Sadly Over-hyped

Powerful

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Yes, confusing, but so odd that it haunted me to the point that I had to watch it again. There are many things that dont make a lick of sense in this movie. The plot for one thing. (What was the plot again?) A crazy man running full speed around Georgia simply because he's crazy? Any number of movies could be made from that idea, and like this one, few would make any sense. And what about the period that this movie was supposed to represent? It looked like a cross between the 1950s and 1980s. Some cars, and most houses looked like the 50s, while other cars and microwave towers were obviously the late 70s when the movie was made. And what about Brad Dourif, who's acting ability is about average and a joy to watch, except in this moves he only had one facial expression throughout? Teeth gritted, lower jaw out, and a nervousness that makes Barney Fife look calm. Yes, fun to watch, but I'm still trying to figure out why?

After 35 years of just reading about this movie, I finally saw this John Huston adaptation of Flannery O'Connor's novel on DVD from my local library. It's a pretty strange and funny story of Hazel Motes (Brad Dourif) wandering aimlessly through a Georgia town intent on becoming a preacher who doesn't believe in Christ and hoping to attract an audience who feels the same. Dourif is fine in the lead role but I really liked it when Amy Wright appeared as a young girl who's attracted to him. She's both funny and sexy in her interpretation of her character. I also liked Ned Beatty playing someone who recognizes the potential in Hazel but Motes doesn't seem to feel the same way. May not be for all tastes but Wise Blood is very much worth a look.

Directed by John Huston, "Wise Blood" is an adaptation of a 1952 Flannery O'Connor novel of the same name. It stars Brad Dourif as Hazel Motes, the grandson of a staunch Christian. When he returns to the American South after World War 2, Hazel decides to start a church of his own.Huston's film largely omits what made O'Connor's novel memorable. O'Connor, who wrestled with her own Catholicism, set her tale in a racist, puritanical, post-war America. Moulded by religious family members, her characters saw themselves as being "unclean" and "guilty of sin". The faintest desires, the slightest sexual acts, sent O'Connor's characters into a tailspin, each viewing themselves as having committed a transgression against God.But O'Connor's novel went beyond simple Catholic Guilt. Culturally indoctrinated to view African Americans as being "unclean", O'Connor's guilt-ridden characters begin to view themselves as being "black". Self-identifying with African Americans, they perceive themselves as being tarred, blighted, outcasts and so intrinsically unworthy. O'Connor then drew parallels between slavery and Christianity; both were methods of inculcating obedience. Both promised redemption only after impossible, and obscene, forms of discipline.John Huston's "Wise Blood" touches upon these themes. Huston's characters try to reject God, they put stones in their shoes as penance and wear gorilla costumes as a form of quasi-racist punishment. More shockingly, they gouge out their eyeballs and lacerate their own bodies. But as Huston's film is obviously set in the racially integrated 1970s, and as it makes no attempts to convey the mood, mannerisms and psycho-social realities of the 1940s, these themes feel half-baked. In subtle ways, the Bible Belt of 1979 was not the Bible Belt of 1948. Huston either doesn't care about these subtleties, or honestly expects us to believe that his film is set in the 1940s.7.9/10 – Flawed but fascinating. See "Elmer Gantry".

It's a great character study - in that, it explores what a person becomes if they are a "true idealist". The idea is that we all give up certain ideals every single day in exchange for making our lives more efficient and effective. Where the main character of this story is a solid, immobile foundation of ideals. We see how it slowly corrodes his life, his social connections and affects the people around him. Think about it this way: if you live in a city where you think the MTA charges too much for bus/train fare, but choose to utilize the service because the other options are too hard to follow through with each and everyday, you've essentially given up an ideal. The main character in this movie wouldn't do that, he would walk to his destination or learn to ride a bicycle or what have you. That is, at least, my understanding of this the lead character in this phenomenal movie.