Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

mmallon4 Early during Continental Divide as I was gradually enjoying the film more and more and becoming emotionally invested in its two characters (very emotionally invested I might add), storm clouds began forming over me. I came to the realisation that at some point the movie was going to pull of my least favourite movie cliché, the liar revealed. You know, the women finds out the man isn't what he claims to be, after a big monologue about how betrayed she feels, they break up, cue the sad montage music but 20 minutes late they forgive each other and live happily ever after, the end.Thus it was a huge sigh of relief when Blair Brown's (not the former British government cabinet) Nell Porter discovers John Belushi's Ernie Souchak (a name which sounds like it's taken from a 1930's newspaper comedy) is secretly writing a news piece on her after he agreed not to during this early point in the film. They don't argue about it, she happily accepts it. How about when Ernie discovers Nell has been meeting a man in the wilderness purely for sexual intercourse and not for a passionate relationship, does he freak out? No, he has no problem with it and that's the way it should be! That's one of the things I loved most about Continental Divide, it was like a big middle finger to the inane and contrived clichés which plague modern day romantic comedies. Continental Divide is one of my favourite man and woman alone in the wilderness type movies, in this screwball comedy for the 1980's; which at the time advertised Belushi and Brown as the next Hepburn & Tracy. With the likes of His Girl Friday and Libeled Lady, Continental Divide has the underlying theme that long term romantic relationships and careers in journalism are an apparent impossibility; only the typewriters are out in favour of computers. Although I do have to ask how many journalists have the levels of celebrity among the populace as Ernie Souchak has, in which he is constantly recognised in the street. Likewise, Ernie Souchak's employment of the Chicago Sun Times is the paper film critic Rodger Ebert writes for, although there is no cameo or mentioned of him in the film, likely due to a conflict of interest.Nell Porter is a woman so reclusive she lives in the mountains while attending to her study of Eagles. She has a desire for peace and quiet and I get the impression she is disenfranchised with civilisation, partly due to her dislike of the media. Having a female character like this is one of the reasons I'm so attracted to a love story like this, since weird girls are my thing. Plus speaking of the wilderness, does this movie look good! Filmed atop of actual mountains in Montana and Washington State, It just shows you that Planet Earth is the greatest movie set of all.It is evident from both Continental Divide and his final film Neighbours that John Belushi was trying to escape typecasting. Continental Divide proves he had what it takes to be a romantic leading man, however his time left on this world was short at this point but the legend lives on.

Wuchak RELEASED IN 1981 and directed by Michael Apted, "Continental Divide" stars John Belushi as Ernie Souchak, a popular Chicago columnist, whose controversial reporting compels his boss to send him to the scenic Rocky Mountains to interview a bald eagle researcher, Nell Porter (Blair Brown). Souchak is a city man who chain-smokes whereas Nell revels in the wilderness and hates journalists. Do ya think a relationship will blossom?This is not a typical John Belushi comedy, but rather a romantic drama with some amusing touches. "Continental Divide" is one of John's only serious roles, and he does it well. It's also one of his last films; less than six months after its release John passed away from drug abuse at the too-young age of 33 on March 5, 1982.I'm not a fan of romcoms, but I will occasional watch them if they're unconventional enough; and "Continental Divide" fits that description. There are a few minor laughs, usually tied to Souchak's awkwardness in the wilderness, but that's about it. Although light-hearted, this is indeed a serious film. It's not only entertaining; it surprisingly has a few notable things to say.The most prominent part of the film is the hour or so where Souchak goes to the Rockies and stays with Nell. Most men will likely become infatuated with Blair Brown as Souchak falls in love with Nell. I did. Blair was 35 years old at the time of filming and has a very earthy look; she never wears make-up and never reveals a lot of flesh. She doesn't need to. She has a strong, independent mindset and yet, at the same time, is winsome and alluring. Her body has the necessary natural roundish-ness and curves that attract red-blooded men.I heard some reviewers complain about the mountain man part (played by studly Tony Ganios). They argue that this is a meaningless and unneeded sequence. Actually the story is making a statement with this subplot. See my commentary below, if interested. The first two times I saw "Continental Divide" I felt it was dubiously named. Much of the story takes place in the mountains near the Continental Divide, so what? The third time I watched it the title's meaning dawned on me (aduh): Souchak and Nell's lives are divided by half a continent; how could a long-term relationship possibly work? The ending is surprising and unconventional, but it works.THE FILM RUNS 1 hour, 43 minutes and was shot in Chicago, Colorado, Washington and Los Angeles. WRITER: Lawrence Kasdan (observe how the kiss-his-wounds scene is reminiscent of the similar scene in Kasdan's "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which was released a few months earlier).GRADE: B+***SPOILER ALERT*** (Don't read further until you view the movie).Although Nell would occasionally meet the macho stud as a sexual outlet in the lonely wilderness, it's obvious she doesn't love the dude in a romantic sense. Their relationship is superficial because it fulfills only one purpose and doesn't go any deeper. As the story progresses Nell falls in love with Souchak, a man who is the antithesis of the studly mountain man in every way. Souchak isn't macho-looking at all; he's only of average height, if that, and isn't in very good physical shape. He is, however, an intelligent and expert writer, amongst other things. The message we can glean from this is that men don't have to be ultra-masculine-looking to win the heart of a beautiful woman. And you know what? It's true. Just look around. This is an encouraging message for guys who aren't the "tall, dark and handsome" type.

Elizabeth Rose I loved this movie when it first came out, and after catching it again recently, I was reminded of why I liked it so much. John Belushi is so good and so funny, it reminds me again of how sad it was to lose this comedy gem. And it's always great to see Blair Brown, one of our best actresses ever. Seeing her in her prime again is delightful. I was also impressed at how well it holds up over time. It's a shame it was critically panned and did poorly at the BO when it came out, b/c in a decade full of strange movies, this is a standout, and now, IMHO, a classic. And the best part? Being reminded that the Bald Eagle population in the early 80s was only 2,000 in North America, and now it's in the six figures. The mountain lion scene is a little far-fetched, but, goodness, that is a gorgeous cat.

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews Ernie is an investigative reporter who's a bigger friend to the people on the street(to the point of chatting calmly with two people who attempt to mug him) than the establishment... or the corrupt elements of it, anyway. He's working on bringing down crooked councilman Yablonowitz, and he gets beaten up for his trouble. Well, he gets mildly nudged, if going by what we see... I guess they couldn't afford a stunt double for that particular scene. Compelled to save his headliner's life(he has to sell papers, doesn't he?), his editor sends him to the Rocky Mountains for what's supposed to be a two-week period. Once there, he'll get an exclusive interview with the reclusive ornithologist Nell. That's the theory, anyway. She can't stand journalists any more than he can stand the wild. Over time, they warm up to each other, and we have a romantic comedy. So, we've got our standard fish-out-of-water, two-different-worlds setup, and over the course of it, they'll both come to like the other's universe(whilst preferring their own, showing integrity) as well as each other. This gets all the clichés, and really, with the possible exception(other than minor details) of the ending(for some, at least), you see everything in this coming a mile away. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily a hindrance to an enjoyable story(or we wouldn't still be doing new productions of Shakespeare and the like, where even if you don't know the entire thing, you know the gist of it... and one could argue that the classic theatre tragedy is meant to be clear in where it's going, to increase the emotional impact; you know where it's going, and you are powerless to stop it), it merely puts additional pressure on the handling of the material, the aspects that will vary based on the cast and crew, the period it's made, etc. Unfortunately, one of the main aims of this must be to be funny, and it quite simply seldom is. They try to give Belushi a dry wit, and while he does OK with it(nowhere near as perfect a fit as Joliet Jake), the lines are not that memorable(in general, the dialog is forgettable... it tries too hard, and somehow manages to be bland at the same time; it's actually kind of impressive). The film keeps both feet on the ground, with no outlandish events, and that does work in favor of it. One problem is the pace. It drags, and the one hour, 36 minutes sans credits feel like at least two full hours. The acting is pretty dependable. Our leads have chemistry and charm, and can be sweet together. This holds some attractive nature photography, and, you guessed it, a pro-environmentalist message which is obvious but not shoved down our throats, well, not all of the time. Not all of the plot lines are satisfactorily concluded. This does a better job of getting us to care about the characters than it does at garnering laughs, and it's worth noting that it does not put its foot squarely in either camp. Which is better, the great outdoors or the inner city? You decide. To each their own. There is some moderate language and intensity in this. I recommend this to fans of this kind of picture, the 80's and the people involved in making it. 6/10