Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) User Reviews (357)

"George and Martha,.......sad........sad........sad"

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 27 June 2006]

Edward Albee's award winning play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf ran for 664 performances on Broadway and just closed down when this film version made its debut in 1966. The Broadway play was set entirely in the living room of George and Martha's home and starred Uta Hagen, Arthur Hill, Melinda Dillon, and George Grizzard. All eminently respectable players, but none of them exactly movie box office.

This film was destined to make money when the most publicized couple of the decade, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, chose it as a star vehicle for themselves. Of course what was not clear was how well a one stage play would adapt to film.

It adapted very well and went quite beyond one stage. The action of the film moved effortlessly to an all night diner at one point with some stops along the way. You'd hardly know the story as originally told only had one setting.

There's no real plot to it. For reasons I can't fathom this middle aged and bitter couple George and Martha have a younger couple, Nick and Honey, over to their house at two in the morning. I don't know about you, but I'm usually not my best at that time. Also they had just come from a party at Martha's father's house. Martha's dad is the president of a college and George teaches there. Nick and Honey are a newly hired professor and his wife.

The late night and the liquor bring out the worst in everybody. A whole lot of ugly truths get told.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf was the summit of the professional team of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. Playing against type, Elizabeth Taylor got her second Oscar the one she felt she earned. She always disparaged the one received for Butterfield 8 as it came on the heels of her well publicized pneumonia bout.

In fact all four members of the cast were nominated with Sandy Dennis winning Best Supporting Actress. Ironically Richard Burton didn't win, losing to Paul Scofield for A Man for All Seasons. I guess the Academy voters figured Burton would get another shot. He never brought home the big prize though.

George Segal usually gets overlooked. This film and Ship of Fools was the start of his long career, but no Oscar for him either.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is quite the indictment against marriage, especially after the love has died. It's far from the whole story of marriage. There are many who stay married longer than George and Martha and happily. But it wasn't in Edward Albee's life experience to draw from.

But this should be seen to see Liz and Dick at their very best.

"...total war..."

[elvircorhodzic · 9/10 · 28 October 2017]

WHOS's AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? is a drama film with the elements of black comedy, that on the violent and honest way indicates marital frustration and psyche, through the alcoholism, aging, cynicism and sterility. A dangerous double game becomes more intense and urgency with environmental changes. Simply, we are going through an intimate experience, which is seasoned with an excellent acting. The problem occurs in the moment, when we realize, how much is this experience, as a matter of fact, sincere and painful.

George, an associate history professor at a small New England college, and Martha, the daughter of the university president, live in an unstable and violent marriage. After they return home drunk from a party, Martha reveals she has invited a young married couple, whom she'd met at the party, for a drink. Their guests are Nick, a biology professor, and his wife, Honey. The hosts are engaged in a cruel verbal duel. The younger couple is first embarrassed and later enmeshed. After an evening of a sadistic, perversely hilarious and dangerous „clashes", a painful truth comes to the light.

Mr. Nichols keeping his camera close, so that, violent emotions, defeats and cramps on the faces of the actors come to the fore. The direction is excellent, because it is very difficult to draw the line between passion borders and boundaries of a nervous breakdown. The characters are lost in a futile and desperate struggle, which celebrates a kind of demonic love in an attempt to save a bad marriage.

The characterization is excellent and fully corresponds with sharp dialogues and gloomy atmosphere.

Elizabeth Taylor as Martha is definitely a major figure in this film with her acceptance of gray hair and her use of profanity. It is difficult to accept that such a beautiful face hides a violent and so crazed but again, fragile and deeply wounded character. Richard Burton as George is worthy as a her counterweight. He is not a victim, he is the husband who is tired of everything, while he tries to put all the things in the right place. The couple has offered an excellent performance.

George Segal as Nick is a young man who moves between confusion, arrogance and dominance in their relations. Sandy Dennis as Honey is his bland wife. She is not up to this unscrupulous game.

This is a brutal clash between unhappy spouses who move the boundaries of inhumanity, while they skillfully flee from the truth.

One of the more stunning feature directorial debuts in film history . . .

[TRhett · 9/10 · 16 May 2017]

Legendary director Mike Nichols certainly started with a "bang." Thank God he didn't end up like so many others - with one "firecracker" followed by a long, sad series of fizzles. But to understand what an achievement WAOVW is, one must keep in mind the context. Firstly, you have arguably the two most famous (infamous?) people on Earth, who were demanding and receiving unheard of (for the time) remuneration and treatment for their efforts - and living the lifestyle said remuneration provided (they lunched with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor during production) - as the stars. Elizabeth didn't have to be on set until 10 a.m., and her aging makeup took 2.5 hours. By the time that was finished, it was lunchtime, so filming didn't begin until 1 or 2 p.m. most days. I heard Mike NIchols say in an interview once, "What are you going to do? Your stars are so big, they're dining with royalty. That's not the sort of person you can pull aside and chastise for being late like Lindsay Lohan or someone." Also, Burton's lifestyle was catching up with him, and his health was not the greatest (he couldn't work every day), not to mention the quasi-Victorian "code" movies of the time were expected to follow, and you have a recipe for what could have been a disaster.

This film is often called a "landmark" for its frank depiction of theretofore taboo subjects like serious alcoholism, spousal abuse, mental illness, abortion, adultery, infertility, overt sexuality, etc. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, this was the first film to carry an age limit "rating," and was also provided the genesis of what would become the MPAA and its rating system. How this got past the studio's "guardians of decency" in 1966, I'll never know.

Luckily, Elizabeth really wanted this to work, and held their end together long enough for them to deliver what was their finest hour together. The first time I saw this, I was shocked by Liz's performance (among other things). She is on record as having said, "I never had an acting lesson in my life; everything I've done, I've just created on the spot." I don't know what was in that "spot," but it certainly served her well here.

I won't go into the story arc, as I'm sure everyone here knows it by now, but let's just say that the 32 year-old (!) Liz shed ALL vanity to play 50 year-old floozy Martha (when Nichols first told her what weight she needed to be, she said, "Thank God . . . I don't have to diet"). And it worked. Right from the start. My favorite line comes early in the film, as she's describing the Bette Davis picture she's quoting from . . . "What a dumPPPP!" and in the middle of her description, she pauses perfectly, puts her hand on her hip, looks at mousy Burton, and says, "She's discontent." Pretty much "set the scene" for what follows right there.

There has been some criticism that George Segal was not the best choice for Nick, but apparently all the "big" actors turned down the role because of its nature: 2.5 hours of humiliation and torture at the hands of George - which the ambitious Nick feels he has no choice but to sit there and take. By today's standards, it might be a bit extreme, but as I said, you have to keep context in mind (and apparently, there are still people who play these types of "parlor games," BION).

Bottom line: if you've not seen this, do so immediately. Once you've recovered from the first viewing, watch it again, and you'll be amazed at the subtle but stinging wit throughout. Honey to George: "They dance like they've danced before." George: "It's a common dance, monkey nipples . . . they're both very familiar with it." Honey: "I don't know what you mean." George looks at her with disbelief, opens his mouth to say something, and then you can see his brain thinking, "Oh, what's the use?" so he closes his mouth and turns his head. All in all, there are enough layers and meat here for many viewings and discussions.

Perfect Movie-making

[Rathko · 10/10 · 28 February 2005]

An undisputed classic that chronicles every appalling moment of a drunken night in hell as middle-aged George and Martha tear each other, and their guest, to pieces.

Elizabeth Taylor proves categorically that she was a truly great actress. Her Oscar-winning performance as the psychologically tormented Martha is one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema. Taylor's imperceptible shifting from sadism to tenderness, from bullying condescension to exhausted vulnerability, is a masterclass in character building. Martha is a truly monstrous character, and yet Taylor is able to imbue her with sympathy, allowing you brief glimpses of the warm and lovable woman she could have been.

Richard Burton is equally magnificent as George; an ageing, failing college professor whose initial meekness gives way to a raging torment all of his own. His verbal sparring with Taylor, like two pit-bulls in the ring of an endless and bloody dogfight, has become legendary. Every word drips with malice and contempt, every sentence is designed to cut the deepest wound. At times, it becomes painful to watch, but like true train-wreck television, you cannot drag yourself away from the inevitably terrible conclusion.

Quite possibly, this is as close to perfect as movies can get; beautifully written dialogue, deeply complex characters, an evolving and suspenseful storyline, beautiful photography, and a wonderfully understated score by Alex North. Nominated for 13 Academy Awards in 1967, but lost out to A Man for All Seasons and Born Free to win only 5.

"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" "I am."

Still powerful, harrowing view of the "Anti-Ozzie and Harriet"

[rwalker-2 · 3 July 2000]

This is still an exceptional film from the 1960s. Though some of the epithets are obviously softening much stronger words, the language is frank and brutal, Martha's bludgeoning body-blows balanced by George's icepick thrusts. Edward Lehman's respectful screenplay gently opens up Edward Albee's one-set play while keeping a certain claustrophobic atmosphere. Mike Nichols' first directing effort is stunning in its lack of artifice; rarely do you feel that the director has done much more than turn on the camera and watch four actors, all at the top of their game, tear into their roles. George Segal's work in this movie is criminally underrated, but his reactive work as studly, ultimately disappointing Nick should be mandatory study by all young actors. Sandy Dennis' fluttery turn as mousy, wifey Honey is powerful also; a lot more is going on than you might think. Richard Burton is staggering as George ("Georgie Porgie Put-upon Pie"), and his performance demonstrates the magic that he could bring to a worthy role. Elizabeth Taylor's work here still astounds. The physical transformation she undertook to become aging harpy Martha is amazing enough, but her performance seems to channel a hurricane's force and fury. By turns hilarious, maddening and then, at the end, exhausted and defeated yet again, Taylor demonstrates acting, particularly film acting, at its best. The film is by no means easy or "Hollywood" in feel-- the audience is as exhausted as the characters at the end. But this was a bracing, necessary antidote to the impossible ideal of marriage usually portrayed in the movies. A towering film.

Distilled Human Viciousness

[OttoVonB · 10/10 · 4 June 2007]

Ailing couple George (Burton) and Martha (Taylor) invite a young couple over for a late-night drink - much to quiet and repressed George's annoyance - and what starts off as a twisted game by sultry Martha to annoy her husband and get her way with young stud Nick (George Segal) ends up in a horrific duel of wits.

Adapted from the play and boasting very few locations, "Virginia Woolf" is notable for many unsuspected reasons. Designed for the stage, the film makes the story uniquely cinematic and tense, amped up by stunning photography (in Black and White, a daring choice in 1966). The younger leads are superb, but Burton and Taylor still manage to walk away with film, giving stunning renditions of the world's most demented couple. They make the surreal dialogue hurt and touch in ways never thought possible.

Though there are countless reasons to recommend this jewel of a film, there are also reasons why one would wish to avoid it. This is the kind of film that makes you feel like having a showing (or a very concentrated drink) to wash away the grit and human evil and pain absorbed. You'll feel dirty, but in a way you'll also feel enlightened: that a small character film can carry more punch than any explosion-packed blockbuster out there is a thing of beauty indeed!

Best acting you'll ever see

[einar_magnusson · 10/10 · 12 January 2005]

Who's afraid of Virgina Wolf? contains what I would call the most outstanding old school actor/audience experience I'ver ever seen. This movie is 131 minutes long and only contains 5 actors, on of which hardly gets any screen time and the two leading characters played by the famous couple Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor are on screen almost the whole time. Also this movie only contains a couple of locations so the whole project depends almost entirely on these two actors superb performance. The two of them fight almost the entire movie and it never gets boring for a second. Well, I gave this movie ten stars..... definitely a classic must see if you're interested in acting.

That's what comes from too much alcohol and too few mutual respect

[RWiggum · 10/10 · 9 July 2003]

'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf' tells the story of two couples that are quite different at first sight - one used to each other for years, the other one rather freshly wed in comparison. Actually it doesn't tell their story, but it displays their relationships.

The film begins on a Sunday morning at 2 o'clock, right after a party, and ends just after the sun rises. In these few hours we get to know these four people better then we might possibly want.

George and Martha are the older couple. He is a history professor, she is the daughter of the head of the university. Their relationship seems to be from hell, full of mutual disgust and humiliation. Their guests are Nick and Honey. He is the new, ambitious biology professor, she is his naive young wive. As all these four characters are more or less drunk throughout the entire film, alcohol works as a catalyst, and we quickly see the different kind of character traits they have: George is a cynic, Martha loves to torment her husband, Nick is an opportunist and Honey is very much a stupid blonde.

The two relationships deserve closer examination: We wonder why Martha and George married in the first place. They keep swearing at each other. Martha can't stop humiliating George, when they are alone as well as when Nick and Honey are there. Maybe there is still a rest of love in them, but there mutual respect has vanished completely. And then there is the strange story of their son, who is supposed to visit on his birthday. They way George and Martha talk about him make us feel that there is something peculiar about him. At the end we get to know more about him, and we can only guess how important the son is for their relationship.

Nick and Honey, on the other hand, seem to be quite the opposite. But, being used as weapons by the older couple, we see that their relationship isn't as perfect as it seems to be, either. Nick didn't marry Honey because he loved her, but because he thought she was pregnant and because of her money. And when Martha tries to seduce him to tease George, he plays the game with her, always in mind that this woman's father is the head of the university. Honey, on the other hand, is much more emotional than her husband, but she also is the most passive character, and the one most affected by the alcohol.

Mike Nichols assembled an outstanding cast for his film. Casting Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton as Martha and George is a stroke of genius - not only are they terrific actors, but it also heats the imagination of the viewer how much their real-life-marriage resembled the relationship they had in this film. Elizabeth Taylor outshines her co-stars a little. Never was she any better than in this one; although her character is the meanest in the film, she manages that we still feel compassion for her at the end. But Richard Burton, George Segal and especially Sandy Dennis deliver memorable performances, too.

'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf' succeeds at something rather difficult: It makes us care for characters we wouldn't want to have anything to do with in real life. And although it actually consist of nothing but four people talking for two hours, it never bored us for a second.

Fun And Games With George And Martha.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 24 August 2010]

For a play with only four characters and basically one setting, "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" covers a lot of ground. It mostly depends on the performances and the acidic dialog because, when you get right down to it, the Big Reveal isn't too big although it's plenty bizarre.

George (Burton) is an associate professor of history at a small college. He doesn't have much in the way of ambition, we gather, because his shrewish and vulgar wife Martha (Taylor) keeps twitting him about it. Taylor is magnificently slatternly. She'd played Cleopatra a few years earlier but age cannot wither nor custom stale her infinite vulgarity.

George and Martha have two late-night guests, a newly arrived professor of biology (Segal) and his naive wife (Dennis). The evening begins with the four of them sitting around the living room with nothing special to say. But the booze flows like Niagara and they all loosen up -- not that Martha requires much loosening.

Albee's dialog is cynical, bitter, and exploitative. Cutting insults keep the viewer awake as do the sometimes embarrassing revelations, like Sandy Dennis's hysterical pregnancies and frequent vomiting. When Albee latches on to what he feels is a good turn of phrase, it gets repeated until it becomes laughable per se. "It's good that you're a biologist," Taylor tells Segal, "because you're right in the MEAT of things." She comes up with this again and again until Burton cuts her off with the observation that she's obsessed with the phrase and that it's vulgar.

The comparison of Taylor's father, who is president of the college, to a big white mouse is repeated as well. And Taylor refers to her husband as, variously, a swamp, a bog, and a fen.

Insults fly in all directions. One person may reveal a secret to another, who then runs over and trumpets the information to the others. They play what Burton calls "games", such as Humiliate the Host and Hump the Hostess. People make things up as they go along or present fantasies as historical fact. At one point, Segal knocks Burton to the floor. The exception to most of this verbal and physical violence is Sandy Dennis, who is too dumb to know what's going on much of the time.

The party lasts all night and peters out at dawn, with Segal and Dennis leaving the house in a state of shock, and Burton and Taylor exhausted by their strenuous conflict.

It's directed in a straightforward manner by Mike Nichols who doesn't pull any stylistic tricks. No flashbacks, no slow motion, no wobbling camera. That kind of razzle dazzle isn't really needed. How can you possibly pep up a volcano? I rather enjoy it. I get a kick out of its malice. Albee is gay and perhaps it takes a gay man or a straight woman to coax ignominy into such polished form. Maybe not. I don't know. I just know I like it when Burton accuses Taylor of "braying" and there follows a sharp argument over whether she "brays" or not, with Taylor sounding exactly like a mule.

One of the greatest

[Progbear-4 · 10/10 · 19 April 2000]

Simply put, this is one of my favourite films of all time. Great acting, great writing and great camerawork make this close to cinematic perfection. Liz Taylor and Richard Burton give the performances of their lives. Sandy Dennis also shines in an early-ish role. It's a dramatic film, but the wicked humour that permeates the film is absolutely devastating, and I mean that in the best possible way. Many moments in the film I find myself laughing only to think, "Should I be laughing at this." Certainly the film is loaded with uncomfortable moments, enhanced by the camerawork replete with uneasy close-ups. Most of all, this film shows how a lot can be accomplished with just a little: a cast of four and minimal scenery changes. "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf" has become an absolute icon of American cinema. If you haven't seen it, what are you waiting for?

human conduits

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 22 December 2011]

If you had any remaining doubts about the direction that cinema was taking in the '60s, you need only watch Mike Nichols's first two movies. "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and "The Graduate" both belie the image of the wholesome family. The former, however, is actually a little more extreme. Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor make your blood freeze as couple George and Martha, who use their guests (George Segal and Sandy Dennis) as conduits to vent their hostility towards each other. Seriously, this is one REALLY intense movie.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a masterpiece. There's something a little jarring about people who spend all day drinking and verbally attacking each other. Even so, you really have to admire the acting and the content (which was basically R-rated in that era). Therefore, I recommend the movie, just as long as you understand that this is NOT a film for the fainthearted.

probably one of the best arguments for why AA should exist; volatile, overwrought drama at its richest

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 4 January 2008]

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf leaves no scabs or stones unturned with the characters. George and Martha are a couple who have a marriage that is truly love-hate. They can never be called too unemotional, though to say whether or not they're being truthful at all in the 'games' they play with married Nick and Honey is a little trickier. Martha invited them- at her father's insistence (he IS the chairman of the university where George and Nick are professors)- at two in the morning for a quick drink. Or rather, make that many drinks, like chain drinking, if one could call it that, where George and Martha prove themselves as pros in that area, with bitter slinging of enraged bouts of bile at one or the other.

This goes on the rest of the night, also leading to a roadhouse on the way to drive a flustered Nick and hammered Honey home, and then it starts all over again, with Nick and Honey picking up the tortured and, as well, fractured personalities of this middle-aged couple. Bitter, enraptured, hateful, and, in a way, also sort of filling a void, George and Martha become two of the most powerful characters in modern drama.

Edward Albee's play is full of the kind of stinging dialog that made it controversial in the 1960s, and today it still retains its potential for hitting its characters on to the audience in a shockingly overwrought and, in connection with this, very funny manner. How can one not cringe and give a laugh of relief/perplexity when George goes to get a shotgun after getting p-o'd by Martha and then opening it up to everyone's shock as... an umbrella!

There's a dementia to these characters, but it's one that makes for the kind of drama that is lacerating and, as off-putting as the guessing game that the son element becomes in the equation (dead or not dead?), it somehow works. This was before most dramas of today, which are made with that big colossal twist that suddenly jolts the characters into perspective. Here, it just makes them more human and fallible and deconstructed. As Mike Nichols directs it, he doesn't shy from getting personal with his angles, close and intrinsic as, in a weird way comparable with, Bergman's Persona, also released that year.

What Nichols and Albee present for audiences is a logical next step following other plays from before them that broke ground from the likes of Miller, Beckett and, especially, Williams- it's more adult, or rather more for mature audiences (the first quasi rated R movie ever released), and it hits to a cynical nerve that was further gestating by this time in America, that everything would not be alright in the American marriage, that something, as Martha says, will "SNAP!"

It should also be mentioned, acting here is classic, fearless. Burton and Taylor have rarely been as good as they are at digging so deep into these characters that, especially with Burton, we can't imagine these people being anyone else. It takes a little to get used to Segal and Sandy Dennis (the latter because her character isn't quite as "deep" as the others), but then again their characters are the uncomfortable outsiders, "us" as one might say (however, as the play peels the layers away from the characters they're all rotten and ultimately very vulnerable instead of just "normal").

It packs a punch, it jiggles its little glass full of bourbon or brandy or gin, and as a first feature from its director it could only get better from here. It's a dangerously fun, dangerously emotionally violent picture. Will look forward to seeing it next time it's on TV

I am afraid its a terrible bore

[ragpap93 · 6/10 · 4 October 2017]

What Betty Davies supposedly said. "Its a dump". Elizabeth Taylor wants to be Betty Davies or thinks she is better. Overrated.

The plot: Plot-less, Nothing but an example of bad hospitality right from the moment they opened the door to their guests.

Characters: Hosts (Martha, George), Guests(Nick and Honey), Other characters only mentioned in conversation (Father in-law and a dead son) and the main character (Alcohol).

Topics of conversations: Who are the guests?, Nick's profession (He's a biologist damn it), George's insecurities like the boxing match during which he plays a prank and as the movie progresses I so wish it was not a prank as the movie would have ended sooner; his books, The fact that their son is dead.

Such a drag. Why oh why?

Loving yet Toxic?

[k-boughton · 4/10 · 5 May 2021]

One would think that this would be an easy film to follow considering this film only had 4 characters, but the unstable personalities and the "games" that George and Martha play throughout make the film incredibly hard to understand. There was no clarity from the truth or lies the characters told, until the end where some of the lies were revealed to be a part of a game or alternate reality they created within their marriage. The only thing I could interpret was the toxic love that George and Martha shared for one another, as well as their need to bring others down to their level. Although, I use the word love genuinely unsure of if they actually had any love for one another or just a mutual love of bringing emotional pain to others. They were both horrifyingly unstable and forced others to endure their insanity, making the couple with them believe they were opening up and just an older couple who truly couldn't stand each other. This made those around them open up in ways they never would have, giving George and Martha the negative insight into Nick and Honey's marriage. They fed off of each others and outsiders fear and pain in a way that was almost sadistic because it was clear they did it to bring themselves enjoyment because they may not get it from their own lives. This film felt so toxic and like you were being forced to watch a couple fight for 2 hours, it was incredibly uncomfortable to watch.

Simply put: fascinating.

[NoArrow · 22 June 2004]

It's hard for me to accept a film as perfect. This is partly because of IMDb – the movie ranked highest on the Top 250 list ('The Godfather') has a mere 9.0, meaning there is ten points worth of things wrong with even the best film ever made. What IMDb voters fail to realize is that if a movie has an intention – a purpose – and it serves that purpose effortlessly and hits every note that it's supposed to hit without even the remotest hint of an off key, it is perfect by its own right, and therefore worthy of a ten out of ten. 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?' is one of those movies.

The plot is ecstatically simple: a troubled married couple (Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton) has a younger and – we assume – happier couple (George Segal and Sandy Dennis) over late at night for quick drinks. The reason for the get together is that Martha's (Taylor) father runs the university where George (Burton) and Nick (Segal) work, and the father told them to 'be nice' to the younger couple, so Martha invited them over for a late party. Like I said, the plot is simple, but the characters are so deep and complex it'd take a whole lot more than 1,000 words to describe them correctly (but I'll try with what I got).

The film starts with George and Martha coming home from a late party. Both are drunk (Martha is a loud and obnoxious drunk but George just has a headache) and Martha constantly berates George when he fails to come up with the name of the Bette Davis movie she's thinking of (and dozens other reasons). It's early in the movie so we don't know if her insults are for real or if they're just a way of being playful with her husband. George acts to stone faced that we can't tell if he's being hurt or played with.

It's when Nick and Honey (Sandy Dennis) come over that we get to really see how George feels. Martha insults him, calls him names, yells at him while Nick and Sandy look on, baffled as to whether they should laugh or not. As the insults keep on coming George's anger and hurt grow, and the tensions reach a high when he takes a rifle from the closet, points it at Martha and fires. But surprise! It's just a toy with an umbrella that shoots out of the barrel.

As the movie goes on the characters get drunker, angrier and some painful secrets are revealed, and the actors never lose focus. Burton is sort of disintegrating in front of our eyes, both physically and emotionally, from the drink and his wife. He starts off rigid and unbreakable but soon turns cruel and sadistic, while still keeping his sort of suave, charming personality.

Taylor won an Oscar for playing Martha, and it was an Oscar well deserved. At the beginning she looks like the most vile, unlikable character, but as thick layers are torn away we get to see the hurt and pain her character feels from years of berating George. She loves him, she says, but she doesn't deserve him because of how horrible she is. She doesn't want to be happy, but she does at the same time. We feel for this woman because she is a person, not a caricature of a drunken wife.

From when we first see him we know that there is more to Nick than meets the eye. He seems, in a way, sort of ashamed and embarrassed of his goofy wife, and doesn't put up much of a fight when Martha makes advances on him – right in front of Honey's eyes. Of course, he's not just the clichéd hotshot character of so many movies either. He has an agenda he feels he needs to use to further his career, but he doesn't like using it. He says early that he doesn't like to get involved in other's problems, and gets increasingly awkward and uncomfortable as the movie progresses. Nick also thinks he's the only sane one in the whole house, even insulting his own wife.

Sandy Dennis' Honey seems like the smallest character of the film, but her work is in the background. Watch the movie twice, and focus only on her the second time. She reacts; she is always the character who's reacting, never in control. And she has the hard task of acting like a drunken moron for the majority of the film, a task that she excels at. But she only appears as an idiot, she knows what's going on around her but she denies it and tries to act like a playful child to rid herself of the horribleness that's happening. None of this is spoken, of course, but we see it in her face. She won her Oscar for the movie too, and deserved it.

This is a horrifying film of the dangers of the lies we tell ourselves (with other themes, too, like alcoholism and marriage). It is a perfect film. Few have reached this equality of tragedy, drama, suspense and dark comedy. A recommendation to all, no one could turn away this film.

10/10.

Brilliant movie

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 17 February 2011]

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a brilliant movie in all departments. The cinematography and production values are very pleasing to the eye, and Alex North's music is excellent. The dialogue is simply wonderful, both juicy and malicious, and the story is compelling, with well-observed psychological and social pointers, and intelligently constructed and paced. The film is brilliantly directed by Mike Nichols, who successfully manages to prevent the characters fall into caricature. The acting drives the movie, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton both give I feel career-best performances and exude a great chemistry. All in all, just brilliant and worth watching for the two leads. 10/10 Bethany Cox

A Night to Remember

[Hitchcoc · 10/10 · 10 November 2015]

The games people play. Throughout this entire film (based on an intense play by Edward Albee), we are never sure what the truth is. George and Martha have a marriage made in hell. They have an intense hatred of one another fueled by years of disappointment. Then again, perhaps this is how they express their love. Enter Sandy Dennis and George Segal who believe they are attending a quiet evening with an again professor and his wife. They are soon drawn into the clutches of these two. Elizabeth Taylor, with weight packed on to do the role, and Richard Burton, two cinema icons, strut their stuff, leading the poor souls who have wandered into the web with tales and sparks and deception. Dennis is a mousy little thing who tries to cope, but we can see her eroding each minute she is in this hornet's nest. This is one of America's great stage plays and the movie really does it justice. Was Taylor a great actress. You bet she was. And Burton. Oh yeah!

powerful and emotionally draining

[ltpt1 · 10/10 · 15 July 2001]

This is one of the most powerfully written and acted movies I have ever seen. I was emotionally drained at the end and could not imagine how actors could have done this on Broadway night after night. The terrible verbal inhumanities Taylor and Burton inflicted on each other were done so well, one never knew what was truth and what was game. A must see if you can handle such a well acted but emotionally traumatic film.

Don't be AFRAID to watch "Who's Afraid......"

[MountainMan · 10/10 · 26 January 2004]

ABSOLUTE TEN !! This is a masterpiece and it is mandatory that you watch it. If you are an adult (not for children) and have not seen this movie, please reward yourself and rent or buy the movie. Like Jonah and the great whale, you too will be swallowed, but into the overwhelming emotions of this very very great screenplay. The movie was shot in B&W with a small cast of actors, but who notices? Burton and Taylor at their absolute B-E-S-T. Like a bug-light draws moths, you will be dragged into this one.

Great Play, great actors, average adaptation

[c_murphy86 · 6/10 · 22 March 2005]

The mix appears perfect, Albee's play charting the fall of Western values and the myth of the American Dream epitomised through a foul mouthed couple and imaginary son, with its principle characters to be played by Burton and Taylor, a couple whose own marriage was fast deteriorating. Indeed it does result in extraordinary performances from both Taylor, who switches perfectly from dominating, tormenting and fierce, to frightened and fragile, and Burton who seems to bring his own frustrated ambitions into the role resulting in a superb performance.

However all the other things I loved about the play were lacking from the film. The play is set in the one room of the house which makes it very claustrophobic, as an audience you simply cannot escape the tension that builds to increasing climaxes every act. The script is a monster which also means this tension is stretched until it is almost unbearable, but also enthralling. By moving away from just the one room the film becomes less intense, and rather than adding variety, the extra scenes in the car and at the bar seem pointless and tacked on, rather than giving the audience a break the film merely loses the audiences focus which remains intense in the play.

Naturally the film had to cut the script in order to make it palatal, however by doing so it lost a key element of the play. I remember seeing the play just after 9/11 and seeing the effect the words along the lines of "and dogged by crippling alliances the West inevitably must fall". This whole idea of the West hindered by tradition (History, George) falling behind the waves of the future in the East (Nick) fascinated me. However this wasn't brought out by the film, and many of the key exchanges between Nick and George such as the discussions about genetics were omitted.

Nevertheless it is still fantastic to watch these two great actors battling it out in two larger than life roles, in a play that brings out the tensions of their real life marriage.

Friction, Tension, Rage & Resentment...

[Xstal · 9/10 · 7 September 2020]

...add the catalysers youth and alcohol and wait for the sky to fall down. Seldom will you encounter such overwhelmingly magnificent performances as those found here - quite literally, breathtaking and unsurpassed.

Drink And Talk Too Much ?

[bellsa037 · 6/10 · 25 April 2010]

The movie represents the story of two married people who have the problem with their mind. After they got drunk, they talked a lot about their stories that are nondiegetic elements. Beside,they spoke very sarcastically because of the effect of alcohol. In the scene that he took the gun and wanted to shoot his wife is exciting; the director select the low background music with low amplitude that is opposite with the high loudness of conversation because the director tries to imply that the people in conversation were focusing on their talking. In addition, the director uses camera to zoom in her face and switch back to the shot of shooting. Furthermore, almost every scene is photographed in the building, so the director uses medium long shot and medium close-up shot to run the movie more smooth. In the dancing scene, the audience also sees the example of Dutch-angle shot. Finally, the scene that she left her husband; the director put the next shot(flashback) by using face out and face in the previous shot that increases the continuity between two shots.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

[oOoBarracuda · 9/10 · 29 January 2017]

In 1966, Mike Nichols, in his directorial debut, joined together Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal, and Sandy Dennis in the film adaptation of the Edward Albee stage production of the same name. Two couples are brought together, one set with clear and obvious deep-seated issues, the other set with seemingly no problems in their relationship. Early one morning, the couples meet and many issues come to light and the four people realize there are more to each other than meets the eye. A deeply emotional, personally revealing film, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is a character-driven story charged with emotion and an incredible debut from the noted director, Mike Nichols.

Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) is the daughter of the President of a New Carthage university where her husband George (Richard Burton) is an associate professor. The couple has been married for quite some time, most of their years together seeming to be unhappy. By the time the audience meets them, it is revealed that they spend the majority of their nights engaging in drunken verbal assault against each other. Despite their marriage that seems to be based on convenience and career advancement for George, the audience can also sense there is a deep emotional dependence of each upon the other. At 2:00 in the morning, after a faculty mixer, Martha reveals that she has invited Nick (George Segal) a young charismatic biology professor, new to the university, and his wife Honey (Sandy Dennis) over to their home for drinks. As the evening wears on, and more drinks are poured, Nick and Honey learn more about George and Martha's relationship as they witness the back and forth verbal assaults grow with intensity the more liquor is consumed. Unexpectedly, however, George and Martha also uncover a great deal of insight into the relationship between Nick and Honey when it is revealed that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

Of course, Burton and Taylor rule the screen each scene in which they inhabit it. The audience, captivated by the pair's brilliant performances, is left wondering just how much of the film is autobiographical of their off-screen tumultuous relationship. In the many years that I had wanted to see Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, I had always assumed that Burton and Taylor made up the primary couple, and Segal and Dennis, the secondary couple. After finally seeing the film, however, it is clear that the more revelatory experience takes place through the on-screen performances of George Segal and Sandy Dennis. It is the Nick and Honey couple that is far more interesting to dissect. George and Martha put all of their issues with each other on display for any interested parties to witness. Nick and Honey, on the other hand, live in denial that their relationship is anything but perfect, and have repressed many issues they have had in hopes that projecting the image of a perfect relationship would create one in actuality. I found myself surprisingly captivated by the inner workings of Nick and Honey's subtly strained marriage more so than the visibly tumultuous marriage of Martha and George. What was also intriguing was the unrealized desire to flesh out the issues that are revealed to have plagued Nick and Honey's relationship since before their marriage. If I walked into a couple's home, who had no qualms about fighting openly with each other while plying me with alcohol within minuted of my entering the door, I would make any excuse necessary to leave. Nick and Honey, however, decide to stay even when the conversation turns uncomfortable as a sort of impromptu therapy session. Knowing they have several issues within their marriage that lie below the surface, their relationship is actually the one that needs more work than George and Martha's. Granted, George and Martha don't have the best coping mechanism in place to deal with their issues, but open discourse about their problems is far better than the denial and fake-it-till-you-make-it tactic that Nick and Honey have employed since before they were married. An incredible look at the overwhelming difficulties of cohabitation and merging of souls that marriage brings, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a film that will not quickly be forgotten by any who see it.

My one and only visit with George and Martha

[SmileysWorld · 6/10 · 11 March 2012]

I don't generally argue with any categorization of any film in a best of all time list.If enough people regard it that highly,I can respect that.However,on a personal level,there are going to be films on such lists that don't resonate with me at all.This is the case with Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.I'm not a big fan of surrealism,and this film,unfortunately for me,is loaded with it.The acting by Taylor and Burton is great.George Segal impresses in his debut.Sandy Dennis,I feel,overplayed her part and came across to me as annoying at best.It was that and the above mentioned surrealism that killed the overall viewing experience for me.If you are into this type of film,by all means,enjoy,but it's not likely that I will be visiting George and Martha again.

Thoroughly unpleasant...like a two-hour plus root canal without the Novocaine.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 7 September 2009]

This is one of those special movies that manages to be good but unwatchable at the same time. In other words, while the script may be an accurate of the most unpleasant couple in history as they spend an evening entertaining some annoying guests, some (like me) might wonder why anyone would want to see this! For example, they could film a brilliantly executed heart transplant or the removal of giant parasitical worms from someone, but why watch it? To me, the film was just too painful to endure.

Liz Taylor and Richard Burton play a couple of drunks who are married and spend all their time destroying each other. Now, according to the film it's because of the death of their son but they would have been terrible people regardless--they truly despise each other and themselves. Then, as if an afterthought, some guests arrive and actually stay and watch as this couple destroy each other right in front of them. And so, the newcomers get drunk and the drunks get drunker. Wow...now THAT'S fun! Then, tongues loosen some more and a lot of unpleasantness results.

Sure, having worked with alcoholics I understand that Taylor and Burton did an excellent job here. But for a two-hour plus film it's an endurance contest I don't wish to do again. So the overall verdict is that it's well made but thoroughly awful. If you can endure and appreciate this, fine. But if you can't, don't feel like you must. Just because it's rated so highly on IMDb does not mean it's a "must-see"--especially because this film may well leave you feeling depressed and in need of a drink!