who thinks this movie was awful? It carried on for way too long, especially the road trip with that bratty spoiled kid. I also got tired of their constant bickering and felt that their marriage was pretty pathetic. I mean, he barely cared about his kid, that's pretty sad. I felt like it was more a photo shoot than anything else, what with all those outfits Audrey had on and being so skinny. I couldn't find much to like in this movie.
shareNo. My parents didn't care much for it, and they are huge Audrey fans. My friend didn't like it when I watched it with her. It can be a little depressing cause Audrey's character puts up with a lot from Finney's. (My was particularly annoyed at the end where Audrey said she would have married David if Mark didn't exist or they never met. My friend argued that she never would have met David if she had not met Mark, since David was the brother of Mark's huge client)
Either you like it, or you hate it. Or you watch it for the clothes or the scenery!
Joanna said she would have married David if Mark didn't *exist*, period, not if she had never met Mark. So theoretically she could still have met David had Mark not exist. For example, Mark could have died or deserted Joanna after having David's sister as his client.
But that is really besides the point, the point of Mark's question is whether Mark will be the only one to Joanna, where many Hollywood romantic comedies will like to imply just to be crowd-pleasing. Guess what, Joanna said she would have married David if Mark is not in the picture, which is much more realistic. The whole concept of *the one* is a fairy tale, no one is born to be *the one* for anyone. Relationship works because you made it to work, nothing happened just the way it is. This doesn't make Joanna a bad person, just practical. Remember Joanna followed up with her answer by saying "but you (Mark) do exist". That means as long as Mark is in the picture, she will try to make their relationship last
My trouble with this movie is that she´s too good for him. I don´t see much in him to deserve her. You can say that actually his troubles and maneirisims were part of his charm. Well I can go with that...But he should have to show more passion for her to make it more believable. Either that or she should be more flawed. Yes, I know she cheated on him. But even that seemed contrieved. She just wasn´t that type. At least not plain in his face, as she did.
I thought Finney´s action was ok, I didn´t enjoy much seeing him in the role of the attractive male. Audrey was fine, as usual, but even she overacted at some times.
As for David, he wasn´t interesting at all.
What I like about this movie is the scenery and the clothes of the time that take us back to the late 60´s and the beginning of sexual revolution.
I give it a 6.5.
You are so right! I wanted to slap Mark every time he spoke. He was so unpleasant! And the neverending bickering, the gimmick of repeating everything the other said... it was dull.
shareNo. This movie sucked. Typical misogynist Frederic Raphael overrated crap. Cliched characters, the women were vicious stereotypes. The only reason to watch this movie was to see Audrey Hepburn in pretty clothes.
share[deleted]
Not sure how this even qualifies as a "movie" other than it was recorded on film.
Ridiculous all the way around; awful people who are not nice to each other and have no idea how to behave in civilized society; complete misfits! They never had a "normal" exchange; their disdain of each other was evident from day one. She snipes and he snipes and they are completely horrid people! Her manic laughter at inappropriate times should have been a warning to all!
What happened to the other women she was traveling with? She just left them? Audrey was 38 and playing a virgin; who could believe that? (When she stood in front of the mirror, after being sunburned, her wrinkled, baggy knees looked all of 40!) What was the point of that stupid MG? There would not have been an ocean of foam when the fire was extinguished. Why did they forever make bad animal sounds? They stayed where they could not afford to eat; why not stay in a room where they could afford to eat? What was the point of injecting the bad seed in the movie? The child was a wicked beast and should have been left at a convent. Why the badly behaved children? Why the "patient adults" who refuse to discipline their awful children? And, NO work crew would have loaded those concrete casts with two live humans in them.
Albert Finney was a very poor actor; this was his third film and it might have been his first. He spoke every line with the same empty, but loud, monotone. As if this was a high-school play and he was trying to be heard in the back row by trying to use a deeper voice. His trying to hold his gut in, when he was cheating with the blond was pathetic.
WHERE did they keep finding sparkling clean underwear to parade around in, given their skimpy luggage and no money?
I am SO relieved that I never have to watch this mess again.
Agree with you about everything. As an explanation, not as an excuse, this was what was considered sophisticated in 1967. It was right after the perky wholesome sickening 50s, and people thought that being nasty was being worldly.
It was a lousy movie.
What I really hated most about it was how effing downright unbelievably NASTY the Finney character was, and the Hepburn character put up with it as if it were her womanly duty. He was such an over the top pr*ck that at some point she would have slipped out the door & walked off.
Bad, bad movie.
I thought that it was rather good, I particularly like the nostalgia for my youth that it evoked. Time for Italy methinks. ;O)
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
This is one of my favorite love stories of all time. Its very good movie. I'm sure there are others who don't like it.
shareIts Not an Adam Sandler movie. This was made For adults.
share