It's kind of... a piece of shit

I think it's a rare case where the director Pakula is too conscience of his own mark on the film. For large portions of the film, it seems to be shot in long and oddly placed angles that don't really do anything for the film. A example would be the first time Sutherland goes into her apartment and stalks the man he hears on the roof. The entire thing is drenched in shadows and long shots, but no suspense or feeling is created from it at all; it more distracts from what's happening on screen more than anything.

And then there's Sutherland's character. It's clearly intentional that he's supposed to be a play against the cliche suave noir detective by being dull and uninteresting to Fonda's layered Bree, but when large portions of the film depend on their interactions and their consumated relationship, making him a complete bore is a wrong wrong wrong choice. He's hardly even a character at all really. And as a result the relationship subplot isn't believable and generally doesn't work, and the movie just feels unengaging and dull in those moments.

Then there's the villain. He has one great scene, where he confronts Bree and plays the tape (the single shot of Fonda's face during that scene is wonderful), and if that moment was played alone, he'd be a good anti-villain, where his actions are almost explainable. Unfortunately, for the rest of the movie he gets bridled with the evil creepy stare! and 70s bad guy score. It also hurts the suspense of the movie and hunt by Sutherland and Fonda when he's revealed early in the film as the surprise villain. The noir plot and hunt in general plods along too much, it's just not engaging, a lot of that due to the bad choices made with handling Sutherland's character, but it just doesn't move well.

It's not completley worthless. Fonda is phenomenal, and at times the movie feels like it touches on near greatness, only to fall short. The psychatrist scenes ("Why do I want to destroy it?") are pretty fantastic, as is the mentioned single shot tape message, and the brief scenes of the Bree on the job early on (especially with the old bearded man). I liked the instant cutting in the first act of the film, unfortunately that was abandoned about halfway, but it was courageous enough to open like that.

There's no denying Pakula is ambitious enough here to make his mark among the auteurs of his day, he's just ambitious like the 5'5" athletic vegetable who wants badly to join the high school basketball team. He would learn later (with All the President's Men), but Klute is just a dull mess.

1.5/5

Eh, I loved Fonda in this movie, which definately upped my estimations of it. I would say Klute has the feel of a Cassavettes movie, and several other movies that arose in the early 70's exploring sexuality, the seedy urban underground, and the indie aesthetic. It is however, as Shack already pointed out, not quite competitive with the best of that era, and it does feel like Pakula wasbiting off more than he could chew. I liked the sensitivity to the grit feeling, and didn't mind the self-consciousness that the director attempted to instill in the movie. I actually think he didn't do it enough, and that is where the movie comes off as slightly superficial. Its not deep and self-conscious enough, and still resorts to the practices of a murder/suspense mystery. Fonda manages to hold it together in unfathomable ways. I loved her use of hands.

I've also been printing out still from this movie and getting her Klute haircut for about two years. So perhaps I'm biased.

I'd recommend this movie to people who are interestedin the early 70's development of the urban grit aesthetic and narrative as being more transparent in its weaknesses and strengths than the bigger titles from the era. I would also recommend it to Fonda fans, of course. Everyone else will prefer the bigger and better movies from the time such as The Killing of a Chinese Bookie.

I only watched Klute to see Stallone's extra work. He's dancing at the disco. The film itself is shit.

F