2/10
The beginning of the end for Kazan
17 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This is a film to savor, because it demonstrates just how bad a film can really be, even when on paper its casting and the director make it look like it will be memorable. Everyone makes mistakes. For an actor, or in this case a director, one big mistake can effectively end a distinguished career. This film was director Elia Kazan's big mistake. And although he lived another 33 years, he only made two more films, and only one of those was memorable. And that's not just my opinion. In the Wikipedia article about this film, it is stated that, "The critics were overwhelmingly negative when the film came out."

First off, Kazan tried to make the film look very 1970s-ish; and that only resulted in a film that today looks very, very dated.

The problem isn't the acting, which I felt was quite good. Kirk Douglas does fine as the man in the midst of a nervous breakdown. While I can't quite say that Douglas' performance is restrained (can we ever say that about Douglas?), it is not over the top, either.

I was never particularly impressed with Faye Dunaway, but this was a good as any of her performances that I recall, and frankly, I didn't remember her being that attractive (of course, she was only 28 here). Deborah Kerr's acting was fine here, although I wish she hadn't accepted the very non-flattering role. Richard Boone and Hume Cronyn turned in good performances, as well.

The problem with this film is where it came from -- the mind of Elia Kazan. I'll tell you definitively -- since this film and his book that it was based on has been considered semi-autobiographical, he's a man I wouldn't want to have known. It came from his mind -- a very dark, unattractive place, unwelcoming, sad, and filled with bitterness and disillusionment. No thank you.

One of the few films I've watched in a very long time that I wished I hadn't watched at all.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed