Little Murders

1971 "Funny in a new and frightening way!"
6.9| 1h48m| PG| en
Details

A young nihilistic New Yorker copes with pervasive urban violence, obscene phone calls, rusty water pipes, electrical blackouts, paranoia, and ethnic-racial conflict during a typical summer of the 1970s.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much
Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.
Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.
Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.
U.N. Owen Little Murders is a film about the 'little deaths' we all live - in order to survive.I love this move for so many reasons - including it's terrific cast - of many great character actors, the script/screenplay by Jules Pfeiffer is top-notch, and it takes place in somewhere near and dear to me - 'my' NYC - and my neighborhood; the upper west side.Back then, it wasn't yuppies, sky-high prices, it was young families, - middle-class, primarily, and older families as well. This film was made just a few years before the infamous 'Ford to NYC: Drop Dead' cover of the Daily News, as the city was dying, our finances were a shambles, chaos was everywhere,e but, we all tried to lead some semblance of normalcy amid the chaos.So many people when they found out I was from NYC, they'd say; it's it as dangerous as they say,' and I was a kid, and I wasn't scared, nor were the many others - kids, families - it was our home, and it pulsed its a life, which is now - so, so sadly - almost gone - replaced by vacuous big-box chains, hollow-eyed people from 'elsewhere,' who - well, they're not like we were. We all died little deaths back then.As this film is a black ConEdy (uproariously so - Lou JacobI's ('endless) speech about how hard it was for his parents and family, back at the turn of the century (in which every fact, including the number of relatives, rooms in the apartment, and street where it was) change with each telling, but, amidst the changes, facts don't; people came here, and it was hard But, they persevere in order to make a better life for their families.Another standout is Donald Sutherland as Rev. Dupas, who's wedding sermon is so funny, so biting, but, 'that's okay,' as, wed just about ended the 'Summer of Love' era, and were moving into the 'me decade,' - the 'do your own thing'-era.Alfred Chamberlain (Elliot Gould - in the ONLY film I can tolerate him, and, the ONLY role - I think, aside from MASH - he's perfect in) says he's a nihilist, but, I think the reality is, he's more emotionally dead, because, it's easier to not feel. Feeling things is much harder. It leaves one open to - yes, love, but, also hurt, pain, but, if one doesn't feel, doesn't allow this bad and good to happen, they become static, unchanging.Marcia Rodd - so wonderful, and so, so underrated is Patsy - the woman who's going to change Alfred from the unfeeling man he is, into the vision manhood she wants him to be.Many of the other reviews here will tell you much more in depth about this marvelous film than I want to. I want you to watch it, oh, most definitely, but, what I want you to take from this little entrée is to try and peel a little bit away the surface, and try to feel for yourself what it is Alfred so desperately doesn't want to.
Yxklyx Little Murders (1971, Alan Arkin) was excellent (except for Alan Arkin) I'm really surprised at the below 7 rating for this movie on IMDb. The only thing I can think of is that the characters don't really come across as people but as allegorical ideas - and while I usually don't care for up-front allegory in movies (most movies do a better job at hiding it), here it works. The comedy in this one is not dated at all (except for Alan Arkin's over-the-top humor bit - but his scene is just a minor cameo). Donald Sutherland has this incredible scene as an existential live and let live (go with the flow) wedding ceremony presider where the "deity is not to be mentioned". Elliot Gould (who I'm not a big fan of) here is at his best. He's got a monologue sequence reminiscent of Nicholson's in The King of Marvin Gardens. It all wraps up excellently - it's absurd, it's dark, it's evocative. 9/10
Eric 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.)
mdm-11 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.