7/10
Marvelous Movie For Actors -- the rot sets in
29 December 2004
Joanne Woodward gives a marvelous performance -- which, of course, is a done deal. Miss Woodward, I am convinced, is no more capable of giving less than a marvelous performance than I am of flapping my arms and flying to the moon. With a marvelous supporting cast including Estelle Parsons, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Donald Moffat before he had eyebrows, it is a feast for lovers of marvelous performances. They all give marvelous performances. A good deal of credit must, undoubtedly, go to Paul Newman, director, who as a marvelous actor, knows how to give marvelous performances and how to use the camera to highlight those performances.

The problem is that, given those marvelous performances, the story consists of a couple of days in which Miss Woodward's character recognizes that her life stinks. That is to say that you spend approximately one hundred minutes in a section of the story that should take about ten. And then, of course, the story is over. Compare this to, say, THE THREE FACES OF EVE in which Miss Woodward gives three marvelous performances and we learn something, however spurious, about the benefits of psychotherapy, and you will understand what I mean.

Why did they make this movie? Answer: there were no more real studios, and Paul Newman was a star with clout. He wanted to make this movie, so this movie was made in hopes that he would look fondly on Warner Brothers for future deals. Or maybe it was part of a deal: he got to make this movie, then he would appear in some movies that Warner Brothers wanted to make.

Given the level of talent Mr. Newman had to work with, it isn't half bad. But it isn't really that far from this movie to WATERWORLD.
13 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed