'Touch of Evil' | Critics' Picks | The New York Times 

Watching it a second time makes the lightbulb flash

Really? I thought he was a massive bear

@@Njbear7453 Negative. But he got larger later in the 60's.

Did u ever see it since youre post from 8yrs ago? If not netflix has it atm.

Its A Universal Picture, under copyright

It's $3.99 everywhere!

Lynn Turman actually it was Universal that tinkered with Welles’ version too much upon release in 1958, and this one is not Murch’s version, he simply edited the film according the famous 58 page memo Welles wrote to Universal upon seeing their cut of the film detailing everything he finds wrong with the cut. I respect your preference for the theatrical version, but to say that Murch “tinkered” with it too much is just wrong, the reconstructed version is by far the closest thing to Welles’ vision, which is ultimately what a film should be: the director’s vision, not the studio’s.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I guess "tinkered" was the wrong word because I realize that Murch was just following Welle's memo. Wasn't there three versions of this? The original theatrical version, a different version that came out on VHS & DVD in the 80s/90s, and the version that was faithful to Welles' memo. I'm just saying that I like the second version best, probably just because that's the version I saw first & had grown up watching..

By playing Moses (and resembling Billy Graham, being the same physical type), Charlton Heston had a acquired an image of upholder of righteousness. Anthony Quinn might have played the role, but would have lacked that. By the way, Quinn was great in another Biblical movie, _Barabbas,_ where all of the righteousness drawing him through life to his salvation, is not his own, but God's, who calls him. Barabbas knows himself to be a sinner, and it is his humiliation unto truth that is the drama of the character's growth. That's one weakness in this as a moral explanation of life: Vargas is completely wearing a white hat, liberalism-style. To do otherwise, probably would not contribute anything to the story being told, but Vargas is seemingly without faults or sins. That's a weakness of liberalism, and why they don't recognize a problem when they become the country club set. They just party on, and proclaim that the totally good guys are now in charge. Which is a sad day for the people who are most affected by the moral good they represent. But it does bring us closer to the truth, because then, the _other side_ of evil is shown for what it is, and self-righteousness is brought to the ground.

@@lindajohnson4204 -- Interesting. I appreciate your thoughts. It's a pleasure to read an intelligent analysis of the character. I'll re-watch the film with your thoughts in mind. Best, RG.

@@lindajohnson4204 I think you'd find that the "country club set" is mostly conservative Republicans.

I hope you're sitting down as this may come as a shock, but nowadays Democrats make up.... a large proportion of the economic elite 😟

@@JR-hi9bu According to voter demographics, the more money you make, the more you vote republican. Just as it has been for quite a long time.

Talking to oneself is "a common sign of mental illness"? Please.

How do you feel 11 years later?

@@randywhite3947 I haven't watched Touch of Evil since.

Disagree