Just plain bad....


This film would have been deplorable if it had been made in 1935 instead of 1965. But it would have now been passed off as 'so bad it's good' camp. Not so, this version. Poorly cast, poorly written, poorly acted.

Sad swan song for the great John Ford.

reply

Ford himself stated that the film was a major disappointment. He wanted no part of Anne Bancroft in this film, which is surprising, given that she was the best thing it had going for it (Neal would never have been as good in the role.) Ford wanted Carol Lynley instead of Sue Lyon, but later admitted that Lyon's acting ability surprised him. This film always makes me think of a director who had lived his entire life under the thumb of the Breen Office, who, now that he was free to be a little more edgy, either didn't know how to do so or was afraid to do so. Ford was free by 1966 to make this a great film. He didn't.



Remember When Movies Did Not Have To Be Politically Correct?

reply

Lyon's acting ability surprised me, too--how bad it was. Other than being blonde and cute, and looking the right age for "Lolita" a few years earlier, I can't even see why she ever was given a role in a feature film.

reply