User Reviews (31)

Add a Review

  • Glossy soap opera about 8 Vassar graduates of 1933. It follows their lives after college and deals with alcoholism, mental breakdowns, frigidity, beatings, adultery, child rearing, lesbianism and death.

    I tried reading the book this was based on but I couldn't understand it. They kept throwing in 1930s slang and politics and lost me. This movie keeps out the slang, tones down the politics (but it is there) and came up with a good movie. Yes, it is a soap opera but well made with some great actresses and it deals with it's subjects seriously. Some of the story lines involve: Polly (Shirley Knight) falling in love with a married doctor (Hal Holbrook); Kay (Joanna Pettet) dealing with an alcoholic husband (Larry Hagman); Dottie (Joan Heckett) falling in love with a womanizer (Richard Mulligan) and Priss (Elizabeth Hartman) dealing with raising a child.

    It's fascinating to see these actors so young and full of life. All the acting is good but Hartman and Knight stand out. Also Candace Bergman shows up at the beginning and the end as a lesbian--quite daring for 1966. The surprise is that she's dealt with in a very sensitive manner and not made evil.

    This movie is long (150 minutes) and its cast is very big (it took me at least an hour to figure out who was who) but I ended up enjoying this and recommend it. I give it an 8.
  • Sidney Lumet directed this busy, bustling, chatty character study-cum-soaper concerning eight Vassar graduates in 1933 who take different paths in life but always manage to stay in touch. Writer-producer Sidney Buchman nearly pulls off the heady task of adapting Mary McCarthy's well-loved novel to the screen, despite insurmountable story obstacles, a self-defeating length, and a persistent claim from professional critics at the time that maybe a female screenwriter should have been hired instead to adapt McCarthy's prose (Pauline Kael was the most vocal in this area). With much crisscross editing between apartments, hospitals, and places of employment, it's nearly impossible to determine how many years pass in the course of the story--and this episodic structure leaves Candice Bergen's Lakey and Mary-Robin Redd's Pokey with hardly any screen-time. Joan Hackett as Dottie makes a very appealing impression in her early scenes (falling for heartless womanizer Richard Mulligan), but then she too disappears. There's far too much of Joanna Pettet in the overtly-showy role of Kay (and with her comes Larry Hagman, doing nothing new in the impossible role of Kay's hard-drinking, womanizing husband). Elizabeth Hartman as Priss and Shirley Knight as Polly end up doing the finest acting work, with Knight practically carrying the film's final third--but then, the screenplay is tipped towards our liking those characters the most (if Jessica Walters' gossiping Libby was revealed to have half a heart, we might feel the same towards her). The scattershot humor is there, but it's always undercut by sourness--which is then replaced with grimness. If Buchman was inappropriate as the writer, Lumet was equally a questionable choice as director. He keeps the pacing lively, but the film is far more vitriolic than nostalgic. **1/2 from ****
  • Just watched for the second time in my life this Sidney Lumet adaptation of Mary McCarthy's novel "The Group", this time on Netflix streaming. It's about eight women who graduated from Vassar in 1933 and their trials and tribulations during that time and subsequent years through the beginning of the second World War. Among those women, the standout for me was Shirley Knight as Polly who goes from an affair with a publisher boss (Hal Holbrook) of one of her friends to falling for a doctor (James Broderick) she works for. She also willingly suffers a father (Robert Emhardt) who's eventually diagnosed as manic depressive. Emhardt's performance is perhaps the most enjoyable to me since he talks up a storm and says such inappropriately funny lines! It was also fascinating to see Larry Hagman play a role here not too different from his later iconic evil character of J.R. Ewing on both versions of "Dallas" only here, he's not such a fun person to watch. I was also pleasantly surprised to find out that the Richard Mulligan and Joan Hackett characters were awkward to each other but the actors would eventually marry in real life not long after. Oh, and Candice Bergen, for all her reputation of not being much of an actress during her early career, acquits herself nicely among her more trained co-stars in the few scenes she has here. In summary, The Group perhaps comes on a bit fast at the beginning to really get an understanding of what's going on and who these people are but eventually it slows down enough that you do get to know and mostly like these people as the film progresses. In the words of many of the characters of this film, "Who'd a thunk it?"
  • One of Sidney Lumet's first directing attempts is a brilliant, powerful and undeniably courageous motion picture - not at all a sprawling frenzy of feelings strung by hammy performances and corny dialogues, this film is a rather organized , neat telling of eight graduates from Vassar-like college and their respective lives and times, that in it's own quiet way, became a masterpiece of great beauty, displaying strong, formidable performances by Pettet - as Kay Strong, a lovely young lady whose promissing future is teared to shreds as her cruel Play Writing husband ruins her life and slowly corrompts her mental sanity -, Hackett - as Dottie Renfrew, whose heart is broken by young, hip bohemian, that steels her virginity and commits herself to a futile, selfish fate - and Hartman(One Of The Most Wonderful Actresses That Ever Lived, And Whose Life Was Brought To A Horrid Ending, As She Comitted Suicide, Jumping Off Her Apartment Window) - as a pure , fragile young girl that has agonizing experiments with pregnancy and breast-feeding, as well as other cast members, like Bergen, Widdoes, fascinating Knight and Walter. This is adapted from Mary MacCarthy's brilliant novel, launched at the same time as 'Valley Of The Dolls', Jacqueline Sussan's hideous all-american best-seller - although' they both treat of feminine sagas, they are surely not to be confused.
  • Men totally dominated the world in the 1930s and women would never be considered equals. Through this film, you see all the hopes and dreams of the women crushed by men in various ways.
  • "Elsewhere, THE GROUP pluckily tackles many an underrepresented subject matter, such as the breast-feeding or bottle-feeding dilemma befalls a fragile Priss (Hartman), also saddled with a callous, paternalistic husband; the psychotherapy that obfuscates Polly's married lover Gus (Holbrook, masterfully conceals his ordinary-Joe selfishness with an urbane flair, also his film debut here); and an unconventional head case in the person of Polly's father Henry (Emhardt), plus a gelid lesson for Dottie (Hackett, another future Oscar-nominee makes the entrance on the celluloid, and who adeptly shows how a girl's minutely comported poise can crack quietly and inwardly), falling prey to the despicable Dick, the faux-artist type (Mulligan, a sly and cavalier pick-up artist), who charmingly entices her as a throwaway low hanging fruit."

    read my full review on my blog: cinema omnivore, thanks
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This 1966 film follows the path of 8 college girls who had graduated from a Vassar-like institution. It had to be an affluent piece since women attending college circa 1933, in the midst of an economic depression, had to come from rich families.

    What's wrong with the film is that some of the topics discussed are not the greatest of topics to be brought about on film.

    Elizabeth Hartman portrays a troubled young lady which probably mirrored her life. Her breast-feeding of her new-born son is compared by her Republican husband in a way that states that while she should be left alone to pursue this, FDR's programs should go by the waste-side and leave the economy to improve itself.

    The other topics include lesbianism, a very unsuccessful marriage leading to tragedy, and how a quite young woman, working in a hospital, came to meet her husband, a doctor there. Her father's mental illness is almost comical here.
  • Subplot of contraception in 1933 is one of the items, that has renewed interest .

    We are of a generation that can still remember all these actresses from their other star vehicles ..... Joan Hackett, Jessica Walter, and a really good Shirley Knight.

    Ah, but the stony Ms Bergen is the most progressive ingenue to emerge from this class.
  • Widescreen, Technicolor and the best round up of girls since "The Women". What more could you ask? All the girls are great, but Jessica Walter is outstanding as she changes from self-assured sexy-romantic to a gossiping sexually repressed Bitch! No one else at that time could have played that part so beautifully. The movie addresses some women's issues that were not commonly discussed back in the 60's. Abuse, mental illness, pregnancy, drugs. Candice Bergen, Shirley Knight, Elizabeth Hartman, these are all stage trained actresses, and the lovely Joan Hackett who died much too soon but while she was here always gave a top notch performance. Script/dialogue, camera work, all first class.
  • Anyone who thinks that this film is anti-man is wrong; the problem is that it was adapted from a novel that is, frankly, anti-human. Mary McCarthy's novel was one long sneer at all of the women she graduated from Vasaar with and who didn't have as wonderful and fulfilling a career as she did. They're too passive or too ambitious or too flirty or, most fatally, not Mary McCarthy. At least they went to Vasaar, though, so they are better than all other human beings on earth . . .

    Surprisingly, Sidney Buchman's script manages to make flawed, but sympathetic characters out of the story he had to work with. Joanna Petet is wrenching as the ambitious, well-meaning Kay, whose husband Harald would probably never live up the her standards even if he weren't already a self-pitying, alcoholic bastard. Jessica Walters is ultimately endearing as Libby, who is not quite as sophisticated as she likes to pretend she is, although smarter than she lets on, and Shirley Knight is a rock of common sense as the quiet, hard-working Polly. It was refreshing to see Candice Bergen maintain grace, poise, and femininity even while she plays a "lesbo," but that accent of her always drove me crazy. Was it supposed to be English or Scandanavian, or a relic of the Duchy of Lower Fenwick? Carrie Nye has little more than a cameo as the artist that Harald is cheating on Kay with, but she rolls her r's magnificently and plays the character with deadly comic timing. She's also one of the few characters who actually has a little fun . . .

    As others have said, it takes about an hour to sort everyone out and become involved in their stories, but the time invested pays off. Considering that there are eight main characters, kudos to Buchman and director Sidney Lumet for getting things sorted out so quickly. And to Lumet for toning down his tendency towards flash in his early films to serve the characters; the resulting film is a real drama, with comic touches, not a bitchy soap-opera.
  • Based on the Mary McCarthy novel about depression-era Vassar grads. First big roles for: Candice Bergen, as a snooty lesbian; Larry Hagman, young, skinny and already obnoxious; Carrie Nye (Mrs. Dick Cavett); Elizabeth Hartman, who killed herself a few years ago; exquisite Joan Hackett, who never lived up to her potential and died ridiculously young; a pre-"Soap" Richard Mulligan surprisingly convincing as the sexy bohemian cad who breaks Hackett's heart (in real life, they were married); Hal Holbrook, straight from his "Mark Twain Tonight" show; young James Broderick as a young doctor; an incredibly sexy Jessica Walter; a lusty young Shirley Knight. A must-see.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have never reacted to a movie quite as I did this one. At almost every moment I was ready to hit the delete button, but I wound up watching the whole two and a half hours. I liked the concept of following a close-knit group of women from the time they graduated from an exclusive girl's college in 1933 to a decade later when the first of the group dies. It took me a while to absorb enough of the personalities of the eight women to distinguish them and, between the women and their lovers and husbands, you never get to know anyone with much more depth than identifying a dominant personality characteristic. The group dynamics have a certain appeal, but without a deeper understanding of any of the characters I could not develop an emotional attachment to any of them. This undercuts the potential power of the final scenes.

    There are some memorable performances. Larry Hagman plays Harald Peterson as a J.R. Ewing without any charm - a truly unpleasant person. In fact almost all of the men in this movie are sad examples of the sex. Candice Bergen, as Lakey, creates the the most interesting character, but she gets the least screen time. Robert Emhardt has a grand time playing the manic Mr. Andrews and Hal Holbrook has some good moments as an overly-psychoanalyzed literary editor.

    Some of the topics were ahead of the time for 1966. I found Dr. Ridgeley's dismissal of Freud in favor of a more biological approach to mental disorders refreshing. And Lakey was not ostracized for her being a Lesbian - even more interesting if that was indeed an attitude at all current in the 1930s.

    However, my overall reaction was ambivalence.
  • JayeB24 June 1999
    I saw this film last night and was absolutely stunned by how excellent it was. Not only did it seem to be one of the first 'chick flicks' (sorry for anyone who hates that title) but it was incredibly brave to deal with extremly contentious issues. The colours and the costumes in the film made the film seem like a true snapshot for life for seven educated women getting by in the first half in the century. It did not shy away from the issues of sex, and mental illness which is brave for a film made over thirty years ago. I started watching this film because I couldn't sleep but ended up watching it until 2.30am defintely entertaining and possibly superior to 'The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie'??
  • but this film is interesting for the cast, and the time period it depicts. Also the costumes are rather amusing. I have not yet read the book although several reviews have mentioned the time warp factor. Candice Bergen is in an early role as member of an elite group of Vassar graduates. Joan Hackett, Joanna Pettet, Larry Hagman (as her alcoholic husband), Hal Holbrook, James Broderick, Jessica Walter (as swinging single gossip in the NY publishing world), Kathleen Widdoes, Carrie Nye, Elizabeth Hartman and several other notable appearances make for an interesting cast. Some of the dialog will take you back to a different time. The controversy of breast over bottle feeding, Republican vs. FDR Democrat (there are some pretty amusing scenes between Priss (Elizabeth Hartman) and her pediatrician husband, a Republican, who says after her second miscarriage this will give him a bad reputation in the hospital (!). Obviously, the book may be more interesting, and less histrionic. Jessica Walter is very good, and amusing; wish she had done more films in the 80's and 90's (She was great in "Slums of Beverly Hills", with Alan Arkin, as well). I do not watch regular television although several have mentioned she is very good in the Ron Howard comedy "Arrested Development". At any rate, a good escapist film, which I would not completely dismiss as soap opera, since there are skilled actors and some worthwhile dialog. 8/10.
  • A poor script, directed by Sidney Lumet, looses the social observation and satiric tone of Mary McCarthy's novel turning it into a glossy, breezy, soap opera. The characters, their problems and relationships are none too compelling, and who is the audience supposed to identify with? The film moves along but, it's going nowhere in particular; it's talky, choppy, and too long (21/2 hours). In addition, the set design is drab and cluttered. The film's main interest is seeing a number of actors in their earliest roles. Elizabeth Hartman is touching as Priss, Bergen is striking as Lakey, Kathleen Widdoes effective as Helena, Carrie Nye scores a bullseye as Norine, Larry Hagman is a believably despicable Harold while Jessica Walter has a field day as Libby. Joanna Pettet has the most substantial role of her career as Kay, but Shirley Knight(Polly) and Hal Holbrook are saddled with boring roles, and play them accordingly. Joan Hackett is fine though she has little to do, and last and least is Mary-Robin Redd as Pokey. Boris Kaufman gets the credit for the cinematography, and Sidney Buchman the blame for the shallow script. Lumet, the director of The Hill, Fail Safe, Prince of the City, and 12 Angry Men, is out of his element here.
  • This is a thoroughly enjoyable reworking of Mary McCarthy's book...while certain portions of the story & dialog are toned down from the frank & sexual novel, the gist remains intact. The story of a group of protected collegiate girls during the Depression being plunged into real life...marriage, affairs, career paths, utter meltdown. It's got a definite soap-opera feel & the performances get a bit cartoony here & there, but this movie is a JOY. Just enjoy it for what it is...a couple (plus) hours of fun & involving storytelling, great performances, great clothes, & goofy upper-crust female bonding.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Homosexuality, frigidity, abortion, mental illness, contraception... Controversial issues are the subject of "The Group," which is why the oblique way they're treated is so disappointing. To be fair, Larry Hagman's character does use the word Lesbo, but by the time he blurts it out, it's long since been obvious to post-Stonewall audiences that "Lakey" is gay. (Several members of this Vassar '33 clique have silly elitist pet names; it's a blessing there's no "Muffin.")

    Mary McCarthy's bestselling novel had courage; this movie does not. Her satiric edge is gone, replaced by earnestness. The background of 1930s world politics remains, but is used only to shape characters, the way cigarettes are used in films in lieu of actual character development (e.g. Fabulous Baker Boys, Body Heat, Thelma & Louise, everything by Joe Eszterhas).

    The screenplay by Sidney Buchman ("Mr Smith Goes to Washington," "Holiday") strives for wit, but settles for quips, the worst of which is the tautology, "We madmen are the aristocrats of mental illness." The dialog safely sticks to offbeat subjects like psychoanalysis, or familiar ones like alcoholism and adultery. The biggest issue "The Group" openly tackles is-- believe it or not-- breastfeeding. (Micro-spoiler: they're against women being forced to do it.)

    The cast is strong, with a few exceptions. Typical of her performances, Elizabeth Hartman is so underwhelming as "Priss" that I concluded she was bedridden not because of troubled pregnancies but because of literal spinelessness. The career of Mary-Robin Redd ("Pokey") descended with good reason to roles like the nameless "Intellectual-Looking Woman" in "Airplane II: The Sequel." In contrast, Shirley Knight's story line has the best performances. Not only is Knight engaging as Polly (in spite of hairdos not equaled in silliness until Princess Leia's cinnamon buns), but she has many scenes with the marvelous, little-remembered James Broderick. The scene where he proposes marriage is a small masterpiece. He balances pragmatism and romanticism in an utterly believable way, and even a seductive one-- quite an accomplishment for an actor who was never a matinée idol. To paraphrase another memorable movie character, Mike Donovan: "There's not much of Broderick in it, but what's there is cherce."
  • Sidney Lumet is a masterful craftsman of socially aware drama that tackles important cultural questions, and even for its time, which was a time of radical social change that beginning to reflect on theater screens, The Group treated some divisive themes, for example the association of free love with progressive social revolution, and depicting it as a forerunner of a new anti-fascistic, anti-oppressive awareness and critique of marriage as a form of social bondage, not to mention contraception, abortion, lesbianism and mental illness. And owing to Lumet's subtle use of technical skills, The Group---possibly his biggest, least characteristic and least considered film---is a skillfully paced and giftedly acted adaptation of Mary McCarthy's novel charting the kismet of eight Vassar graduates, class of '33, up to the start of WWII. Sidney Buchman's script does some outstanding couture work on the material, clipping away all the adipose tissue and slashing the remaining into hundreds of pointed little scenes which are assembled as a charmingly droll montage of the decade, though Lumet's concerns are towards the thematic nature of McCarthy's story rather than the setting.

    Joanna Pettet is quite convincing as the one who marries Larry Hagman's prototype self-destructive aspiring writer, there's an impressive debut by Kathleen Widdoes, and as does the great Hal Holbrook, and Candice Bergen as a Paris refugee who returns courted by a German countess. But the most memorable performance for me is by Jessica Walter, who is now exercising great comic ability on a wholly new generation of television such as Arrested Development and Archer. There is a real conflict between who she is on the inside and out that she portrays so authentically and epitomizes a familiar but difficult-to-depict personality. Also Joan Hackett, in a BAFTA-nominated debut performance of her own, provides an especially varied array of emotional conversion. And willowy, eye-catching ginger leading lady Elizabeth Hartman displays her versatility between her upper-class collegiate role here and the capricious, heartbreaking flirt she played in Francis Ford Coppola's debut film You're a Big Boy Now the same year.

    Director of Long Day's Journey into Night, The Pawnbroker, Murder on the Orient Express, Dog Day Afternoon and Network, Lumet is noted for drawing award-winning performances from his casts. Chiefly cunning in this, his tenth film, is the way in which the girls, each one elegantly and idiosyncratically characterized, are seen to develop individually. For example viewing the Hackett of the closing scenes, bigheaded wife of an Arizona oil-man, subtly changing physically as well, and almost certainly a mainstay of the local ladies' league, and recalling her first, desperately bold affair with a Greenwich Village painter, one thinks with amazement that's just how she might become.

    With Boris Kaufman's superbly striking cinematography to appreciate, the Kurosawa-style multi-plane tableaux of various characters in single painterly shots, demonstrating a poetic and caring property in his capturing of these layered images, a quality that marked his extraordinarily noble career, The Group is a vividly experiential chronicle of the girl-to-woman sexual and social transitions as the characters try on sex, religion and politics. It's the thinking viewer's Sex and the City.
  • This picture is glossy, stylishly photographed, full of vibrant characters, with periods of excellent dialogue. It was fun seeing several future stars in their first big movie roles...but I didn't like it.

    I gave the movie 4 stars because of the qualities listed above, but I found it to be a high-powered soap opera that really did not develop the characters well because of a lack of time (even in 150 minutes!)for developing that many major characters. It was also hard to LIKE any of the characters, except perhaps for Polly, as she seemed one of the few characters with a modicum of common sense (though not always). Aside from that, it was depressing, aggravating and sad. I know there are those who love this movie, and I am disappointed because I expected to love it, too. For me, the best thing about it was when it was over.
  • Way less "groovified" than most movies made around this time. I keep forgetting it's almost 60 years old. It's supposed to be set right before World War II. Absolutely fascinating how each woman's life goes in a different direction. They had so many hopes and dreams, and then life happened. Honestly I think it's perfect for modern eyes. The ebb and flow of life expectations and disappointments never seems to change from one generation to another. I was very surprised at how much I really liked it.
  • This film would have been very refreshing if it had been released in the era in which it is set; but even in 1966 it must have been out of place when much more daring material was in theaters--despite the subjects upon which it touches. So how much more dated is it now? Very. You'd think being more educated than the average women of their generation, they'd be...well, INTERESTING.

    They're not, unfortunately. And when they keep doing dumb things, you'd expect them to at least get into some interesting trouble. They sorta do, but there was better trouble to be found on movie screens in 1966. For a better bad marriage than the one seen here, a moviegoer could have sought out "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" For socio-political content (very limply handled in the script), "Fahrenheit 451" was playing the same year.

    Given that the next ten years were about to bring about a very exciting time in women's history, this film really didn't do much to help it along. The film, while well-directed and acted save a few annoying quirks, is missing a theme, a message. Instead of anticipating a good ending, I was starting to think, "let's wrap this up, shall we?" And when the film finally did, it appeared as if no one learned a thing.
  • nickrogers196910 January 2008
    It's the second time I saw it and it improved immensely. The first time gave a muddled impression and it was difficult to understand what it was about. Now I was swept away by it and felt for the girls.

    What great performances by these actresses! Kathleen Widdoes, Jessica Walter and Shirley Knight came off best. Joanna Pettet was very good in her unsympathetic part. Candice Bergen was excellent in her small part. It was her very first movie role and she was barely twenty! There was too little of Joan Hackett, Elizabeth Hartman and Mary-Robin Redd. Larry Hagman is a very underrated actor. It's a shame the film isn't more well known. It does NOT need a remake!
  • alice liddell12 April 2000
    The 'daring' subject matter - eight girls live life, i.e. abortions, marriage, sexual experimentation, flirtations with - ooh! - left-wing politics, alcoholism, professional struggles, art etc. - is filmed with a lot of cinematic huffpuff, that cannot conceal its Beatrix Potter-like cuddly quaintness. A real grapling with female experience in heady times - from Roosevelt's election to the outbreak of World War Two - is jettisoned in favour of caricature, stereotype, Eugene O'Neill-type melodramatics, shrieking, timidity, evasion, and pretty pastel colours.
  • In 1933, 8 young women who are good friends, graduate from an Ivy league school. Most are from still wealthy families while Polly completed school on a scholarship after her folks lost all in the crash. Polly will be going to work as a lab technician in a NYC hospital. As for the others, Lakey is going to further study in Europe, Priss as an econ expert for FDRs NRA, Helena will teach preshool, Libby joins a publishing firm, Pokey will study to be a Vet, and Dottie begins settlement work in Boston. That leaves Kay. She is marrying a man named Harald works in theater. "The Group" attends her unconventional wedding a week after graduation. At the wedding breakfast, all the gals celebrate their futures. Little do they know what lies ahead. Over the next few years there will be love affairs that end badly, domineering husbands, miscarriages, money troubles, cheating spouses and unrealized dreams. The last tragedy is the death of one of them, bringing all together for a funeral. Yet, these gals are admirably still friends and still dreaming. What a fascinating rarity - a movie dominated by women and womens issues! As the ladies, Bergen, Hartman and the rest are all wonderful. Every one. Costumes are fabulous also. The story is a thoughtful and compelling look at what it means to be female in a "man's world". All women are encouraged to find it.
  • JasparLamarCrabb26 August 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    A lackluster soap opera for people who don't like to admit that they watch soap operas, THE GROUP may very well be the lowest energy film ever directed by a top talent: Sidney Lumet. There's a lot of melodrama, backstabbing, bitchiness, and enough male-bashing to make you cringe. Lumet has nonetheless assembled a topnotch cast of future TV-stars...Richard Mulligan, Jessica Walter, Larry Hagman, James Broderick and, in her film debut, Candice Bergen, whose role is so small, it's like she's part of some other fringe GROUP. Based on the Mary McCarthy book and also featuring Elizabeth Hartman, Shirley Knight and, in a brief bit of high-energy, Carrie Nye.
An error has occured. Please try again.