mrcaw12

I forced myself to watch this through to the end.

It COULD have been so much better. So frustrating.

I suppose let me start with the good.

Supporting players:

Kathy Baker, Claire Danes and Michelle Pfeiffer are great. Of course, there's not enough Pfeiffer cuz she's a ghost.

Scenery-

Lovely beach sunny locations and a great beach house. What's not to like about that!

Ok, I'm running short on the good stuff now.

Now the bad.

The worst thing about this movie is PETER GALLAGHER. He just isn't up to this role.

Many times he's having scenes with the aforementioned ladies and I swear I can see in their eyes this look that's saying: "I'm getting nothing from this guy".

It's truly pathetic. He comes across like a mildly talented community theater amateur. He's jus so out of his league.

Now the writing. It's all over the place. This movie totally needed a script doctor.

As I was watching this I thought to myself, 14 year old girls would LOVE this movie.

Or, well, people who really haven't watched A LOT of really good movies that cover this sort of material.

Because the writing is off, the tone of the movie is off too. Things feel very awkward at times.

It's very strange. I haven't watched a movie like this in a long time, where you might get a good moment here and there (usually without Gallagher in it) and then a scene that just seems, well there's no other way to say it, STUPID.

This movie really could have been one of those sweet, tear jerker kind of movies, but there's a reason it's not known very well.

The MOST horrible thing about the movie is definitely GALLAGHER'S acting. A truly talented actor could have raised the quality of the movie from a 6 rating to easily a 7 or 8.

Some of the blame HAS to go to the director. Though who knows, maybe the director DID force Gallagher into multiple takes. At some point you can only use what you've got.

So there it is. An unfortunate miss.

I must say after reading many reviews that I can't understand why this film isn't given more credit. Sure people seem to like it but there always a lot of caveats to their praise.

After watching this movie I looked it up in imdb and saw that Davis wasn't nominated for this movie and I couldn't understand why Well that's because she was nominated that year for Now Voyager. Well, ok then.

I think this is a very unique performance in Davis' career. She's the total psychopathic narcissist. It's ALL about her. She lies through her teeth and only thinks about her. I felt she brought a very specific character to light. Not a carbon copy of anything else she had done before. If I have to find a performance similar it would NOT be The Little Foxes which is a much more controlled, simmering evil character. In a weird way Whatever Happened to Baby Jane springs to mind. It's like she took her character from this movie and showed what happened to the grotesque self absorbed monster 20+ years down the road.

The plot of this movie has lots of twists and turns and keeps moving right along. I wish Olivia De Havilland had more to do in this movie but when she is on screen, she's good. Same thing with George Brent.

What I especially like about this movie is that it's not cloaked in a period piece. It's so of the day, that her "Stanley's" self absorption mirrors the horror of what was going on in the world at that time. It's like they had their own little Hitler right there in their family. It reminds me of murderers I see on shows like Dateline.

Another killer/evil role of hers (she's played a few) is her great turn in The Letter. Her role in that movie is similar but quite the same. In The Letter, she's much more controlled and intelligent where as in In This Our Life, Bette's role isn't driven by one overriding goal or obsession if you will. No, the role of Stanley is purely a narcissistic one. There's no one thing driving Stanley. She just wants what she wants when she wants it.

Her acting style at times yes, is classic Davis, but many times throughout the movie it's more authentically driven ...being that specific woman in that town. It's not just Bette Davis chewing scenery up. Sure she can do the big moments, but she also plays the everyday, cooler moments with much specificity. I had NOT seen that woman in any other movie she had done.

I definitely think this one of Davis' TOP 5 roles. While the movie as a whole is not as great, as say, The Letter or Now Voyager, it's still a very good movie with one of Davis' best performances. If she hadn't been up for an Oscar nod for Now Voyager then she totally would have been up for this movie.

See this movie and be amazed at Davis'!

Funny but when i found this on utube, i decided to watch it and I thought the whole time it was from the 70s...like 76 or 77 kind of vibe.

Anyway, I enjoyed it. Something about these late 70s early 80s movies...especially the TV movies, that just have this simpler vibe to them.

Much more concentration on interpersonal dyamics...lots of chatty scenes between characters without all the special effects and crazy plot twists.

Very homey. You should give it a try. It's got a great New England at Christmas vibe. And anything with both Lee Remick AND Angela Landsbury(as her mom) has got to be good. And Polly Holliday (from the old TV series Alice) is in it too as a spinster aunt. She's great.

Two child actors, who didn't do much else, are in it and I gotta say, it's refreshing to see them played very simply. They feel more like real kids than so many Hollywood cliches.

Earl Hamner Jr (of Waltons fame) wrote the screenplay and produced so I guess that's where all that "simpler time" vibe comes from.

If you're feeling nostalgic for a past that maybe you never even had, give this little charmer a try.

Never knew there was an alternate version of this movie from the Katharine Hepburn version.

I enjoyed this movie. You have to accept that the topic of insanity in a family back in the day was extremely taboo. People just didn't talk about it.

That being said, the earlier version from the early 30s, still in the early period of talking pictures, would have been received better by audiences, given the same storyline, since it was then still all so new, both talking pictures and have mass media productions (i.e. Movies) covering a topic like this.

By 1940, however, the material would definitely have aged even then.

This 1940 picture does come off as if it were made in the late 20s or early 1930s.

What makes it more of a success then it should be is the quality of acting.

Recall, Ms. O'Hara was still practically brand new to movie audiences in 1940 with only a couple of movies under her belt. I think she was only around 20 in this movie by the way.

I enjoyed the movie because all the stars were great really demonstrating WHY they were stars. And Ms. O'Hara held her own alongside these Hollywood veterans.

Probably the only sore point from an acting perspective was that of young Patrick Knowles in one of his earlier roles. He's incredibly bland and wooden but thankfully he doesn't get much screen time.

If you're a fan of old movies, I can't imagine your not enjoying the movie even if the storyline deals with the topic of insanity in such a melodramatic way. Of course, nowadays, there would be scenes of a doctor actually attempting to treat people...lol...here it's just, the I wont get married and have children approach.

So you have to accept that handling of the subject matter. If you do, just sit back and enjoy seeing these stars do their thing.

It's fun going back in time and seeing the world from a different perspective.

And let's not forget the opportunity just to check out the set. The house where 90% of the film is set is super cool!

Just re-watched this movie that I may have only watched once, perhaps when it came out.

I didn't recall how charming this movie was.

The pacing is great as it moves right along.

The mystical quality (for lack of a better word) is established from the beginning and Kathleen Turner plays the set up scenes perfectly.

Kathleen Turner was great, as she usually is in movies. What's interesting about Turner as an actress is that she's always had this quality that reminds me of the great actresses from the classic movies of the 30s and 40s.

It's an odd quality. She's definitely a throwback to the greats, like Bette Davis, Claudette Colbert and the like.

Also, I had forgotten how good Nicolas Cage could be. He really goes for it in this movie.

I'd also forgotten how many great stars were in the movie like Barbara Harris (taken from us too soon), and Maureen Sullivan and Leon Ames! Does anyone remember Leon Ames anymore? Look him up.

Who knew Jim Carrey was in this movie!

Oh and of all people Sofia Coppola as the younger sister.

But then it made sense when I looked up the director and realized this was a Francis Ford Coppola movie! I had totally forgotten.

Anyway, I can't say enough about this movie. Charming and sentimental and nostalgic with lots of giggles throughout the movie.

Just saw this movie and enjoyed it very much.

Very stripped down production values if you will. Mostly shot in living room/kitchen kind of settings with an occasional foray out into other locales. Hospital room, college classroom, office building, Chinese restaurant.

A housewife (played by Stapleton) gets a suggestion from her college age daughter that Stapleton should invite her girlfriends over and have a discussion group. Let their hair down kind of thing and talk about their lives. So they do.

Nothing overly dramatic happens as such but you get to see women from the early 70s discuss their lot in life.

Sorvino (as Stapleton's husband) playing a taxi driver is appropriately confused and threatened but it's handled in a subtle manner.

What I particularly liked about the movie was how down to earth it was. None of the typical over the top Hollywood silliness.

Rather it's real women, all housewives without outside jobs struggling to find a voice.

The ending, in the aforementioned Chinese restaurant between Stapleton & Sorvino is particularly touching.

Amazing to find a TV movie from the 70s that didn't need CGI or outrageous storylines to tell a sweet and real story of early 70s women AND men figuring out the new social order.

Very enjoyable film.

Definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen. The film makers SEEM to be exposing the dark side of the American dream by highlighting the shallow sex/drugs/rock & roll underbelly of American youth. But at the same time, grossly exploit their subject matter to show sex/drugs/rock & roll. Hypocritical junk that feels like it came from the mind of a 14 year old who's parent don't give a crap. As for the basics, it's 90% music video with 10% plot. One of the most depressing movies I've ever watched. James Franco IS good playing his sleaze ball freak of a character I'll give him that. Of course the marketing dept sold the movie as this kind of Spring Break comedy. Unbelievable. They should be sued for false advertising by some consumer protection agency. And what's really sick is that the marketing for this movie definitely lured teenagers in. Which is what it is. Hopefully any teenager who did see this movie was disgusted and repulsed which is SOMETHING I suppose. From just a typical, movie going experience though, the movie is God awful. As a reviewers have commented, it's MOSTLY images flashing by with "music" (I use the term loosely) playing. The thrill of seeing some nubile young ladies quickly disappears in this movie and we're left for the most part watching people in their late teens early twenties getting drunk/stoned and acting gross, but again, in music video format. Now this MIGHT be titillating for the normal length of a music video...but when this comprises most of the movie...then its absurd and unless you're a 14 year old sneaking in to watch this piece of junk, your average grown up is going to say: TURN IT OFF...Put on something, ANYTHING else! But again, James Franco was very good as the sleaze ball.

I'll keep this movie review short and sweet.

This is NOT a good movie.

Boring and too long.

Oddly both Power & Hayworth both known for their great looks don't look terribly good in this movie.

Most of the movie has Power's hair coming down over his forehead and it's amazing how this odd hair style totally throws off his looks.

Hayworth always seem to have unflattering shadows on her face. Her right upper eye seems swollen like she got punched and her nose appears to have this odd bump in the middle.

LOL..I know, I sound so shallow but really, I've never seen either one of them so poorly lit and shot.

Only Linda Darnell appears with her famous beauty intact.

The first 20 minutes of the movie is a long drawn out section showing Power's character as a boy. WAY too long a setup.

There's not too much plot as every scene seems to drag on forever. The movie would have been so much better if it kept to the standard for the time 90 minute running time.

Laird Cregar is usually a fun addition to a movie but in Blood & Sand his two scenes of note he does the SAME thing in both scenes. Sitting down an laying compliments on thick. In the first scene to the famous matador at the moment. Then later in the film when Power has become top of the heap, Laird spends five minutes practically saying the same lines, only this time to Power.

I really can't see what all the fuss is about in this movie. I LOVE old movies and I love all three of the leading stars but I'm telling you, this is one overly drawn out movie that plays like a bad episode of some old time soap opera.

I really hate that I have to write this but it's bad. Watch Power in the Zorro movie instead. Much better than this yawner.

Have meant to watch this movie for years so when I awoke this Sunday morning before dawn...I sat down with coffee in hand & fired up the laptop and accidentally came across this movie on utube. I thought this would be the perfect time to give it a go. Boy was I impressed by the credits. Unfortunately as a movie going experience it just doesn't make the grade.

The acting is of course as you would expect. Top Notch! And while the screenplay does have its witty moments there's too much of the sermon and not enough of the song if you will.

I think I'd enjoy reading the play and perhaps seeing it staged but again, as a movie it needs the breath of life pounded into it.

Now I understand why this film isn't really talked about much even among film buffs.

I can totally understand why one would want to watch this film because there's so many famous talented British actors in it but even they can't elevate this movie.

And while Robert Morley was fun enough as the father, he's much too young for the role. Can't imagine why they just didn't use an actor of the appropriate age.

Oh and a very young Deborah Kerr is an extra added treat.

I watched about half the movie. So fun to see young Wendy Hiller (watch her in I Know Where I'm Going instead. Now THAT's a classic) and a young Rex Harrison deftly handling a challenging role and making it his own.

I noted another reviewer saying that the second half of the movie opens up a bit more and is less preachy than the first half. GOD I hope so!

I have to say I'm very disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it's not horrible, after all with talent like Hiller and Harrison how bad could it be? It's just, boring.

I kept watching the movie thinking aren't Hiller & Harrison wonderful. I do hope some ACTION of some sort is going to take place but nope...just one long talky scene after another. And, well, you know, how long can you watch actors talk about being saved? If you don't see them fall..well...where's the fun?

Within 10 minutes or so the "man" of the house is found laying on his bed with a knife in his back.

Rest of movie is the 7 women basically questioning each other. Upon answering the rest typically say something like you could be lieing. Which is responded by a but I'm not statement.

This is LITERALLY what goes on for the entire movie.

There is no suspense at all.

I thought perhaps this was supposed to be a kind of satirical comedy and perhaps it was, but you know, you should be laughing if that was the case.

Some of the characters are grossly underwritten with not much to say or do.

That being said I can't recall a movie I've seen in quite a long time that simply didn't really HAVE a screenplay. Everything that was said in the ENTIRE movie should have been said in the fist 15 minutes of the movie and THEN the actual plot of the movie would be played out.

I'm shocked that these actresses even agreed to be in it. All it takes is one reading of the script to realize that the script is better suited for a 10 minute SNL skit than an entire movie.

The entire action of the movie takes place over about 12 hours or so, so there's no chance really for the characters to even change their clothes.

What a shame. It has a nice "look" to it but these actresses have NOTHING to do.

It's TOO weird.

The title to this review comes from a poem written by Richard Wilbur, called: Voltaire: to Madame du Châtelet.

Gregory Peck reads the poem in this movie which the character he plays has written.

Poetic license.

I stumbed on this move and I have to say I thought it was fantastic. Peck & Bacall are marvelous in their roles as a long time married couple who still look upon each other as brides and grooms have done for eternity.

Peck's real life daughter played their daughter and she was mighty fine. Very unique style she brought.

Anyway, I thought the movie was great because it focused on the quirkiness of Peck & Bacall's relationship. It kept the tone light and funny actually & only punctuated the movie here & their with dramatic punch...Peck's & Bacall's aging, especially Peck's agin...the daughter trying to break through a bit to parents who seem to only have eyes for each other.

I loved the big old quality home the parents live in. I loved that the daughter was an artist & throughout the movie she tries to get her 2 parents to sit still for a portrait.

This movie is charming and Peck & Bacall were simply marvelous. Really just great. Especially Bacall. She's funny and goofy even.

Definitely give this movie a shot. Watch it sometime from November to February I think. The vibe is very New Englandy cozy.

Just a quick note here. I fast forwarded through the movie actually. But did catch most of the plot twists. Robert Young was very young, mid 20s I believe in one of his earliest movies. I've always found Young a likeable star & think the label he got of "bland" was a bit overplayed. How tiresome if every male star were a Gable or Garfield! I can see why Robert Young had the career he did because he wasn't bland actually. He was just very natural and most of the time had a ready smile on his face. Myrna Loy unfortunately given practically no screen time, does manage to showcase her star power in the few minutes she's on the screen. And what a beauty! My biggest complaint with the movie actually is Margaret Perry. While she's competant enough she just doesn't generate any star power whatsoever. Strange how the camera can make some people a star and others not. Laura Hope Crews had a very large part in the movie and was very good. You can tell she had a long history of acting behind her. Lewis Stone was, well Lewis Stone with a name aptly suggesting his acting style, though, somehow still likeable. Again, the camera favors who it favors even though it doesn't seem to make sense. The movie is definitely a period piece with nothing particuarly interesting about the plot. That being said, it is interesting visually just to see the interior sets, the furniture, and also clothes etc. It's so strange looking at these interiors knowing that most everything is quality made. No plastic! Anyway, it certainly gives one a look into the past almost 100 years ago and yet, we find people are always the same and there's really not much, if any difference between these shadows from long ago and today. And it's always a treat to see Elizabeth Patterson in a movie (Mrs. Trumble from the I Love Lucy TV show).

Watched this movie last night on a subscription channel...no..not gonna give free publicity to it..lol...

Anyway, I thought the movie was great.

I'll have to check out the director's other movies too.

I've read through a lot of the previous reviews which guided me on what I might want to include in my review.

Hmmm, where to start?

Let's start with BUDGET. I'm sorry but there truly is only SO much you can show on a screen with a small budget. So, give the people involved with this movie a break is my attitude.

Slowness. Well, relative to what? The story the movie tells IS about moments of life being played out in real time. There are no action scenes as such. It's not a suspense movie, though oddly enough, there is a type of mystery to it. The mystery I found was trying to figure out was what conclusions had these people arrived at, before the movie unfolded. Yes, they're unhappy in their marriage right from the get go. Yes they're having affairs. But, are they 100% committed to divorcing...or not? And through the course of the movie what would happen to them to either change the direction of those decisions or not. I was never quite sure. For me as a movie goer, that's perfectly fine.

SURPRISES - The movie contained one of the best romantic scenes I've EVER seen between a husband and wife. It starts with their being asleep in bed, facing each other, lips practically touching. What transpires after that moment was incredible. Perfectly directed, Perfectly acted AND with minimal dialogue. Bravo to all concerned.

MESSINESS - A rare movie where all the leading characters (husband/wife & their respective lovers) really are all sort of muddled. At times I would like certain characters more than others and other times, I would find the same character irritating..emotionally immature, selfish, confused, trying to figure out who did they really love...all very messy and again, perfectly fine with me.

COMPARISONS - Interestingly enough, it touches on the same themes played out in IT'S COMPLICATED, a fun BIGGER BUDGETED studio movie starring Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin. I recall there's a touching moment in that movie when Alec Baldwin's second wife, sees Mr. Baldwin gazing at his first wife, Ms. Streep who is dancing with her boyfriend Steve Martin at a family party. The second wife watches Baldwin's character and see's the love he obviously feels for Streep's character. It was an unusual moment in film in that it showed a 2nd wife not being some horrible ogre but just a woman who is in fact, in love with her husband. The same sort of theme plays out in THE LOVERS, but in a different manner. It's not as obvious, but it's there.

ACTING - Debra Winger and Tracy Letts were both wonderful. Perhaps Mr. Letts got a touch more screen time or maybe it just felt that way because Ms. Winger has always been one of my favorite performers. I wanted more of her. But to be fair to Mr. Letts, he played his part very well. All the performers did great jobs including the two younger supporting players,Tyler Ross and Jessica Sula.

Interestingly enough, the two "lovers", played by Aiden Gillen & Melora Walters whose characters I decidedly did not like, really did do great jobs. I think one of the toughest roles for actors to play are ones the audience generally won't like. Viewers tend to (it's only natural) want the STARS to be our heroes, so I applaud how well they annoyed me yet at the same time, I couldn't help but "feel" for them well.

I don't want to get too heavily into the plot, other reviewers have done that already.

Suffice it to say that expect a movie that's played out in living rooms with some brief office scenes,,riding in cars, that sort of thing.

Lot of awkward moments between a husband and wife who are JUST on the edge of formally separating..that's what you're gonna get.

BUT and this is an important but, it's not a movie filled with hate, arguing. It's a couple, who I suppose take one more look at their romance and are surprised by what they feel.

WARNING - Be prepared for an ending that MAY piss you off. It did me. I don't want to get into too much detail about it, because then I'd be you know, spoiling the plot...I just felt there was an ELEMENT to the ending story line that I didn't find believable. And it's not that the ending challenged my expectation of what I WANTED to happen, I just didn't believe that the characters WOULD REASONABLY DO what the plot line has them doing. And again, I'm referring to ONE SPECIFIC action that's incorporated in the ending. This ending felt contrived and it was the only point in the film where I REALLY felt I was being manipulated by someone who felt THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE THAT POINT which I don't have a problem with. But in a story if you don't show at least a GLIMMER that a character would be comfortable with making that decision then it doesn't work. And again, this element which I thought was dumb is presented glibly as if the two characters had no problem with what they were doing yet throughout the movie, this same element is presented in a manner that shows they ARE conflicted about it. So for me, it was just a stupid choice they made. That being said, I thought it through and came to the conclusion that it would not change my opinion about the rest of the movie. And it was, a great, unusual movie.

ASIDE- Seek out the documentary : SEARCHING FOR DEBRA WINGER

This movie is not your standard run of the mill drama. For its time, it's played very naturalistically. Both Milland and Fontaine give solid performances that are restrained and grounded in reality. Unfortunately, Teresa Wright (one of my favorites from the 40s) doesn't get much screen time and when she does it always involves rather stilted conversations with husband Milland.

The movie is an odd conversation piece because there are in fact a lot of real life endings going on.

Take Fontaine for instance, this movie is, arguably her last major leading lady role. Sure her next picture after this was IVANHOE (a big money maker in color) but I'd hardly call that movie a vehicle for Fontaine. For better or worse, this really is her swan song as a leading lady when she was still a major star that audiences were interested in seeing. Sure she had some other leading roles (not many though), THE WITCHES from 1966 though a leading role could hardly be compared to a major studio production with a leading director of Stevens' caliber co-starring a major motion picture star like Milland. She was 35 in this movie.

Milland's career too as a leading man was about to close. After this movie he basically had one BIG picture as a lead in a major motion picture and that would be Alfred Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER. He was 45 in this movie.

Wright's career never did gel completely and consequently it's a rare movie that featured her as the lead...especially with her role being the driving force. But in a handful of movies in the 1940s she made her mark that remains to this day. If nothing else, she was Marlon Brando's co-star in his first movie THE MEN. Hard to believe but she was only 34 in this movie.

One thing I'm surprised no one has commented on is the cinematography. From the very beginning I noticed special attention was being paid to the filming of this movie and there are quite a few dissolve shots where you see two images laid over each other as the scene shifts from one scene to the next. I looked the cinematographer up and discovered it was the legendary GEORGE BARNES. Not too remembered now but in his day one of the best..and one of the earliest. He was nominated five times for an Oscar, winning for 1940s Alfred Hitchcock production of REBECCA. He only made a couple of movies after this then passed away.

Director GEORGE STEVENS was near the end of his career as a director as well, though he still had five films left in him, almost all hits, especially SHANE and GIANT.

I liked the the tone and subject matter of the movie and the manner in which it was handled. Unfortunately, the biggest liability is the writing. There just wasn't enough development to the story. As one other reviewer here suggested, it might have been salvaged if they shortened it and presented it as one of the live dramatic pieces on TV. Or, and I would have gone with this option, and had a script doctor brought in who could have added a bit more conflict. Certainly the interplay between husband Milland and wife Wright should have been beefed up. If nothing else, Wright should have been given at least one scene that she could've sunk her teeth into. And Fontaine too was robbed of a meatier role.

Milland gets the most screen time and thankfully he played it well.

Buy the movie lacked a central theme of URGENCY.

So it plays, perhaps, almost TOO realistically without the needed and wanted dramatic punch.

Still, it was great to see Fontaine not all lacquered up for a change and playing a real woman. And she still looked great.

I'd give the movie a chance. Especially on a winter rainy afternoon.

I've been on an Elizabeth Taylor movie binge lately & thought I'd give this movie a chance. So glad I did.

As for production values, well, it's definitely a late 70s tv movie for sure, but, don't let that stop you from giving this movie a viewing.

As other reviewers have noted, Ms. Taylor plays a college professor who winds up renting an extra room in her home to one of her students played by Joseph Bottoms.

What I liked about the movie is I was never quite sure how the relationship would play out between the two of them.

Thankfully, the writers chose a common sense approach which proved satisfying.

Ms. Taylor looked great and wore "normal" clothes that fit the part.

Joseph Bottoms played his part very well in conveying that sense of a young 20-something who can change his life on a dime and then change it again in a heartbeat and not have any idea that those around him perhaps are confused and unsure how to react.

Frankly, I thought this was one of the best of Ms. Taylor's late career performances.

This is a charming movie that tells its tale simply and straight forwardly and moves along at a nice pace.

No it's not a multi-million dollar A production full release movie, but again, don't let that stop you.

It's charming and still relevant.

How do middle aged people move forward in their lives after divorcing?

How do they get over that "caution" in letting their guard down?

Ms. Taylor handled the role thoughtfully and entertainingly.

What was unexpected was the chemistry between Taylor and Bottoms.

Watch the movie! At the end you'll be saying to yourself: Now that was a charming movie and wasn't it great to see Elizabeth Taylor in a late in her career performance really present herself so confidently.

I stumbled across this movie on the late, late show and recognized Laughlin and wondered if this might be one of those "Billy Jack" movies I'd heard about but had never seen. It didn't take me long to realize the movie I was watching was a remake of the classic Mr.Smith Goes to Washington as it follows the scene structure pretty closely. Horrible movie. Laughlin was so wooden in the film that I was shocked that he had enough popularity to HAVE this role. His wife, Delores Taylor, ironcially enough, vaguely resembles original leading lady Jean Arthur; only Ms. Taylor comes across more as the rural Appalachian no makeup, kinda scrawny, coal miner's wife version. It's very weird folks. It's like these two kidnapped the real stars of the movie and jumped into their roles. Veteran actor Pat O'Brien still brings a twinkle to his eye and was about the only twinkle this movie had to offer. Ironically it was a very young Lucie Arnaz (25ish) in a small role that provided an aesthetic link to the original role with her moxie fueled approach to her characterization that at least enlivened the screen occasionally from the wooden, deadpan approach NO LAUGH LAUGHLIN served up. Is there ANYTHING worth viewing? Well it has some nice shots of Washington DC National Mall with all its famous memorials and you know it's got that 1977 "look" so you can see what the cool cats were wearing. So it does have some kitsch to check out the bell bottom pants, etc. Do yourself a favor and just see the original which STILL holds up decades later!

Saw the coming attraction trailer for this movie and thought it very hip: Great job marketing dept! Unfortunately, the movie can't find the right tone so it just switches back and forth between indie drama, stoner comedy, action flick.

But there's no cohesiveness to it at all. I cannot emphasize enough how it feels like three separate movies you're watching that were somehow edited together.

It's a shame too because our leads, Eisenberg and Stewart are fine and it was interesting to watch them together.

REALLY don't mean to be condescending to our younger viewing audience, but I think this will be a 15 year old's idea of a "really cool" movie because of the disparate elements.

Again, Eisenberg/Stewart great: Plot stupid.

And OMG how many times does a movie need to use the F word? I mean do these writers or producers or whoever injects this crap into movies have NO other word available to them? I mean, look at the late 60s Bonnie & Clyde? Did they even need to use the word once? And I'll argue it's a classic about crime, the American dream gone astray, whole bunch of adult themes and gee wizz it managed to convey all this without using the F bomb every other minute.

I wonder how they managed....hmmmm...maybe they need to look up another word: CLASS.

Just saw this film with my 16 year old son & I must say, I laughed constantly throughout the movie. Something I haven't done in quite a long time. Yes there is vulgar language throughout, but at least they gave it an R rating then so you know going into the movie that it's NOT FOR YOUNG CHILDREN! I haven't seen The Hangover yet (directed by the same director, Todd Phillips) so maybe I'll give it a try. Anyway this movie is a road movie that really works. Has anyone seen the recent Sherlock Holmes movie with Robert Downey? I thought Downey was HORRIBLE in that movie...so over top and hammy with his performance. Well in this movie, he does a complete 180 and is the picture of restraint as his character tries to control his spiraling rage at Zach Galifianakis' character. Galfianakis is perfect as the poor mope who has the ability to get under a person's skin & annoy the hell out of them & yet, immediately cause the person to feel guilty after you've inevitably just finished screaming at the mope for being such an annoying pain in the ass! Yes, there are a couple of scenes that are a little hard to believe...Like getting away from the police after being chased down the highway in a pickup truck...Sorry in real life, they'd be in jail. But it's not a major issue, so you say, so what to yourself and move on. More troubling is a very vulgar, tasteless and totally unnecessary scene when Galifianakis starts masturbating in the car just before the two characters are going to sleep. It's unbelievable to the point of being extremely weird...where you start to wonder about the writer/director of the movie...kind of weird. It's scenes like these that give Hollywood it's deservedly at times, lousy reputation. It's like they're just gonna put something in the movie for it's shock/gross out factor regardless of how stupid & inappropriate it is to the film. That being said, thankfully the scene doesn't last too long! The performances by Downey & Galifianakis are top notch as well as cameo appearances by Juliette Lewis as a pot dealer & Jamie Foxx as buddy of Downey's character. Definitely a fun movie for older teens(16 & above)& adults to enjoy!

Big disappointment here folks. The movie relies too much on atmosphere and stretches 90 minutes of plot over 2 1/2 hours of film.

The film would most definitely have benefited from trimming its running time to 90 minutes. Seriously.

Sure DiCaprio is great as ever, but there's just not enough in this movie to sink your teeth into.

And it's TOTALLY an M. Night Shyamalan ripoff. Which isn't a compliment by any means! Don't get mislead by some of the other reviewers who try to compare this movie's slowness to say, Hitchcock's Vertigo. Sorry, but no way is the comparison even close! Don't waste your money on this one folks...even if you're a die hard DiCaprio fan.

Get the DVD out of your local library for free instead.

And by the way, I'm a huge Scorsese fan so you know I'm totally disappointed.

While it was a treat to see a rare Natalie Wood flick and one costarring her husband Robert Wagner, unfortunately it was a big dud.

First of all, it's like the director told the actors to wait 5 seconds before responding, so the pauses are interminable.

Second of all, Natalie Wood's character makes no sense whatsoever.

I can understand her character being a bit shy because of her polio, yet on the other hand, her character is written as someone who is well off, and has a famous career as a song writer. So it's not like she's been in a shell, shay we say all her life.

So yes, while I can understand her Polio being a difficulty starting a relationship with Wagner, it doesn't really explain why she's so reluctant to share Wagner's life.

Example, Wagner takes her to a social event at a school because Wagner's best friend is married with kids. So Wood stands there amidst all the parents and is a total bitch basically. When a woman innocently comes up and introduces herself as a mother of a 4th grader let's say, Wood rudely says she's not a parent but tennis instructor, while standing with her arm crutches of course. Then Wood whines to Wagner and asks what she's doing there and he says naturally enough that she's there because HE invited her. Wood acts like he's committed some unfeeling act. IT's really stupid. Wagner's character is rightly put off.

Later, when Wagner get an invitation in the mail, Wood declines to go before she even knows what the invitation is to! Wagner explains it's a wedding invite yet Wood still refuses to go.

Later on in the movie, when Wood, obviously trying to appease Wagner suggest she invites some friends over. Wagner simply says what friends? I don't blame the guy. She's shut herself off from his life then wonders why he can't handle her.

Wagner's character at the end tells her that they've locked everyone out of their world and that he can't breathe. Who could blame him? Then of course, Wood's character begs for him not to leave.

It's a stupid movie that I couldn't finish, but damn if it wasn't great seeing Wood & Wagner together.

I happened to catch this movie recently on TCM (unedited).

Let's cut to the chase folks, it's a bad movie. There's just no getting around it.

It's also high camp. Sooooo, my gut says, that a bunch of friends, with plenty of booze at the ready would have a hoot watching this late 60's flick.

There's hardly any real dialog in the movie; it's mostly narration by James Darren (the male lead in the film).

Why Kluas Kinski even bothered to appear in this movie is beyond me since his role is minuscule. I suspect it was a paycheck & the opportunity to work with undressed ladies.

The movie has lots of scenes that are bathed in day-glo colors, lots of female skin and scenes that just won't end.

But it is true to it's kitschy self, complete with its supposed shocker ending.

Again, if you love kitsch & that whole late 60's early 70's drug/sex LSD trip kind of vibe, you'll probably get a good laugh of this really bad movie.

Well I won't waste anyone's time repeating the plot since it's been mentioned in most of the other reviews.

It's true that the best thing about this movie is some of the great location shots of the Niagra Falls area.

Other than that, this is a pretty lame movie.

I THINK if you thought of it as an afternoon school special, it might pass, I guess.

The vibe of this movie is sort of Disney trying to do the hip 60s thing throwing in Jacqueline Bisset.

It's really funny because every time the camera is on Bisset, the whole feel of the movie changes. It's like she's in another movie. She's so timeless in a way.

Unfortunately most of the movie's time is spent on the three "cute" teenage boyz who are straight out of Disney casting.

Imagine if you will, you took three surfer type dudes from all those Beach Blanket Bingo movies and made them the stars of the flick and threw in Jacqueline Bisset for good measure.

Honestly, I can't figure out WHAT Ms. Bisset was thinking by appearing in this movie.

For her part, she's just fine and seems very modern, while the three teen dudes are so stuck by in time it's scary.

I watched this movie because it was on TCM and the description of the movie sounded fun. Unfortunately, it's about as daring a movie as having butterscotch on your ice cream sundae as opposed to hot fudge!

Those 5 out of 10 stars go only to the Fellini piece which is the last of the three.

The first tale directed by Vadim starring both Jane & Peter Fonda is the cheapest looking of the three. Maybe Fellini actually made his part first and used up most of the budget for this flick. Who knows! Anyway, this first part is really only worthwhile to see Ms. Fonda looking gorgeous at the height of her beauty. Other than that, it's a total snoozer. Literally will put you to sleep. Not much dialoug even, just lots of scenes with Jane riding around on a horse.

The second part directed by Louis Malle starring Alain Delon is more straight forward in narrative but tells a boring story. Bridget Bardot is totally wasted in her part of the movie as a gorgeous heavily eye-lined courtesan playing a game of cards with the star. Mr. Delon is a boring as hell actor and Mr. Malle's boring direction only makes matters worse.

Finally when you think this movie couldn't get any worse, you're right and in comes Mr. Fellini with his third of the movie. Immediately your taken by surprise at the production values and are amazed at how expensive the movie looks and you realize HERE is the grade A production you've been waiting for! Now to be honest, the story really didn't grab me and frankly, Mr. Fellini is not one for subtlety when he's trying to make a point, but he is a master at creating fun visuals to simply look at and enjoy. And the best performance in the movie goes to the great Terrance Stamp who doesn't fail to impress us here. I think if you just showed this last third of the movie at a college it would get a great response.

If you never catch this flick, don't worry about it. But if you're one of those die hard movie fans who like to be able to cross unseen movies off their list, well then, give it a go I guess.

This movie has been a favorite of mine for years. I JUST finished watching it again this afternoon and found it to be as good since the last time I saw it.

It's a rare & unique piece of film making that rises above the subject matter it covers and becomes its own piece of cinematic art.

The movie tells the tale of a new, young reporter arriving in Jakarta on the brink of civil war. This is played by 20something Mel Gibson turning in a wonderful performance as a naive reporter learning the ways of politics in a foreign culture.

He is selected as a protégé by Billy Kwan, a photographer played by Linda Hunt. (Yes she plays a man's character in the movie and quite convincingly).

While there, Mel Gibson meets Sigourny Weaver who has been working there for about 5 years and is set to leave in a matter of weeks.

The movie shows how the Billy Kwan character picks Mel's character as a protégé if you will, because he sees something within Mel that he believes has a greater depth than the rest of the typical press corp.

Billy's character also comments on the fact that both he & Mel are born of parents of two different countries and perhaps that is why they don't 'fit' in with the typical mentality of your everyday press corp.

Peter Weir creates a wonderful, mystical atmosphere in this movie that touches on several themes of brotherhood, loyalty and empathy of foreign cultures to name a few.

The music is reminiscent of Chariots of Fire and works well to heighten the tension.

Ms. Weaver is restrained and effective in her handling of her role of a woman of well heeled background who has perhaps become hardened to the strife around her yet carries within her a true loyalty and passion for the good cause.

Mel Gibson must navigate himself through the intrigues surrounding him and learn what's important in his quest to get the big story.

I think Weir has created a cinematically compelling tale that concerns itself with more than the superficial as most stories covering this ground would do.

The movie delivers on many levels and really deserves a higher place in the pantheon of movies than it currently enjoys.

If you enjoy movies with plenty of tropical atmosphere, good performances, and the unexpected movie 'moment', than you can't go wrong by choosing this flick.

I think it's a great film.

PS:

If you know the old Bette Davis classic, THE LETTER, than you'll get an idea of the sense of the tropics the movie conveys.

Carol Lynley has never looked lovelier, I'll say that for this movie. Unfortunately, she also gives perhaps one of the worst performances of her career. She was never that much of an actress to begin with but she did have a certain charm and she had that slightly raspy voice which gave her a uniqueness of her own. In this movie, however, her emotional scale ranges from dazed to slightly annoyed.

Gig Young, is ridiculously miscast as her husband. Certainly he's too old for Ms. Lynley or she's to young for him, whichever but they make an odd couple either way.

I think I enjoyed Mr. Young's performance the most as he chose to play it practically as if he were in one of those martini, living room light comedies. Too funny.

Flora Robson turns in her usual good performances even if the words she has to say are ridiculous.

And then there's Mr. Reed. Ah yes, Oliver Reed. Playing a role he was probably born to play as a Neanderthal, boorish thug in incredibly tight blue jeans! I love when he corners Ms. Lynley and licks her ear! Oh baby! The movie starts out promising and seems to strike the right New England Gothic chill note. But within about ten minutes or so the situations start to become ridiculous. The type of thing where you see something on the screen and you start yelling at it and saying things like: "Why are you following them if they just tried to drive you off the road?!"....Things like that.

The plot just gets sillier and sillier and looses any kind of scary hold it might have had.

But I'll say it again: Ms. Lynley was simply GORGEOUS! I kept thinking she'd be great to play Michelle Pfieffer's mother in a current movie! If I had to recommend this flick, I'd say have some movie buffs over for drinks and have a great time making fun of this silly waste of time.