Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Two For The Road (1967)

Gee, it had many ingredients for a great '60s movie.

Mancini soundtrack.

Script by the guy who'd just won an Oscar for the excellent 'Darling'.

Audrey.

'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.

by Anonymousreply 4202/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 102/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 202/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 302/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 402/18/2013

Well, I saw it a few months ago and agree with OP. Really forced and forgettable.

by Anonymousreply 502/18/2013

Love the idea, love Audrey's hairdos. HATE the movie.

by Anonymousreply 602/18/2013

Wow.

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."

by Anonymousreply 702/18/2013

One of the great movies of its era. The scene where they are too sunburned too fuck . . . but do so anyway, is incredibly erotic.

by Anonymousreply 802/18/2013

OMG. I just realized that I may be confusing Albert Finney and Peter Finch!

Has anybody ever seen them in the same room together?

by Anonymousreply 902/18/2013

Great movie.

by Anonymousreply 1002/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1102/18/2013

A. Hepburn is a dull actress. Could never sit through any of her pictures.

Pretty yes, but so mannered and blah.

by Anonymousreply 1202/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1302/18/2013

And you don't think Albert Finney is mannered????

by Anonymousreply 1402/18/2013

I saw it in 1967. I thought it was okay.

I never got the supposed sexual attractiveness of beanpole Audrey.

by Anonymousreply 1502/18/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 1602/18/2013

"To each their own"

Oh, dear....

by Anonymousreply 1702/18/2013

OP = yet another self-important, entitled Datalounge critic lacking a frame of reference or a sense of taste.

by Anonymousreply 1802/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1902/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2002/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2102/18/2013

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."?

by Anonymousreply 2202/18/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 2302/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2402/18/2013

R17 If it's good enough for me...

by Anonymousreply 2502/18/2013

Terrific movie.

by Anonymousreply 2602/18/2013

Love the movie.

Can't tell the difference between stars today.

Jennifer Lawrence, Jessica Shastain (sp), Emma Stone, blah!

by Anonymousreply 2702/18/2013

Highly overrated and pretentious.

by Anonymousreply 2802/18/2013

OP, this should have been a POLL. I see 65-35 against.

by Anonymousreply 2902/18/2013

I think I would have been much better, more memorable, worn clothes better and be more sexy if I had been the female lead.

by Anonymousreply 3002/18/2013

how about George C Scott and Julie Christie in Petulia?

by Anonymousreply 3102/18/2013

It's a marvelous film. And Finney and Hepburn give great perfomances..... One of the best films of the 1960s

by Anonymousreply 3202/18/2013

Let me guess, R32, you weren't even born in the 1960s.

by Anonymousreply 3302/18/2013

[r12] agree with you. She also never had sexual chemistry with anyone.

by Anonymousreply 3402/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3502/18/2013

Emma Thompson, [R. 30], you could NOT have starred in it. You were already too dowdy-looking in 1966!

by Anonymousreply 3602/18/2013

"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!

by Anonymousreply 3702/18/2013

[quote]You seriously didn't think Audrey had chemistry with Gregory Peck?

None whatsoever.

by Anonymousreply 3802/18/2013

After 1950, Gregory Peck had a fatherly image, not a sexy one. Audrey had good chemistry with Cary Grant.

by Anonymousreply 3902/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4002/18/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4102/18/2013

Emma T.--love you as an actress, but the only way you would have been sexier would have been with a burkha.

by Anonymousreply 4202/18/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.