John Downes This a morality tale about what happens to you if you're a hop-head bum with too much money. Though I very much doubt the producers saw it that way. There are things to like about this movie. The scenery, at least in the first half, is stunning. And some of the sound track (Steppenwolf, Hendrix) is good. In 1969 I was a freshman at Oxford, I thought it was crap back then. Inspired by Peter Fonda's recent remarks I just (June 2018) watched it again and (unsurprisingly) it's got no better. (Spoilers) Two layabout drug dealers (Fonda, Hopper) make a big score, then they buy a couple of motor bikes that look a bit more than they can handle, especially when under the influence of weed. Both the bikes stay implausibly clean, bright and shiny for the rest of the movie. From then on it's a road film, they pick up one bum and drop him off in a hippy commune. Cut to some skinny-dipping scenes. Then driving on, and finding themselves accidentally (probably too hopped up to notice) an unscheduled part of a town parade they get gaoled, but miraculously the cops are too stupid to find their stash of money or dope. In the hoosegow they meet the town drunk (Nicholson) and in the morning they set off together on their way to New Orleans. Stopping off at a diner, just the sight of them pisses off the local law (and as Barry Norman used to say "And Why Not?"). They leave. Queue some portentous dialogue about advanced space aliens being in control. Being of no further use, the Nicholson character is conveniently bumped off by some hillbilly Trump supporters with baseball bats, our two heroes then bike on to Louisiana where they visit a brothel but are too stoned to get their rocks off. And finally (they probably couldn't think of another way to end this nonsense) Hopper flips the bird at a couple of confederate deplorables and understandably they blow his head off. Which is what I'd wanted to do from the first minute. They kill Fonda too in the final scene and I liked that even better. In fact I cheered. So by the end, it's a feel-good movie. Not as good as Death Wish but it has its moments.

Alex March I try so, so hard to enjoy "classic" movies, I really do. But I just can't get why everyone's so fussed about this mess. Low-budget, quirky films can be done really well. So why wasn't this? Half of it feels like an extended music video, while the other half is an incomprehensible series of so-called "events" that lead to nothing. Every time I felt like something might happen in the plot, it just... didn't. When people say that this is classic, I think they're just referring to the feeling it gets across. Sure, it vaguely sends out a message about corporate America and how skewed their idea of freedom is, and it definitely drives the whole drug culture point home, but what else? There isn't really a plot in sight, and since it's completely lacking in artistic merit, it isn't effective overall. Weird editing and rock music doesn't equal a good movie, and I can't wrap my head around the appeal. The only person that's really doing any half decent acting in 'Easy Rider' is young Jack Nicholson, playing pretty much every character he played in these days. But of course - as lazy writing leads to lazy plot - he's killed off without an afterthought. You've got no emotional connection to these characters whatsoever, so all I felt when he died was disappointment, as I thought that maybe his introduction to the film was finally the end of the tiring exposition. After the novelty of the rebellious music and explicit scenes wears off, what are you left with? You're left with this: a badly edited, poorly acted, lazily written "classic" just waiting for nostalgic people to come along and tell everyone how great it is. Almost every single character in the movie is annoying and two-dimensional, never developed further than the occasional weed-hazed angsty comment or the edgy, innovative edits that signify... something, maybe. Don't even get me started on the ending. Without the development of tension - not a single bit - Billy and Wyatt's deaths are really just a relief. Finally, it's over! After an hour and a half of cheesy montages and misplaced avant garde scenes, poorly disguised excuses to use some European-style artsy camera-work, I couldn't care less that they're killed. The first time I saw this and the final credits rolled up on screen, I couldn't help but laugh: was that seriously the end!? Clearly the lack of direction just got too much for them to handle, so they washed it all away with a half-baked attempt at a meaningful ending. The stagnant acting from Fonda and frankly irritating performance from Hopper add precisely nothing to their murder, and the fact that people actually thought this was anything but rubbish when it came out baffles me. Basically, I think this film's success is due only to the state of America and New Hollywood cinema at the time. Once the Hayes rule was abandoned, censorship thrown to the wind, everything was exciting - drugs, sex, alternative lifestyles, motorbikes... And that's all this film is, a montage of youth appeal and trying too hard, while simultaneously coming across like no effort was put into its production at all. Oh well. At least it's got some Hendrix in there.

Uriah43 This movie essentially begins with two motorcyclists by the names of "Billy" (Dennis Hopper) and "Captain America" (Peter Fonda) journeying to Mexico to procure cocaine and then selling it for a hefty profit when they return to the United States. It's at this time that they decide to ride their motorcycles from Los Angeles to New Orleans in order to attend Mardi Gras. Along the way they meet a number of people with various philosophies and cultural norms. Some of the people are kind and generous while others are mean and intolerant. And one of the main factors behind the disconnect between these two groups is the acceptance and use of illegal drugs. At the same time this film also manages to combine some beautiful scenery on the way to New Orleans with an expression of freedom on the part of the individuals involved. On that note, however, it should be mentioned that this film is rather dated and presents a point-of-view which is admirable in one sense but also rather naive as well. Be that as it may, this is a rare and thought-provoking film with certain strengths and weaknesses which most viewers will probably find both interesting and entertaining. I have rated it accordingly. Above average.

Gregory Porter The premise of Easy Rider is rather quite basic; two friends, Wyatt (Fonda) and Billy (Hopper), ride their motorcycles from LA to Louisiana for Mardi Gras. Their drug fueled journey becomes a spiritual journey as the pair learns about themselves and America. The movie opens with the pair of guys parking cheap motorcycles outside a run down cantina. They are there to meet a cocaine dealer. The pair sample and approve of the powder. The camera cuts to the pair waiting near an airport runway. A Rolls-Royce rolls up and a well dressed man steps out. He, too, samples and approves of the powder before buying it for a large sum of money. The pair has made a fortune and plans to spend the money on a trip to Mardi Gras. They buy new motorcycles and set off into the desert roads.The acting in Easy Rider is solid. Dennis Hopper's performance as Billy is great. Initially, I labeled his character as "hippy": he has long hair and a bushy mustache and uses "man" as punctuation. At one point the two pick up a hitchhiker who is traveling back to a commune in the middle of the desert. The hitchhiker made me realize that there is a complexity to the characters that I missed. Billy is a hippy-like character in appearance but his temper and focus on worldly pleasures differentiate him from the others. Wyatt is a "cool" or relaxed type of guy and is the one that really grows through the journey. Unlike Billy or George or the hitchhiker, Wyatt is not a representative of a 1960's demographic. As George (Nicholson) explains, "You are change and people don't like change."As Easy Rider is something of a road trip movie, a common artifact is the super long, scenery shots. Denisoff and Romanowski note, the music played during these riding montages, forms a sort of "musical commentary". The soundtrack, beginning with "The Pusher" by Steppenwolf, continues with the iconic "Born to be Wild" also by Steppenwolf. You can see the progression of the story and tone throughout the rest of the soundtrack. Easy Rider is a perfect example of how music can be utilized to complement the images on the screen. Sure, we might have a great orchestration that provides emotional support but, here, the music provides a political (as well as emotional) support.Have you ever watched a movie where a particular scene is burned into your memory? Maybe it strikes a chord with you but as you see the shot you know that it is going to stick with you. I'd bet that it usually happens with scary movies. For example, you're in the shower and the Psycho shower scene flashes through your mind or if you are in a narrow, creepy hotel hallway, you might imagine The Shining's the twins. Easy Rider had one of those moments for me. Wyatt rolls the money they earned by selling cocaine into a rubber tube. He hides that rubber tube in his motorcycle's American flag painted, teardrop gas tank. It is a beautifully succinct yet complex statement about the US. One of the best parts is that the movie lets the image speak for itself.The cutting used at times in the movie is jarring. Instead of a Star Wars-like swipe cut or a fade to black transition, the movie alternates between the two scenes. We are watching scene A, then the movie cuts scene B but after a second cuts back to scene A. The movie alternates between the two scenes a couple times until resting on scene B. It is the type of cutting you might expect in an action movie. A character has a gun and points it at his or her target. The camera focuses on the gun, then the target, then the gun, 'bang,' then on the target. This rapid cutting is exciting so we are used to seeing it in an action but in Easy Rider the transitions between scenes aren't exciting. One jump, for example, takes us from the pair sitting around a campfire to Wyatt walking through a dilapidated Church. It felt jarring and don't quite know how to feel about it. I like the idea of using film techniques in unconventional ways but it feels awkward. Yeah, I can dig it. The idea that it is disruptive fits in with the rest of the movie which is socially disruptive.My only major qualm about the movie is that sometimes it moves away from visual messages to just sitting around a campfire telling us something. Consider the image of the gas tank and money. I know you can show some good stuff, movie, keep going; don't just regress into telling me something. This isn't a deal breaker by any means but it is noteworthy.If, for no other reason, to function as a time capsule, I recommend you see Easy Rider. It is clear depiction of a definitive time in American history. It also illustrates how film can resonate socially and politically. I think for a discussion post I will think about the responsibility of art, if there is such a thing. On a superficial level, or if you saw Easy Rider without actually watching it, it might appear like this film is glorifying a wayward and drug filled lifestyle. From what I hear, that's the message a majority of the original audience left with. In reality, Easy Rider is criticizing this lifestyle. If people misinterpreted its meaning, should it have been more overt?