7,5/10.
I won't make particular remarks about the film itself, which is a very brilliant comedy indeed - except for the fact that its ending comes, in my opinion, a little too much out of the blue. Rather, I'm focusing here on some minor aspects regarding its production.
I read from a well-known source that, from the beginning, a conflict had arisen between the two stars of the film, Glenn Ford and Bette Davis, about the assignment of dressing-rooms (!). I'm not saying this has not happened, I'm only thinking about what it all has to do with the film itself, in both its faces as a business venture or an art product.
Pythagoras, we all know, did not eat fava beans: again, this has nothing to to with the demonstration of the famous theorem that brings his name, and which is central to the scientific field even today, after more than two millennia.
The problem is that from the beginning, film criticism and literature about cinema has always been keenly interested in such trivial issues as star-system, gossip, and production incidents like the one cited above. All that could work only because there has been an audience devoted to that. And there still is (the well-known source I talked about is absolutely up to date). Well, I am not a part of that audience, and many others, I believe, are with me.
I won't make particular remarks about the film itself, which is a very brilliant comedy indeed - except for the fact that its ending comes, in my opinion, a little too much out of the blue. Rather, I'm focusing here on some minor aspects regarding its production.
I read from a well-known source that, from the beginning, a conflict had arisen between the two stars of the film, Glenn Ford and Bette Davis, about the assignment of dressing-rooms (!). I'm not saying this has not happened, I'm only thinking about what it all has to do with the film itself, in both its faces as a business venture or an art product.
Pythagoras, we all know, did not eat fava beans: again, this has nothing to to with the demonstration of the famous theorem that brings his name, and which is central to the scientific field even today, after more than two millennia.
The problem is that from the beginning, film criticism and literature about cinema has always been keenly interested in such trivial issues as star-system, gossip, and production incidents like the one cited above. All that could work only because there has been an audience devoted to that. And there still is (the well-known source I talked about is absolutely up to date). Well, I am not a part of that audience, and many others, I believe, are with me.