User reviews

I was excited to see that this film was released on DVD, only to be disappointed when I discovered that it's not available anywhere in the U.S.

My comment on "Streamers" will have to be based on one viewing a few years ago as part of a Robert Altman seminar I took in college. It's a screen adaptation of a David Rabe play, and I look at it as a male counterpart to his virtually all-female stage to screen film from the year before, "Come Back to the 5 and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean."

In "Streamers," a group of Army recruits sit out a long dark weekend in their barracks, awaiting orders to ship off to Vietnam. It's dark, morbid and tense and covers such hot-button issues as racism and homophobia. I recall it all being a bit heavy-handed and one-note; I was mostly exhausted after it was over, and didn't think it was as skillfully directed as "Come Back to the 5 and Dime," which also suffered from hyperbolic material but which Altman worked wonders with.

"Streamers" does boast some pretty solid performances from a young Matthew Modine (who Altman would use again in "Short Cuts") and David Allan Grier, a far cry from the comic work he would do years later in shows like "In Living Color." If I ever have a chance to see it again, I might revise my opinion. But for now,

Grade: B-

Four young soldiers waiting to be shipped to Viet Nam deal with racial tension and their own intolerance when one soldier (Mitchell Lichtenstein) reveals he is gay.

The film debut of David Alan Grier, who has become a bit of a comedy mainstay. Robert Altman, how do you find and cast such talented young actors?

Vincent Canby wrote that the film "goes partway toward realizing the full effect of a stage play as a film, then botches the job by the overabundant use of film techniques, which dismember what should be an ensemble performance." Canby's issue is that the use of close-ups take away the feeling of watching the full performance, where even the non-speaking actors are in view of the audience.

While Canby may be coming down a bit harsh (do movie viewers want the theater experience?), it is worth noting that Altman followed up this film with "Secret Honor", which very much focuses on the actor. In fact, there is not much else to focus on, making it one of the most sparse films ever made.

As has been already said in so many words, this movie is a bit "stagey," with Altman sticking so close to the play instead of taking advantage of the movie aspect. Perhaps as a result, this might have been great to watch on stage, but it took forever to watch on TV. And it is very dated, with lots of racial and sexual orientation slurs. The acting was very good but again hampered by strictly following a script for a play. The setting in the barracks becomes tedious before the halfway mark, and the relatively few actors or especially extras in the background make it look too minimal. Historically, this is probably worth watching, but it is a bit tough to get through.

Following on the heels of "Come Back to the Five & Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean", Altman brings another play to the screen. Like the earlier movie, this is an intensely serious drama about issues of sexuality and denial. Like the earlier movie, parts of it are extremely strident and/or "stagy", and like the earlier movie, much of it is redeemed by the excellent performances.

Although set against the backdrop of the Vietnam War, the film is mostly about what goes on inside the heads of a small group of soldiers who are waiting to get shipped out. Much of the story's development is psychological, and not related to the specific period in history... if anything, the characters occasionally seem "too modern", but it's impossible for me to say whether this is actually the case (perhaps done intentionally by the director and screenwriter) or whether my impression of how they "should" have been behaving in the mid-1960s is colored too much by mass-media images from that time.

In any case, Altman and screenwriter David Rabe do a good job of confounding the audience's expectations and providing us with multi-faceted, complex characters, and there are some moments of chilling beauty, as when two older sergeants tell stories of paratroopers who didn't make it. While the issues involved and the serious tone will probably turn a lot of people off, this is a "worthy" member of the Altman canon, and well worth seeking out by anyone who is interested in his "filmed plays" of the 80s or in seeing him work on a small scale.

There is no other film that deals so confrontingly with homophobia - and with honesty.

It's a deliberately pressured and closed set, but careful editing softens the effect of the confined space. As in Hitchcock's "Rope", the camera never leaves the room, so the viewer feels caged, while the characters can come and go.

The setting is an army barracks in which the men will at any moment be sent overseas for active war duty. The characters have no choice but to negotiate how much they want to know or to accept about eachother.

Long before "don't ask - don't tell" became official US Forces policy, society in general had enforced rigid control over how open any homosexual could be - and Service Personnel have always held the worst reputation for homophobia.

So when Richie flaunts his complete disregard for machismo and swishes around the barracks, he's making one hell of bold statement. He teases Billy mercilessly with come ons, and Billy does his best to call Richie's bluff.

"Streamers" is about the truly dramatic consequences of censored communication. It's a gripping, demanding, powerful and very satisfying film that leaves your head spinning and your heart racing.

You practically need a de-briefing session afterwards, but "Streamers" is certainly one of the most memorable of dramatic movie experiences - on par with "A Clockwork Orange".

The performance by the entire cast is impeccable.

Perhaps it shows my ignorance but I like movies that tell a story with some kind of point and a credible story line. This picture had several great ideas but they were so poorly strung together that the movie did nothing but get more and more annoying. The characters were unbelievable, their actions made no sense and they reacted in bizarre ways. Some examples... Two drunken sergeants playing hide and seek in the rain, a soldier claiming to be queer and the other soldiers not believing him, one soldier stabbed by another and the onlookers too busy talking to get help for an exceedingly long time.

I would most definitely not recommend this film. Except to film makers as an example of how NOT to tell a story.

Every crisis is a fight's form. And the crisis is the only way to know that you are alive. "Streamers" is tale about Vietnam, self discover, fear and sentiments. About trust and friendship. About intolerance's power. And about the resistance in face of same other reality. The homoerotic aspect is only an ingredient in this great expectation and heavy uncertainty. Four boys and a war. And the struggle to adjust the news rules at the familiar past. The threat is not the war or the death. Not the superiors or the others soldiers. The threat is only your person. Each gesture, each emotion, each word may change not an opinion, a nuance in the attitude/words of the other, the self respect or the values of your life but your soul. The world is your desire's projection. And if this these is fallacious? A movie about a interior world- gift and cross.

I agree with some other reviewers that the huge flaw in this movie is the script. Maybe in live theatre this dialog is compelling, but on screen it is just bombastic. The highly formal and eloquent prose is beautiful writing, but it keeps the characters from coming alive. Nobody anywhere talks like these characters.

This could have been a powerful movie about important issues that I happen to care about a lot; it comes across instead as an acting exercise, in which very talented actors carefully read expertly crafted lines. The direction is great, as it is in every Altman movie, but I wish he had not stayed so close to the play. He usually trusted his actors more than the scripts, and not doing so in this movie was a mistake.

Lengthy, lethargic and lackluster Altman lecture that might have played better in 1968, instead of 1983. Today, it seems positively prehistoric. The dialogue is relentlessly moribund and depressing, as recruits "chat" throughout the film. I'm sure Robert Altman was aiming for a claustrophobic feel to STREAMERS; but it never escapes the viewer that they're watching a closed set play, instead of a movie. By the way, is there anyone left on the planet that doesn't know people die in war, and they should be avoided??? Much like this movie. Not recommended

I first saw this film when I was 15, and was pretty wowed by it, especially it's high level use of the F word. Just recently watching it again, there wasn't that much bad language. Later discovering this was a Robert Altman film, this didn't surprise me, as he did another set piece one, continual scene film, 'Come Back To The Five And Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean' at the same time. There is actually a preview of the latter on this film, if you have a VHS copy, which I luckily do. Streamers works mainly cause of the powerful performances, notably Michael Wright, what you may call a deserter, off his nut, who crashes a dorm of Vets, still waiting on their orders to fight that notorious and unforgotten war. He's so powerfully unsettling, because you don't what he'' do next. It's like watching a bi polar patient. The other notable performance is that of Guy Boyd, a great underused actor, as a gung ho sergeant, who sadly, you don't see much of him in this, either. Modine is very strong too as Wright's rival, while Mitchell Lichstein is unforgettably great as the gay homo cadet, who brings so much to the role, an array of emotions. What happened to him? Streamers is basically a character driven, one scene movie, where the tenseness and anxiousness shows in these pre Vet soldiers, one young kid, slashing his wrists at the start, to get a pardon, with one of the creepiest faces I've ever seen. If part of this character, I give the actor full credit. David Allen Grier, a good underrated actor plays another black GI, and Wright's friend. The atmosphere of these actors, doing their thing in a confined set is electric, even the smaller performances as we near it's end, after a double tragedy were great. The films not for everyone, as there are some confronting issues, in what in a pull no punches tale of innocence lost, and tempers flaring of a bunch of apprehensive soldiers, waiting to partake in that ugly war. The highpoint is watching a drunk Guy Boyd (and he's like this for all his scenes) singing instead of Beautiful Dreamer, Beautiful Streamers. George Dzunda, delivers too, especially near the end as Boyd's compadre. The marching gun display in perfect cadence at the start and end credits in frighteningly unsurpassable. Engaging viewing, where if not for the actors, this dorm would coming down.

The producer/writer/director who thought that a two-hour movie of relentless talk between gay soldiers (or crypto-gay)confined in the barracks is entertaining must have been out of his mind. I failed to understand the purpose of this film or the motivations of the principal characters, in order to sympathize with them. Somewhere between the lines there must be a message about tolerance and indiscrimination but it never comes through. Instead we are forced to watch 3-4 people beating around the bush in the same room, without any coherence or plot. The climax (when it finally comes) appears completely unnatural and unjustified, making me feel that the makers of this film were desperately trying to find a spectacular ending. Probably this script could have worked better as a theatrical play (although I still have doubts). Avoid to watch, absolutely worthless and outdated.

It's been 36 years since I saw Streamers in the theater, the one and only time I saw it. What I most recall was how claustrophobic it became, and ho riveting the acting was. If a measure of good drama is its ability to leave the viewer shaken, this one succeeds utterly.

If I can save one person from throwing away one hour and fifty three minutes of their lives watching this drek, then the ten minutes I'm going to take to write this review will be worth it. First, I've heard of this play/film nearly all of my adult life. Slow night. So I watched it. It has been pejoratively re-titled "Screamers" by many I've heard talk about it. I knew it had a gay theme and so I thought that "Screamers" referred to another pejorative phrase, "screaming queen", as in a very flamboyant gay man. THAT, even done badly, would have made for a more interesting film than this piece of junk. "Screamers" refers to THE FACT THAT THEY SCREAM THEIR DIALOGUE FOR THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE MOVIE. Dialogue that, by the way, has never occurred naturally anywhere. So, if you like hearing actors SCREAM dialogue, that more resembles refrigerator poetry than it does any naturally occurring human communication, for almost two hours, then have at it.

I was fortunate to see the play (directed by Mike Nichols) during its initial run at Lincoln Center, and I am grateful to Altman for filming it soon after it closed. Trying to "open up" this one-set play would probably have diminished its impact, and Altman is extremely faithful to the play's script. I had a VHS bargain tape of this, in LP mode, and have not seen the film since the tape became obsolete about two decades ago. I'd say that George Dzundza and Matthew Modine gave the performances of their careers here, and it is a shame the film was not more widely distributed.

There's a fair amount to like about this film but in the end it is kept too close to a stage play to fully live on its own. The acting-normally a strength for Altman-is just slightly too large, pitched for the camera and the overall production suffers from this. Only Mitchell Lichtenstein seems to play Richie for the camera and not the cheap seats in the back. (it helps that Richie is the most compelling character). Worst of all Altman-opening and closing segments aside-does little to separate this from a filmed play. His other 80's work found a cinematic motif to lean into and kept cinema alive-i.e. the monitors in Secret Honor, the mirror flashbacks in Come Back to the Five and Dime...etc. And the film ends up feeling quite stilted.

Some of this stilted vibe is the text of the play. It is exceptionally didactic and angry. I am not even sure if all the character beats make psychological sense because the characters seemed to be forced into the situations to comment on the US war on Vietnam. I am not thrilled with the film's treatment of gayness, or homophobia as well but some this is dated.

I do like really like the opening and closing...it is striking and sets the umm stage well for the tone of the film. The film has weird resonance with M*A*S*H as well. Streamers takes the protest elements of that film along with taking the military down a peg but removes the fun and gallows humor.

I'm glad I saw this-it isn't boring which is more than I can say for truly bad films.

I am a former usmc recon special forces sgt. The marine corp drill team are great but the army drill team in the movie are fantastic. The best you'll ever see. They are the best in the world and show a splendid disply here. I salute them.

the honesty is the basic virtue of a film who is a precise image about army, homophobia and war. a form of manifesto. but more subtle and unmerciful and giving the no doubt message in the right terms. a film about masks and vulnerability. about prejudices and about silent. in fact, a film about freedom. simple, direct and out of excuses. and this did it special. because it propose a uncompromising view about a situation who is far to be a secret. because it did not verdicts. only a coherent picture of an institution, about fears of few young men and the dialogue who becomes a large corridor. and the acting is real inspired.