salan0629

I do understand the social importance of this film. It is refreshing to see this period of film-making tell a novel story where the lead characters are black and involved in a romantic plot line. I get it. That being said, the screenplay is over the top and heavy-handed; clubbing us over the head with the sentiment of "See, blacks are cool, suave, and sophisticated." As a result, the plot is flimsy, awkward, and often confusing. We are expected to follow the story without ever really getting to know any of the characters, again with way too much emphasis on the situation. And, sorry to say, the acting is somewhat tragic. A weak performance by the BRILLIANT Poitier and Abbey Lincoln is beautiful but boring and flat. Weird direction also accompanies the players; odd angles and points of view that only distract. Beau Bridges turns in the most interesting performance and does the best he can do with what he is given; specifically the nonsensical monologue he is given at the end of the film. The most interesting thing about the film is that it does give us a peek into the somewhat decadent and experimental social aspects of 60's nightlife. The scene in the club is very intriguing!

I am not sure where to begin...the screenplay is convoluted, the performances overall are atrocious and the direction is confusing and base. The worst performance in this movie, by far, is that of Daniel Chilson. The fact that he was cast is further proof of director Keitel's ineptness. Yes, Chilson is lovely to look at but beyond that every "acting" moment is PAINFUL; and never once believable. The only redeeming factor in this movie is the performance of Don Handfield as Pete Bradley. Understated, pensive, and honest, Handfield is the clear standout in this cast. Thank goodness I find no other acting credits for Chilson! P.U.