This is quite an over-rated movie. I am a bit surprised too by the words of lavish praise by some other users on this forum. And some seem ecstatic by the fact that Fonda plays a hooker (oh wow!). That is not a good enough reason to be impressed. I don't discount the fact that she acts very well in her Oscar worthy performance here. But there have been other outstanding performances: On Golden Pond, Julia, Coming Home, China Syndrome, etc.
I feel the movie has some shortcomings:
1. Structurally, if the culprit is identified already with over 30 minutes still remaining in the movie, it can't be that suspenseful as people make it out to be.
2. There just isn't enough depth in the relationship between Bree and Klute, the way it has been shown, for us to really believe that she will get together with him in the end and move out to another town.
3. And then as someone said, the movie should have been titled "Bree" and not "Klute," because Fonda really steals the show from Sutherland, who plays his typical wooden face and is not very believable as a private eye. Sutherland has played enough neurotic types in his lifetime, and somehow his personality fits that as well, so that he might have been better cast as one of Bree's clients rather than as the good detective.
4. Klute threatens Bree with revealing tape recordings of her conversation if she does not provide him information and surprisingly, she willingly tries to comply. Now why would she do that? It is clearly illegal to wiretap on someone without a court order. And that too is given only to law enforcement agencies, not to private dicks!
Don't get me wrong. It is a decent movie, no doubt, just not good enough as the flurry of comments on this forum.
Cheers!
I feel the movie has some shortcomings:
1. Structurally, if the culprit is identified already with over 30 minutes still remaining in the movie, it can't be that suspenseful as people make it out to be.
2. There just isn't enough depth in the relationship between Bree and Klute, the way it has been shown, for us to really believe that she will get together with him in the end and move out to another town.
3. And then as someone said, the movie should have been titled "Bree" and not "Klute," because Fonda really steals the show from Sutherland, who plays his typical wooden face and is not very believable as a private eye. Sutherland has played enough neurotic types in his lifetime, and somehow his personality fits that as well, so that he might have been better cast as one of Bree's clients rather than as the good detective.
4. Klute threatens Bree with revealing tape recordings of her conversation if she does not provide him information and surprisingly, she willingly tries to comply. Now why would she do that? It is clearly illegal to wiretap on someone without a court order. And that too is given only to law enforcement agencies, not to private dicks!
Don't get me wrong. It is a decent movie, no doubt, just not good enough as the flurry of comments on this forum.
Cheers!