The problem with this movie

There's even more wrong with this adaptation. See the excellent review at www.tvguide.com.

Wow! I so agree. I'm sure this a fabulous on the stage. But, I, too, noticed how 'blah' this movie is with few set changes. Just doesn't translate to film well. It just looks so 'obvious' that it was a stage play & wasn't given any new 'film blood.'

I watched it this morning and had no idea it had been a play because I came in after the credits. I thought to myself this is like watching a play but it's pretty bad. The play had to have been better. I'm a huge Debbie Reynolds fan but she really overacted in this film.

´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
((¸¸.·´ ..·´ Jewel-:¦:-
-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

I couldn't put my finger on it and that's it. I stumbled across it and watched it because I love Debbie Reynolds. I had never heard of it and it wasn't too far in when I felt that it must be a film adaptation of a play. Barry Nelson and Michael Rennie didn't translate very well either.

Maybe I haven't. I fell asleep and woke up as it ended. Anyone willing to fill me in on how it ended?

I'm watching it right now and I have to strongly disagree. The camera work is dynamic enough to look nothing like a stage play. Angles and perspective change constantly when characters converse. Cameras follow characters in and out of rooms. And to your point, cameras do zoom in and out on the characters. While not a facial closeup, it zooms close enough to only frame the shoulders and head, i.e. when Debbie Reynolds first appears and talks about her shampoo, and the scene where Dirk first kisses Mary. The point is that the camera is never static for more than a few seconds, which is nothing like watching a live play. When I'm in a theater, I cannot crop a scene, zoom in and out, or change angles. There are even scene fades and outdoor shots with snow.

As someone who has never seen the play, I don't see any problems at all. A movie should be judged on its own, and not in comparison with some other media, whether it be a play or a book. That's because many viewers, especially of later generations, have never seen the prior incarnations. While I have never seen this play, as a New Yorker, I do see many plays -- both in large Broadway theaters and very intimate small Off-Off Broadway venues. It's now 46 mins into the movie and I still don't see how it is "a filmed play." My problem is with the stilted dialogue, made worse by Debbie Reynold's laughable overacting.

And for what it's worth, I've taken Cinema studies at NYU and know full well the power of a closeup. Since this movie doesn't rely on emotions, I don't miss a closeup. Indeed, I wouldn't miss it in any movie although it would certainly be welcomed when appropriate. Hence, I disagree that the lack of closeups is ever "a kiss of death."

PS - it is now 72 min into the movie and I am so bored by the story and distracted by Reynold's horrible performance that I'm about to turn off the TV. I had such high hopes for the movie that I am recording it on DVD but I'd rather waste a blank DVD than my precious time. I do love breezy comedies from the 60s' but this isn't it.

Just watching the movie, and it's wordy like a play. That works for plays because they have limited scenery. Here, it seems forced. Now for the story, it isn't new. I'd prefer him with Tiffany, considering the era. Men didn't go back to their wives. Maybe that's why there were so many stories where they did.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

It could use more car chases.