted his own play for the screen – that same year, he would write CARNAL KNOWLEDGE which proved equally frank and perceptive of human relationships) and performances.

Elliott Gould – one of the most representative actors of American cinema in the 1970s – is in typical unconventional hero mode (he had actually originated the role on the stage), while Marcia Rodd – who’s delightful – co-stars as his levelheaded girlfriend. Vincent Gardenia appears as Rodd’s human dynamo of a father, Lou Jacobi as a matrimonial Judge, Sutherland as a radical Minister and director Arkin himself as a seriously disturbed Detective. Given the latter’s acting background, it’s not surprising that he would choose to highlight just these aspects in his first feature-length stint behind the camera. The result, then, may be technically unfussy – though a happy exception is made with the inspired slow-motion depiction of Rodd’s shocking assassination. In view of the script’s prevalence for monologues, Arkin tends to favor long takes: especially effective are those delivered by Jacobi, Sutherland and Gould himself – when, immediately prior to the sniper incident, Rodd cajoles him into expressing why he “feels” the way he does i.e. apathetic (by his own admission) and which has reduced him to literally photograph excrement for a living!

The contributions of the flustered Gardenia (the head of an eccentric family whose houselights are forever dimming), Sutherland (in the first of two re-unions with Gould, his co-star from M.A.S.H. [1970] – the wackiness of his appearance here reminded me of the actor’s bit as Jesus Christ in the anti-war drama JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN from the same year), Arkin (who, naturally, gives himself a brilliant paranoid speech – compounded by a stammer), Gould’s ultra-sophisticated parents (including John Randolph), and even an inveterate obscene telephone caller nicknamed ‘The Breather’ (with his sudden snapping to normality when informed of Rodd’s demise, thus giving himself away as a former beau of hers!) are extremely funny for those attuned to the film’s uniquely offbeat if melancholy mood. The surreal ending, then, sees Gould and Rodd’s family barricaded in their house and taking to indiscriminate sniping themselves! Incidentally, Fox’s DVD edition of this includes an Audio Commentary featuring Feiffer and Gould – which must be pretty interesting (for the record, I got hold of the film through ulterior sources).

Is it to late for this movie to have a cult following?

[honor-1 · 10/10 · 24 November 2004]

I just watched this film because my dad recommended it as a movie he

remember as being funny…mabey. I was skeptical at the beginning, I thought to myself a dated film with an absurd summery on the back. The only reason I sat and watched it was the list of actors, Sutherland and Gould. I was immediately enthralled. I have been a fan of Terry Gilliam films for a long time and to see a film that can achieve his insanity and social messages with out the elaborate sets and costumes Gilliam uses is astounding. The acting is superb, there is no other word that can encapsulate these performances. Every character is riveting until the end. The monologues given are thought provoking to say the least. My original thought that this film was dated could not be farther from the truth, I was in fact surprised by the connections that can be drawn to our modern times. I am surprised that this film did not receive more praise. It is also disappointing that the other Alan Arkin films were given less than glowing reviews. The only question I have is: is it to late to have a cult following for this movie? Anyone else in?

Very dated yet oddly prescient

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 1 September 2019]

Patsy Newquist (Marcia Rodd) is an interior decorator in New York City who rescues a man (Elliott Gould as Alfred Chamberlain) from a prolonged beating that she hears going on outside of her apartment. When she does intervene the group of hooligans turns on her and Alfred does nothing but walk away. After she escapes them, she confronts Alfred about this, who does not apologize. In fact he says nothing. Patsy is instantly smitten by this self acclaimed "apathist", and sets out to make him see life is good and get him trying again - at anything. He is her project, yet she sees this as love.

The backdrop is an increasingly violent NYC in which property is randomly vandalized more than robbed, people are at first attacked - the way that Alfred was - and then random shootings/murders by unnamed snipers begin. Patsy's family of origin are like an educated version of The Bunkers on All In the Family. Eventually they have steel panels installed on their windows so that the snipers will not shoot into their apartment.

Alan Arkin plays a cop driven mad by all of the homicides in which the victims come from every walk, age, and ethnicity and none of them apparently knew their assailants.

Donald Sutherland has a small but memorable role as pastor of the First Existential Church who is able to grant Alfred and Patsy's request that the name of the deity not be mentioned in their wedding ceremony. His sermon - and he airs everybody's dirty linen at this time, apparently not believing in the confidentiality of the clergy - during that service starts a free-for-all fist fight.

The film has a very tie-dyed feel about it that is distinctively early 70s, yet how it deals with all of the random violence, particulary the frightening origin of the random killings in the final scene, seems all too "ripped from the headlines".

Pitch-perfect black comedy

[craigjclark · 10/10 · 27 July 2001]

It doesn't get any darker than this, folks. Jules Feiffer shows off his penchant for absurdity and his mastery of the monologue (Lou Jacobi, Donald Sutherland and director Alan Arkin each get one powerhouse scene where it's basically all them with the other characters reacting). The cast is excellent and their handling of Feiffer's language is amazing. Elliot Gould's performance is particularly effective, and Vincent Gardenia as his father-in-law is hysterical.

I saw this film and then read the play it was based on, and both give off the same claustrophobic air of desperation while still being side-splittingly funny. It is definitely worth hunting down. In the words of Father Dupas, it is "all right."

Feiffer's wonderfully bitter and brilliant script

[rokcomx · 7/10 · 23 February 2009]

Last night's Fox Move Channel gem was Little Murders, an obscure 1971 flick based on a play by one of my favorite authors and cartoonists, Jules Feiffer (Unicorn in the Garden and the terrific "lost" TV show My World and Welcome To It, with William Windom as the cartoonist). Little Murders has Elliott Gould as a mild mannered guy living in the big city who gets beaten and robbed all the time, but he just smiles and daydreams thru the beatings -

It's mainly about how violent urban life eventually inures people to the horror, to the point where even a little old lady says things like "Gunshots? So what? I get shot at every time I walk out the door." It's very sharp satire, with several amazing bits of dialogue, mostly monologues by Gould but also a wonderfully wonky scene with young longhaired Donald Sutherland as an alternate lifestyle preacher, conducting an insane wedding ceremony with ridiculous hippie-slash-anarchist vows being recited by the increasingly manic Sutherland.

I sometimes think Feiffer thought hippies and anarchists were the same thing (kinda true, on some subtle and ultimately superficial levels), but his terrific writing - and Gould's equally terrific reading - made the film a sweet treat for me! I'd never even heard of it before the credits rolled ----- yay FMC!

After I looked it up on IMDb, I found someone had transcribed the wedding scene - while it loses a lot without Sutherland's performance, you can get an idea of just how dark and funny author Feiffer was ---- what a wonderfully bitter, cynical, and brilliant man!

Little Murders may have been a little cerebral and dark for audiences coming out of the '60s who'd soon pledge their troth to Dirty Harry, Easy Rider, the Exorcist, et al (three fine films, but with none of the artistry, wit, intelligence, and pitch-perfect performances of Little Murders).

As someone who still considers film-making first and foremost (ideally) an artform, rather than mere entertainment, it was great to find these IMDb posts for Little Murders - more and more, it turns out, people DO appreciate these movies, even/if it's a quarter or half century later. Few master painters were ever lauded in their own lifetimes either ---

What was outrageous behavior in 1971 is now the 11:00 news...

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 20 February 2008]

Alan Arkin directed this black comedy from Jules Feiffer (adapted from his play) about the violence--and apathy or pacifism towards violence--in society, with Elliott Gould as the zombie-fied hero at the center of the chaos. Even though this is dark-hued material, Feiffer and Arkin mean it to be deadpan amusing, yet the heights they hope to scale haven't weathered the years well. What was circus-like and crazily absurd in 1971 doesn't look so far-fetched anymore, which gives the proceedings a creepy undermining today. Several good moments, fine cinematography from Gordon Willis compensate, also a terrific performance from Vincent Gardenia as Gould's emotionally unhinged father-in-law. However, the film is now a dated product of its time, not the crackpot cartoon-strip intended. Arkin has a cameo, as does Gould's "MASH" co-star Donald Sutherland in an over-extended bit as a hippie priest. ** from ****

Seminal New York Black Comedy

[ween-3 · 9/10 · 8 August 1999]

Jules Feiffer's paean to NYC paranoia written in the same tone as his comic strips. Completely over-the-top and hilarious. Alan Arkin's bit is priceless. This movie puts the "funk" back in dysfunctional. This is proto-"Seinfeld" stuff, folks. Climb into the darkest fantasy of every red-blooded Gothamite.

The Minister

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 31 March 2017]

Comedy about how New Yorkers are coping with pervasive urban violence, obscene phone calls, rusty water pipes, electrical blackouts, paranoia and ethnic-racial conflict during a typical summer of the 1970s.

So, this is the sort of film that has a good deal of long, boring parts, but is more than made up for by some of the incredible smart dialogue. Early on, we get a wise discourse about what to say if people are going to beat you up, and what they might assume you to be in return. This speech, by Elliott Gould, is brilliant.

But even more brilliant, and the real highlight of the entire film, is a rambling sermon and wedding ceremony from Donald Sutherland, an "existential" minister. His rambling about "love" and "the deity" is not what you expect fro ma minister and this has to be one of Sutherland's greatest roles.

Guess I Have A Very Different Sense of Humor

[syzygy1818 · 1/10 · 27 April 2019]

Of the many many moves I have ever seen, this one ranks #2 - from the bottom. '"John Goldfarb, Please Come Home" was the worst. I found "Little Murders" to be a total unfunny confusion with absolutely no redeeming qualities. And just so you know, "My Cousin Vinnie" and "Moonstruck" are 2 of my favorite comedies - and "Paths of Glory", "Jaws" and "Fargo" will always be at the top of my best movie list.

Settles into a Groove

[AEROMONK · 5 September 2021]

I was reminded of Eraserhead a bit. I was expecting Little Murders to wander around aimlessly for its duration, but it eventually settled into its theme. The other reviews here are worth reading, so this one won't be a repeat. So in the spirit of simply adding to the others, I'll start by stating that I find myself speculating on the notion of God. To wit, when the female lead is randomly (or perhaps jealously) executed, it comes on the heels of the main character's admission of worshiping her--really the climax of her efforts to mold him. Except, she must have forgotten that God does not condone the worship of false idols, insofar as the matron-led religion will have it. And since God is rebuked from the marriage ceremony, this little murder feels like an act of divine vengeance. The main character then resolves his initial shortcomings--an inability to feel and an inability to fight--and recklessly joins the family, capitulating to the urge to kill only to gorge himself at the dinner table. Mother-in-law is pleased, and the film ends. It's a strange film, rife with considerations about the role of the police, NYC, Jews and Christians and pagans (see the church of the wedding ceremony) the 2nd Amendment, homosexuality, and the like--many questions that are still a part of daily American life.

New York City Blues

[Eleatic67 · 7/10 · 3 December 2023]

What was the state of the US during the seventies? Watch the films from that time and you get some insight into a society that was disintegrating rapidly.

Panic In Needle Park, The Laughing Policeman, Taxi Driver, The Last Detail, The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon, among others... capture the fallout of political and social "unrest". The Vietnam War revealed all the fault lines between races, classes, and ideological viewpoints. All the institutions-religious, educational, political-failed to address the rampant and severe social problems that were dividing people.

Have things improved or did an entire generation give up on the promise of radical social change? Even revolutionaries grow tired and disillusioned.

Comedy Noire inspired by late 60s NYC random serial-murder s

[mdm-11 · 6/10 · 19 May 2005]

Elliot Gould is stunningly attractive, which is one of only a few reasons why I watched this insane film all the way through. Each of the characters introduced are in their own right neurotic or uniquely nuts. The only fairly sane person is the young woman who falls in love and marries Gould in order to "change him". The brief appearance of Donald Sutherland as a very progressive minister, who prides himself on the high failure rate of the ceremonies he performs is amusing, as he frankly insults everyone gathered by pointing at their peculiarities, causing an eventual riot.

It takes the film more than half of the running time to get a close up of the "little murders". The most shocking moment is when a blood-drenched Gould takes a subway ride, his visibly near-death appearance raising not a single eye-brow among the many commuters. A middle aged woman matter-of-factly announced that she was shot at, the bullet stopped by her her shopping bags. "Open up, I have leaking groceries". Bizarre! An irate police detective investigating the random murder spree is one of the "bigger nuts" in the cast. WOW! If you enjoy "shock value", then this film is for you. To me, the entire cast was made up of zombies who wander about their existence and can't be bothered by anything. The final scene is the culmination of bizarre occurrences. See for yourself, but for me, this was definitely a one-time-view.

Sweet like agony

[single_entendre · 10/10 · 4 August 2001]

Succinct yet long-winded, hilariously unsettling, this black black black comedy is delicious the first time around, coming at you like ray of light through a keyhole five rooms away. And it gets better with multiple viewings. Elliot Gould is a tousled, endearing anti-hero and Donald Sutherland gives perhaps the best screen performance EVER of an existentialist minister with a bad haircut and a fondness for the phrase `all right.' Sometimes, when my mind wanders over the film, I'll remember a scene, a line, and everything is suddenly all right. Thank GOD for this film. Now that I've found it I'll never have to watch another movie again.

Snap Shot of a decaying society circa 1970

[UniFilmCritic · 7/10 · 1 October 2005]

Little Murders is more absurd than noir, but I suppose a black Comedy sums it up nicely. This was Elliot Gould at the zenith of his early 70's popularity, coming after Mash and Bob & Carol and Ted & Alice. Although this is not the best movie of that era for him, it is surely one of his best performances. His character, Alfred Chamberlain is not particularly sympathetic or really likable, yet it's hard not stare in amazement at Chamberlain's reactions, or lack there of, to the 3 ring circus going around.

Marcia Rodd, Vincent Gardenia and Elizabeth Wilson are all strong in support of the lunacy, terror and degradation on screen.

Notes: Doris Roberts (Everybody Love Raymond, Remington Steele)convincingly plays Elliot Gould's mother in this movie despite only being 9 years older than Mr. Gould.

The Song at the end of movie, "Skating in Central Park" performed by the modern jazz quartet is hard to find, but is available on their CD, The Complete Last Concert Live and another of their CD's - Dedicated to Connie.

Hilarious...but not a comedy...

[S_Craig_Zahler · 8/10 · 6 November 2011]

Exact rating: 8.25

The pulse of this movie is subversive and menacing, and even though there are many, many great laughs, I think the classification of it as a comedy is wrong. It never feels like a comedy. In terms of tone, it is something like the pilot for Twin Peaks and a Mamet play and an Odets play, but with some strange off off off off Broadway claustrophobia and seventies nihilistic horror. It displays a collapsed and paranoid urban environment in which people are combative with words and isolated by them.

I feel it should be essential viewing for any writer, as it contains four of the best-- if not the actual four best-- monologues I've ever heard in a movie. Arkin and Sutherland have amazing monologues that are only marginally upstaged by those given by Gould and Jacobi.

I laughed many, many times (as did many people in the sold out screening I attended), but when it ended, the haunting and thoughtful core of the movie lingered more than did the comedy.

A rich and allegorical piece that deserves serious study and accolades.

(I saw a 35mm print of the movie at Film Forum, N.Y.)

Not a complete success, but brave and different

[runamokprods · 7/10 · 4 April 2011]

Yet another 'I should probably see again' film (sigh).

Sometimes very funny, occasionally disturbing super-black comedy about the absurdity of modern urban life.

On first viewing, while some of the performances were wonderful (Donald Sutherland), some were merely OK (Elliott Gould in the lead) and some are over the top and annoying (Lou Jacobi, and, surprisingly, the great Alan Arkin who also directed, perhaps trying to do too much at once).

Too often the cast feel like actors are in different movies, with different styles and levels of reality.

This is a very brave and odd film, with some unforgettable moments, but others that feel awkward and trite.

Most reviews were stronger than my reaction, and I could definitely imagine this being one of those films where the strengths would seems stronger, and the weaknesses less annoying on repeated viewings. Nice cinematography by Gordon Willis.

Top Notch Acting But the Script...

[Brachvogel · 5/10 · 27 March 2022]

Director [link=nm0000273} had gathered the best actresses and actors available at the time, and it is a pleasure watching them work, but in the end, a movie sums up to all its components. In the case of "Little Murders", it's the script that's just not holding up to present times, and if the script doesn't work anymore, there is nothing the rest can do to make it matter. For one thing, you can hear the stage play paper crackle in the dialogues. And, typical for the time, there are too many punch lines, too many brute force plot twists - not to speak of the constant urge to lecture. I can understand the positive reviews here, but nostalgia shouldn't count in a present-day review. The question is: Does this movie work in a today's context? It doesn't. It's clearly attached to a 1971 perspective. In that view, it's an honourable undertaking. But is it transferable to 2022? No, it isn't. What remains, is pure nostalgia: the actresses, the actors, the retro-fashion, '71-New York - that's all cool - no question - but is this movie still enlightening? It's clearly not.

Mesmorizingly different and not so far from reality

[mim-8 · 9/10 · 10 February 2009]

This film is something else. Wanting to portray the numbness of the American society, and apathy it fell into in the 60's, (remember the Stones song "Mother's little helper"), this play by Jules Pfeiffer shows the depth of urban dystopia where only a person without any sort of emotions can survive, thus the entire population in order to survive don't care if it's bullied, beaten, shot at, cheated in elections, deprived of it's liberties and robbed in every sense. They just don't react, and that's what Alfred Chamberlain (Eliott Gould) represents. On the other side of the spectrum is Patsy Newquist (Marcia Rodd), optimistic, cheery individual in the middle of the mayhem, that simply has to be destroyed by it, only the numb survive. I think that this is one of the best black comedies ever put on screen, and yes Donald Sutherland and his monologue are a riot along with persistence the key characters show in taking all the abysmal society throws at them (for example neighboring snipers and constant power failures). Alan Arkin as the Lt. Practice is the funniest epitome of this society.

People it's scary, but things like this, and in not so smaller scale are happening to societies around the world. Fantastic film!

Feiffer's folly?

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 4 June 2016]

This movie could be described as either a surrealistic comedy of manners or a theater of the absurd in New York suburbia. Jules Feiffer has opened out his stage play considerably, although it is still easily recognizable as a photographed stage piece. Alan Arkin's direction with its unremitting focus on the players has seen to that. The acting is theatrical rather than cinematic and the camera-work is completely unobtrusive. Many of Feiffer's points are over-labored both by the script and the players. Some scenes run far too long and there is far too much repetitive and simply filling-in dialogue. Indeed the players are allowed to run off the mouth and were obviously encouraged to declaim their lines with far too much shouting. The film could also do with some expert trimming. This would not only clarify the script's points but add a bit of luster to the humor and improve the pace as well. It would also allow the viewer less time to consider the mechanics, the artifices and the artificiality of the script. Another problem is that we are never really caught up with the characters. In fact, we are always remote. We see them on another plane as it were. As a result, the movie comes across with much less force and humor. Nevertheless, Feiffer remains true to his corrosive urban vision right to the end. There is no copping out or watering down. All the players come across well, especially Marcia Rodd who is less theatrical than the rest of the cast. There are also some good visual gags which were especially written for this film version, although many of them are muffed by routine or pedestrian handling. All in all, this is a movie that would probably come across more effectively in small doses. 110 minutes is a long time to look on as an uninvolved spectator. Production values are more than adequate and they certainly benefit from location filming.

Like watching performance art instead of a comedy.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 26 December 2023]

Dir by arkin, written by jules feiffer.

Homo slurs from dad not reacting to lights out.

Like performance art anhedonia great preacher-wedding is best part.

Parents--unfeeling overintellectualizers

I'm pretty surprised at the positive reviews for "Little Murders". To me, it's a single, long and rather tedious joke...one that wears thin at times.

Alfred (Elliot Gould) is a New Yorker who has anhedonia...the complete inability to feel anything. Throughout the film, Alfred is stone-faced and with a rather monotone voice. Despite that, a goofy woman falls in love with him (what's to fall in love with?) and he experiences a variety of odd adventures...such as a super-weird wedding, an odd reunion with his parents as well as some self-examination. At times, some of it is indeed funny (the wedding officiated by Donald Sutherland is pretty funny) but mostly it's boring...because the character is so flat and boring. In many ways, this seems more like performance art than a comedy.

So, you have a review here that did NOT like the film...and many, many reviews which did. Who knows what you'll think...I just thought it would have made a cute short film but as a full length one, it's just tedious most of the time.