Sweet Bird of Youth (TV Movie 1989) Poster

(1989 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Flawed adaptation, good performances.
shan-rees17 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This adaptation misses the mark on what the play is actually about. The teleplay writer has taken the angle of Chance as a romantic trying to reclaim his Heavenly. If you have read the Williams script or seen the play he is anything but. Heavenly is a plot device to put Chance into a situation that exposes his real self and leads him to accept it. It's a play about the fear of loss, aging, failure, and death, which doesn't make very good prime-time material. The script is pretty scrambled - some of Alexandra's lines were originally Chance's etc. The original play has no dialog between Heavenly and Chance. They also leave out the fact that Chance didn't just get Heavenly pregnant, he also gave her an STD (to be fair neither movie got into that.)

The performances are fine. Mark Harmon sells the character of Chance well - handsome, not too bright, and ambitious. Elizabeth Taylor looks gorgeous and puts forth a good performance, but it's uneven. This is much more to do with the script than her work.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Oh Elizabeth
Bgappl0721 March 2020
I was not aware when I went to watch this film that it was a remake of the classic Paul Newman Geraldine page one. We know that Elizabeth Taylor was in other Tennessee Williams movies and also with Paul Newman why she decided to make this one I have no idea. Her costars are negligible except for Rip Torn in a repeat performance. I love Elizabeth Taylor she's a very beautiful woman and a very fine actress I'm purposely not using was I can understand empathy for this character because she was also older and out of shape etc. but there's no comparison really and she does not shine through in this at all. When you have as good a movie as the original was sometimes it's just hard to remake and maybe shouldn't even be tried
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Twilight of youth
TheLittleSongbird17 October 2019
Consider Tenneessee Williams one of the greats when it comes to play writing. 'Sweet Bird of Youth' is not quite 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof', 'A Streetcar Named Desire' and 'The Glass Menagerie', but it is nonetheless classic Williams and one of his best. Due to many things, the powerful emotional impact, challenging themes daring and ahead of the time to tackle back then, richly drawn characters and intelligent, realistic dialogue.

There are two filmed versions. One being the 1962 feature film with Geraldine Page and Paul Newman. The other being this 1989 television film. While neither are in the same league as the play, there is no doubt in my mind that the former is the better version. The bold themes may not have had their full impact, but they were intact still (more so than other film adaptations of Williams' work at that time that, although with much to recommend on their own terms, not just toned down the material but ommitted content which the film didn't do as badly), the chemistry was electric and the performances powerful. In the 80s and 90s, there were a number of television films made adapted from Williams' work and most of them were more faithful in detail and content (if not always in spirit) than their feature film counterparts. This 1989 'Sweet Bird of Youth' is an exception.

In that while Williams' intentions are clear this felt like 'Sweet Bird of Youth' re-ordered and re-invented, which it actually essentially was. It contains revisions made by Williams himself and a wider range of his writing, but a large part of me felt that it was not for the better, while its dilligence is admirable it is somewhat too on the academic side. The chemistry isn't on the same level here than to before, the steam generally is missing and personally thought that Elizabeth Taylor and Mark Harmon didn't quite sizzle enough together all the way through. Pace-wise, it feels rather staid, needed more edge, and the action could have opened up more because there can be a filmed stage play feel here and don't think that was quite the intent.

Due to the re-work and re-interpretations, some of the story is rather jumpy and can feel confused, and some of the characters that were major before are abridged to extended cameo-like. Taylor looks beautiful but unlike the out of this world portrayal of Geraldine Page in the 1962 film (am really trying not to compare but it is inevitable rather in this aspect because the difference in quality is so wide) her performance is uneven. There are some intensely moving moments, but also some overwrought ones and those that show a lack of energy. Surprising seeing as she was experienced in Williams, especially good in 'Suddenly, Last Summer'.

Mark Harmon though is good and has the right amount of intensity, his chemistry with Taylor has moments. This is a case though of the supporting cast making more of an impression than the leads. Ronnie Claire Edwards and Cheryl Paris make a lot out of their rather abridged roles and Valerie Perrine is heavenly as Miss Lucy. The best performance comes from Williams specialist Rip Torn, and also the cast member being most familiar with the play so knows it inside out, as a malevolent with a pinch of subtlety Boss Finley.

'Sweet Bird of Youth' is pleasing to look at, with Taylor's costumes looking ravishing. Williams' dialogue has lost none of its order despite the nature of how the play has been adapted. The direction is respectable if never properly distinguished and there are parts that have tension and poignancy (just wish there was more though). If there is one thing this does better than the feature film, it is the ending which doesn't feel as tidy or as odds with the mostly bleak tone.

Altogether, interesting and worth a peek but somewhat bland. 5/10
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A "Bird" with clipped wings.
Poseidon-313 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It may have looked good on paper, but mounting a remake of the Tennessee Williams play (and previous feature film with Geraldine Page and Paul Newman) starring Taylor turned out to be a fairly poor idea. She plays a famous movie star who runs screaming from the premiere of her first film in seven years when she catches a glimpse of her aging face in close-up. Retreating to Florida, she picks up the ambitious, but rather slimy Harmon who seduces her and winds up as her chauffeur as she aimlessly rides wherever he takes her, trying to forget her film. He goes back to his home town in order to pick up his ex-girlfriend Paris so that he can persuade Taylor to make the two of them movie stars. Unfortunately, Paris's father Torn is infuriated with Harmon over the way he left town and the condition in which he left his daughter. Harmon ignores Torn's threats to leave town while Taylor languishes in self-pity until everything comes to a head one fateful night. Taylor is heavy and blowzy, yet still very beautiful here. Her performance varies from acceptable to lazy to hammy, depending on the scene. Even when she's bad, she's watchable. (Taylor had much to draw upon here. In fact, she once abruptly left a screening of "Cleopatra" after seeing herself act, barley making it to the ladies room before vomiting!) Harmon tries hard, but is a little too old for his role and cannot master his distractingly bad accent. Interestingly, he sometimes resembles Taylor's great pal Montgomery Clift when lit a certain way or when facing a certain angle. Torn is adequate in a role that he could play in his sleep. His part has been trimmed down from the source material. So has Edwards, who plays Paris's sympathetic aunt. A major character in the play and first film, she's reduced to barely an extra here. Paris isn't dynamic enough or appealing enough to warrant all the interest from Harmon. Perrine does an excellent job as one of Torn's floozies. Her performance, brief as it is, is one of the highlights of the movie. Lee appears as a Hedda Hopper-esquire crony of Taylor's, while Cassel has a small role as the hotel manager. The story has been stripped down to its bare bones, sometimes causing some confusion about what's occurring. Beyond that, it's a shallow, uninspired rendition of the work with precious little period flavor. It's a gauzy, chintzy-looking production, epitomizing that which makes something a TV movie, a condition that ought to have been remedied a bit better by a director of Roeg's caliber. Nolan Miller (his work cut out for him in shielding the star's girth) did all of Taylor's clothes including a fur hat that she only wears for a few seconds and not up close. Scenes must have been added/changed for video or overseas airing because Paris appears topless and Harmon shows his rear end and pubic hair, not something that would typically have been aired on network TV in 1989!
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Meal ticket proves false
bkoganbing31 July 2015
Tennessee Williams when he wanted to get into his favorite subject of sex was never coy or shy about it. But the most brutal work he ever did was Sweet Bird Of Youth. So brutal that when Paul Newman and Geraldine Page repeated their roles for the screen it was toned down a lot by the omnipresent Code which would be gone in a few years.

Mark Harmon is not as charismatic as Paul Newman very few are. But he brings his own brand of sexy swagger to the role of Chance Wayne who is now the kept boy of fading film star Alexandra Del Lago played here by screen legend Elizabeth Taylor.

Taylor and Harmon are driving up the gulf coast of Florida and come to his home town where he was run out years ago after disgracing the daughter of Rip Torn the town boss played by Cheryl Paris. As the town gossip goes Paris was left with a social disease and under his express orders Torn had a hysterectomy performed on Paris. Mind you though the talk in such places as barbershops and hair salons leave some doubt as to how Paris got disgraced. Still and all the poor kid in town is a most convenient whipping boy.

So after years of drifting and getting by on looks and charm Harmon is in town with Taylor and he's looking for her to be his meal ticket to fame and fortune. Only this meal ticket proves to be bogus and Harmon gets some rough and ugly justice and his good looks and charm will now be for naught.

Rip Torn who was Junior Finley on both Broadway and on film now plays Boss Finley, the part Ed Begley got a Best Supporting Actor for. Torn is a big more subtle than Begley, but he's just as malevolent, maybe more. This version brings more of the politics of the late Fifties into the drama as Finley who has state wide ambitions is a rabid segregationist in the style of George Wallace and Lester Maddox.

This version of Sweet Bird Of Youth is a fine introduction to the work of Tennessee Williams and I'm glad it's now on DVD so that current audiences can enjoy.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Taylor at Her Best
wc1996-428-36610120 March 2013
The success of a film is based on one thing and one thing only - chemistry - and Elizabeth Taylor and Mark Harmon positively sizzle in this film. You cannot take your eyes off them. The casting is right out of heaven. The story, of course, is pure Tennessee Williams, sordid and nasty and southern, but who cares when you're looking at two utterly gorgeous creatures like Elizabeth Taylor and Mark Harmon. The story really takes a back seat to this production which is quite lavish and hardly has the look of a television movie which is what it was. With a top flight director like Nicholas Roeg, how can you miss? You can't! Valerie Perrine in a supporting role really stands out. She is absolutely luminous and holds her own with Taylor in their scenes together. The supporting cast generally is excellent but Taylor and Harmon just cannot be beat when they are together they are so extraordinary.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Completely unbiased review.
sadie_thompson2 December 2003
First off, I have never seen the original, so there won't be any comparisons to Geraldine Page. I wouldn't know her if I fell over her, actually. When I said unbiased, I meant I would not be comparing this to the original film. I will say that this movie is awful.

Tennessee Williams is a bit over my head, I think, so parts of this film were lost on me. It seems that Alexandra De Lago (Elizabeth Taylor) had been a star, but she's faded considerably. Apparently, she was away from the screen for some time, so her appearance surprised people. I shouldn't doubt it, as the poster for her attempted comeback shows Elizabeth Taylor in her early 20s. No wonder they're startled. She's 30-odd years older than they thought. Senility has set in early, and she simply can't keep her train of thought going for more than a few minutes before it derails, leaving her hopelessly confused. I found myself giggling every time she yelled "Where I am? Who are you?" I don't think it's supposed to be funny, but I laughed. Hard.

While staying at what looks like a hotel on the beach, Alexandra (a.k.a. the Princess Kosmonopolis, of all things) meets a hunky "masssage therapist." I put that in quotation marks, because while people seem to think he's a massage therapist, he's really a gigolo that preys on weak-minded older women. Who's more weak-minded than our laid-off legend, Alexandra. Oh, he's all over her, rubbing her back, which I didn't want to see, and unzipping her muumuu. (That's what it is, you know. Didn't want to see it, either.) Next scene, they're driving down the road. What road? What happened? At this point, I was in the same fix as Alexandra--completely confused. I realized that they'd been involved intimately, but why in the heck would she hook up with that goofball? (Goofball is played by the dreadfully horrible Mark Harmon, I guess.) As the "plot" develops, Goofball reveals himself to be a pathetic would-be blackmailer, and Alexandra reveals herself to be an equally pathetic, blackmailing, sex-starved "monster." That's her word for them--they're monsters. She's right about something, for once.

Along the way, we're forced to watch Goofball try to find his dream girl, aptly named Heavenly; we also have to sit through Elizabeth Taylor's slightly confused portrayal. Did anyone help her with this? Did the director ever tell her what to do? Is she supposed to be hilarious? What is going on?!?

I give this two out of five stars, as I enjoy a good bad movie.
9 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Film version truest to the intentions of the playwight.
Dunham1628 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Tennessee Willrote of an aging actress taking under her wing a failed young performing hopeful who believes returning to his youth will ressolve the same anxieties she experiences on her way to a successful comeback. THE ROMAN SPRING OF MRS STONE focused career professional Roman male escorts while SWEET BIRD OF YOUTH focuses on men failing in their profession falling back on their fleeting tail of their youthful virility to take a stab as becoming gigolos. One of the two forges ahead in ROMAN SPRING the other in SWEET BIRD. The reason this film version with Mark Harmon and Elizabeth Taylor is my favorite is because it most closely follows the intent and text of Tennessee Williams.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed