Gee, it had many ingredients for a great '60s movie.
Script by the guy who'd just won an Oscar for the excellent 'Darling'.
'Hot British actor' Albert Finney.
Beautiful locations all over France.
But it's awful.
There's no chemistry between Finney & Audrey, sexual or otherwise. NONE AT ALL and considering this is a film totally about a long relationship, we're in trouble.
Finney's awful toned down Northern English accent, grates. Always shouting: 'JOANNA!' He's very, very bad in this. I think it embarrassed him, actually and it shows.
Audrey was well past her sell by date in 1966 and looked awful in the dreadful Paris versions of 'mod London fashion', that were really only meant for very young girls in the first place.
Most people love it and think it's a real gem of its era and I like a lot about the 'fashionable' '60s but this isn't part of it, not by a long way, baby.
LOVE this movie. One of my two favorites, the other being Same Time Next Year. (see a theme here?)
Love the clothes and I thought Audrey looked stunning.
If you have Cinemax, it's on MaxGo. (Or maybe it was HBOGo). Anyhow, I watched it recently and LOVED it. I thought it was a fun road picture.
Miss Hepburns clothes are always impeccable as is Mancini's score.
Gosh,OP, I think you completely missed the boat on this one.
To each their own, but I'm with r2 here, and I think many film lovers would agree: it's a classic. It's not meant to be "Breakfast at Tiffany's" redux. It's a serious film more in the "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" vein. Trashing it for the fashion, accents and 'sexual chemistry' is a total misfire imho.
Not to mention I love the clothes and thought Audrey looked stunning (I will concede she looked terrible with an afro in her later films). And the relationship is really well done here.
And I thought "Darling" was pretty dreadful, in spite of the Oscar. It strains way too hard to capture a 60s moment: it just seems silly in retrospect.
Well, I saw it a few months ago and agree with OP. Really forced and forgettable.
Love the idea, love Audrey's hairdos. HATE the movie.
You must be psychotic, er, make that psychic, OP, because my local PBS station here in Wisconsin just started replaying this over the last month.
I agree, it's dreadful. Continenetal drift occurs faster then having to endure the scenes when they are traveling with the other couple and their bratty daughter.
Still, after I had to watch it again because their wasn't anything else on,I came to see it in a slightly better light.
Unlike you, I think both Hepburn and Finch look amazing and wear thier costumes with flair.
While watching this, I couldn't help but think that it was made to cash in on their unconsummated attraction in "A Nun's Story."
One of the great movies of its era. The scene where they are too sunburned too fuck . . . but do so anyway, is incredibly erotic.
OMG. I just realized that I may be confusing Albert Finney and Peter Finch!
Has anybody ever seen them in the same room together?
It has a 87 percent fresh rating at RT.
Are you sure you didn't accidentally watch The Simpsons version instead, OP?
The Simpsons: Dangerous Curves.
A. Hepburn is a dull actress. Could never sit through any of her pictures.
Pretty yes, but so mannered and blah.
R4's clip of Darling is the worst part of Darling....otherwise, it's a very good film.
Petulia, also '67, is a much better film than Two For The Road, but was too 'arthouse' and sophisticated for the mainstream.
I saw it in 1967. I thought it was okay.
I never got the supposed sexual attractiveness of beanpole Audrey.
[quote]Pretty yes, but so mannered and blah.
It seemed to work OK in Tiffany's, I guess because she was playing a fake, mannered person.
I eventually read the book/novella and was surprised on reading it how well she caught the character in the book.
"To each their own"
OP = yet another self-important, entitled Datalounge critic lacking a frame of reference or a sense of taste.
I agree with the thumbs-downers: it doesn't really work. It's a lot of costume design and set dressing in search of a movie. And it's pretty dull.
Audrey will always be a charming and engaging star presence to me onscreen, but not much of an actor. And Finney can act, but mostly just yells and sulks here.
Hated it. Was so distracted by her teeth. They looked like a bunch of yellow Chicklets. You'd think she would have gotten them polished or something.
I'm another poster who loves this movie.
How can you say that there is no sexual chemistry between Finney and Hepburn? They were having an affair during filming. Their attraction clearly translates to the screen.It's not so much an explosive sexuality as it as a tenderness between them - just the kind of dynamic you would see from a couple.
I love Audrey but she didn't have sexual chemistry with anyone. Who could you imagine Audrey doing doing style while she shouted "that's right slap that ass."?
[quote]I love Audrey but she didn't have sexual chemistry with anyone
This was also true of Breakfast At Tiffany's. I didn't for one second believe she felt a single emotion for Paul Varjak, kissing in the rain with the squashed cat or not...it was the missing link of the whole film.
Highly enjoyable movie, OP. Hepburn was all of 37 years old, roughly Jessica Chastain's age now. And she looks fabulous, and easily plays Joanna through all 15 or so years the movie takes place.
R17 If it's good enough for me...
Love the movie.
Can't tell the difference between stars today.
Jennifer Lawrence, Jessica Shastain (sp), Emma Stone, blah!
Highly overrated and pretentious.
OP, this should have been a POLL. I see 65-35 against.
I think I would have been much better, more memorable, worn clothes better and be more sexy if I had been the female lead.
how about George C Scott and Julie Christie in Petulia?
It's a marvelous film. And Finney and Hepburn give great perfomances.....
One of the best films of the 1960s
Let me guess, R32, you weren't even born in the 1960s.
[r12] agree with you. She also never had sexual chemistry with anyone.
I watched the film for the second or third time when it aired on PBS recently. I was struck by the heat generated on the screen between Finney and Hepburn. Afterwards, when Neal Gabler mentioned their affair during the film shoot, I realized what I was seeing. It all depends on how you feel about the two actors -- I happen to adore them both. My guess is that the scenes in the film, where her hair is short and she wears sunglasses a lot, were shot last, after Mel Ferrer had told her she'd lose custody of her children if she left with Finney.
Emma Thompson, [R. 30], you could NOT have starred in it. You were already too dowdy-looking in 1966!
"I love Audrey but she didn't have sexual chemistry with anyone."
You seriously didn't think Audrey had chemistry with Gregory Peck? I mean, seriously!
[quote]You seriously didn't think Audrey had chemistry with Gregory Peck?
After 1950, Gregory Peck had a fatherly image, not a sexy one. Audrey had good chemistry with Cary Grant.
Audrey was always some enchanting, child-woman/mannequin to me, and really, the OPPOSITE of womanly sexuality onscreen. It also explains why gay men adore her.
No I don't think she had any chemistry with Peck. It seemed more like a father/daughter type thing. Oddly enough, though I think he was as hot as a man gets, I haven't seen anything where Peck has had chemistry with anyone either. If I were with him thought it wouldn't bother me. I would have have had enough chemistry for the both of us.
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...