Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

gavin6942 Romantic comedy about a pair of clandestine lovers in a London-Spain tryst.The story goes that the lead role of Steve was originally offered to Cary Grant, with a promise by Melvin Frank to rewrite the script to play up the age difference between Steve and Vickie. However, Grant opted to remain in retirement from filmmaking, and he turned the role down. He did remain connected to the film, however, as it was produced by Fabergé's Brut Productions, and Grant was on the board of directors for Fabergé.The film is funny, though not in a laugh-out-loud sort of way. More because of the uncomfortable situations. It also puts the audience in an unusual spot, because who are we to root for? The lead character is kind of a cad, and do we really want to encourage infidelity? The winning of the Best Actress Oscar is perhaps the biggest surprise. It was a surprise in its own time, but seems even more so today. The performance, while not bad, is hardly one that stands out, and the film itself has not gone on to be as iconic as some of its competitors (including "The Exorcist").

jjnxn-1 Bittersweet comedy helped immeasurably by the chemistry of the stars and the skill of their performances. Glenda is brash and delicate in equal measure, George bombastic but good natured. While it shows the pitfalls of infidelity it doesn't judge its characters for their choices and actually presents all the relationships, including Glenda's gay assistant's, evenhandedly rather surprising for the 70's. As far as her receiving an Oscar for this performance, she's sprightly and more relaxed than she usually was on screen but I doubt that even she expected to grab the prize for what is a customary solid job but hardly extraordinary.

zetes A rather unfunny romantic comedy that amazingly got nominated for Best Picture along with four other Oscar nominations, winning Best Actress for Glenda Jackson. I can't for the life of me see what people were thinking at the time. Free love is one thing - I have no problem with that whatsoever - but the male protagonist in this movie, George Segal, is straight up just cheating on his wife. He's the hero of the movie! We're not exactly meant to sympathize with him, but he's supposed to be funny. I don't know how you could see him anything more than a total jerk. And Jackson, though she's thankfully divorced, isn't much better. She's a browbeating little shrew who isn't even remotely attractive, either physically or intellectually. I should have hated this even more than I did, but, though the characters are awful, the performances aren't half bad. And I loved the music. There are a few amusing moments, but this is mostly awful.

jsterry-1 The plot summary listed on this website for this movie does the movie a great discredit. This is a charming comedy of mores that couldn't get made today because of our changing ideas of what is and is not "moral." The script sparkles with great lines and the emotional life of the film is complex. In today's world of "black and white morality" this movie will be misunderstood. It's not about philandering or cheating. It's about unexpected love and the complications of that. Today's audience won't get it, but for the generation for whom this film was made, it still touches the heart. The great music score features two terrific Sammy Cahn/George Barrie songs. One of my favorites to watch again and again.