Interesteg What makes it different from others?

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

tieman64 Though director Robert Mulligan and actress Natalie Wood did fine work together on "Love With The Proper Stranger", their follow up picture, "Inside Daisy Clover", is a near total disaster.Set in the mid-1930s, the film centres on Daisy Clover (Wood), a teenage tomboy who hopes to escape a life of poverty by singing her way to Hollywood stardom. She gets her wish, of course, but also more than she bargained for. Cue much tragedy.Aesthetically plain, stiff and packed with clichés, "Clover" is notable for featuring a young Robert Redford. Redford and Wood would do good work together in "This Property Is Condemened" one year later. They would also team up again for "The Candidate". Their work here, in contrast, is almost unwatchable; Wood's far too old and far too beautiful for her role, her part requiring an awkward teenager.Some claim "Inside Daisy Clover" is a thinly veiled account of the life of Judy Garlan. Garlan, like Wood's character, was bullied by studio bosses, remade over, attempted suicide and checked into a mental health clinic. "Clover" also details the way Hollywood studios once militantly managed the lives and images of major stars, even going so far as to arrange marriages, insist upon abortions or cover up sexual orientations. This should all be fascinating material, but Mulligan's direction is poor throughout.4/10 – For Wood fans only.

jaster-7 This movie did not hit the mark on so many levels, but certainly an interesting movie experience. First off I just dislike the title of this film. And the name Daisy Clover is just too stupid – I understand the movie is based on a book – still stupid.I'm always entranced at how absolutely beautiful Natalie Wood is. In this movie she's captivating. Her lip synching isn't great, but her energy in the production numbers is believable. A Miss: Daisy Clover is discovered as a singer, not a musical performer – so I thought it was weird that she goes to Hollywood just because of her voice and miraculously is also beautiful, a dancer, great performer, actor, etc. I would have believed her as 20 maybe but not 15! That made it hard to really feel she was a young and innocent girl, nor feel empathy for what she must be going through. A Miss: What is that colour of hair she has in this movie? It looks like brown with an overlay of concrete dust streaked in. And what is with the gold lame outfit they keep showing her in – it's so 60s! They could have set this the 60s – but if it's in the 30s, show the 30s please.A Miss: Daisy seems to lose her edgy spunk after being absorbed into Swan studio. At the night of her premiere as they are preparing to leave, Plumber is telling her smile big, bigger, and curtsy low. His wife Melora gives her a personal memento gift and the whole time Daisy just smiles a little confusedly – doesn't say a word. Then she walks out alone for some reason (although they were all supposed to go together?) and Roddy McDowell says 'Here's something for your scrapbook." and it's a promo ad out of a newspaper on her premiere. Suddenly Daisy acts like she's been completely insulted and throws it aside and goes outside and has a hissy fit, fling the gift away, etc. and writing on the building "Raymond Swan is a Mother Killer!"…a convenient subplot supports this sentiment, but I'm sure the wink is, yeah, Motherkiller – I get it. And Daisy so hates Roddy McDowell it's lethal, but I never really understood why.A Miss: If they want so much control over this 15 year old, wouldn't Swan and cohorts be making sure she had a friend/mentor to watch over her every second, know all her secrets, and indoctrinating her into studio life? Not just letting her run all over the place, out of control, after they've just groomed her up for a show – something like a little kid playing in the dirt in their Sunday best – i.e. if this is a studio family, where are the parents?A Miss: Obviously the charming cad Wade Lewis isn't good for Daisy – hijacking her away from her shows and premiere. So why is there no one watching out to make sure she doesn't get tangled up with Wade since Raymond and Melora knew all about him? And if she's 15 isn't that statutory rape? The Swans finally get around to stepping in – and so Wade asks Daisy to marry him in front on the Swans. So they get married – same question – is she allowed to marry at 15? A Miss: An elaborate wedding and no plans for the honeymoon? The newlyweds stay in a shabby adobe roadside motel in a place called Jaw Bone where he abandons her? And they arrive like fugitives, albeit stopping in what appears to be the middle of the day totally exhausted, saying it's an hour before dawn – seems so fake. Wouldn't Swan have everything to say about the image of his precious Daisy and take care of her honeymoon? A Miss: The almost comedic ending to this movie – so strange. A better ending would have been that she succeeds - or does herself in with booze, etc. This is a tragedy right?A Hit: I love when Melora screams "She doesn't have a headache – she has a HEARTAAACH!!! Best overwrought line in the show!!A Hit: Plummer is great in his talk to Daisy by the pool. Only thing is they never show Daisy's face – just the top of her head and so you don't get any satisfaction of seeing her reactions to his words. He's such a vampire – giving her deep passionate energy-sucking kisses and the next moment slapping her face. "There's more where you came from."A Hit: Ruth Gordon is worth watching – she's stands out as the only real, flesh and blood person, with any colour at all in the movie.A Hit: Daisy's meltdown in the sound booth - the spooky silence with just cold machinery noises faintly heard while we see her losing it in stages. Very Orson Wellsian.

Robert Gold I enjoyed the movie, even though it has its flaws.One of the problems is that Daisy is really not a sympathetic character. Yes, you feel very sorry for her when Christopher Plummer's character informs her that she is no longer allowed to visit her mother in the asylum. However, she never seems to be grateful for her fame and monetary success. Instead she runs off with Redford's character when she is supposed to sing with a children's choir. She is being groomed for movie stardom the same way Judy Garland, Deanna Durbin, Kathryn Grayson, Jane Powell, and countless other singing and non singing performers were as well. The viewer doesn't really feel sorry for her since she almost seems to create much of her unhappiness. It is true that teenagers don't always think maturely, but back then with her poverty and fatherless life, one would think Daisy might be more grateful with her chance for success. Natalie's own voice was not good enough to be used for the songs (except for the brief introduction of "You're Gonna Hear From Me"), and it's evident when you listen to the FSM Silver Age Classics double CD recording of the film. I like Jackie Ward very much as a singer, but I don't think she sounded much like Natalie Wood. Carole Richards sang for Cyd Charisse in Brigadoon and Silk Stockings, and she sounded like Cyd. Rita Hayworth's vocal dubber Nan Wynn also sounded like her. If the film contained a more believable sound, I might have been more convinced that Daisy was more realistic. For fun, go to You Tube and look up the videos of lostvocals3. He presents the songs with Natalie's recorded tracks. I have never been a huge Natalie Wood fan. I enjoy her work, and I have seen several of her films. I do think she turned in a good performance, even though she never looked fifteen years old. They could have made the character a bit older but then you would lose out on the parts where they commit her mom due to her being a minor and also Redford's marriage proposal isn't as necessary. However, she does turn in a solid portrayal.I wish Redford's character could have been shown dallying with a handsome hunk, but it was 1965 after all. I enjoyed his performance, but I would have liked to have learned more about his character and his career. Was his career ever in danger due to his drinking and sexual partners? Was he protected as long as his box office stayed strong? I also wish I could have seen some real reaction from Daisy when he reappears long after he leaves her in Arizona. How can he just come back with flowers after dumping her? Well, it's the character all right. He is self absorbed and lacks responsibility.Christopher Plummer's character is ruthless. After kissing Daisy and getting involved with a minor (after he chastises Redford's character on the same behavior), he later says he doesn't care what she does or what happens to after she completes the movie she is in the middle of shooting. That's it. Finish the picture and he can get a new girl to take her place. It's true. When Garland left MGM in 1950, there was Debbie Reynolds, Jane Powell, and Kathryn Grayson to fill in. I enjoyed Plummer's chilling performance.I too wish Roddy McDowall had more to do, but he was fine with his limited screen time. I liked Ruth Gordon and Kathryn Bard was strong too.I agree with the many reviewers and their comments on the hairstyles and clothing not being really from the 1930s. However, I still think the film does a good job at showing the studio system at that time.

eyecandyforu This film seems way ahead of it's time, made in 1965 it's one of the first to show a darker side of Tinsel Town. Natalie Wood plays a tomboy who's plucked from obscurity and becomes a teen singing star. Her character is almost immediately jaded by the experience, manipulated by a studio head and a dubious male heartthrob, played by a stunning looking Robert Redford. Ruth Gordon once again stands out as the teen stars' mother. Christopher Plummer is excellent as the smooth studio head with Roddy McDowall as his cold assistant. Katharine Bard plays Plummers' wife, and her character is fascinating. She seems to float and flow when she moves and her character sums up the film's overall feel. Distant, detached and alien yet seething with anger and disappointment.The problem with the film is that it's very dark in tone. That is to say the slick big budget production is overshadowed by a strange menace, highlighting the fact that the studio system was basically a people factory, uncaring and cannibalistic. Audiences at the time must have been very confused, expecting a light, breezy musical. Instead it's a realistic yet stylized downer, reminiscent of Valley of the Dolls, which was yet to come. There's very little genuine romance, sentiment or humor, just a steady flow of odd scenes.This is one of those movies that many have never heard of, it remains obscure despite it's almost epic appeal. It's certainly worth a look, but just try to nail it down to any specific category.