MovieChat Forums > Hungry Wives (1973) Discussion > Potential for brilliance...

Potential for brilliance...


I watched this film one time (about a year ago). I wasn't overly thrilled with it. I found it boring and the quality was deplorable. I do, however, feel that the concept is brilliant. It is reminiscent of the Graduate, in terms of its social commentary on the American family and the NEED for something different. It is the execution that made the film suffer. Something as clean-cut as the image of the American family really needs a more glossy production. Some films benefit from the grit of 16mm - Evil Dead, Last House on the Left, but so is not the case here. It was the wrong aesthetic choice for a film of this nature.

I feel like the screenplay could be revelatory, much more so than the film. We could see all that was Romero's intention and visualize it the way we see fit. It deserves to be remade properly, but the context of the film is dead. It could not be about what it was about then. It would be drastically altered, far less socially relevant and less affective overall. The only way the story could function properly without altering is if it was a period film.

reply

agreed

i had potential but it didn't come out



When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

It's certainly has problems (sometimes slow, amateurish) but I like it quite a bit.

I think the scene with Billy the woman and her alcoholic friend was very well written. The transparently fake tarot reading makes me laugh ("a dark man is involved" she repeats, or something like that). I laugh when the husband complains "jesus, I hope I find a seat in church!". I enjoy the film's skeptic attitude towards all religion. The sight of Joan buying witch accessories with a credit card.

"...television with programs designed to give you ideas. In case you should run out of ideas!"

reply

It's fair to say, that George Romero himself had potential for brilliance, but he, like this film was far too enamored with his own pretense. This film is awful and would always be awful in the hand of this director. Maybe it could have been less tedious under the helm of someone with a more subtle touch, but it would always reek of preaching the ERA era.

Crap movie.

reply

^ Agreed. Awful film, although I didn't expect much from Romero. Why are all his works so painfully slow and uninteresting? He ruins every piece of potential the stories may have. Zero thrills whatsover.

🐺 Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors) 🐾

reply

Well, it's not exactly supposed to be a thriller.

reply

I really liked this movie. It is underdeveloped and I think Romero feels the same way, which is why he doesn't really talk about it-- but there is something wonky and weirdly creepy about it; it's like The Stepford Wives meets Rosemary's Baby on acid. The film quality is subpar and looks like something you'd see at a grindhouse drive-in, but I actually like that aspect of the film. It's a really claustrophobic movie too, and those horrid '70s houses make the claustrophobia all the more oppressive.

It's definitely a weird flick. Not flawless by any means, but there's a weird vibe it has that is appealing to me.

reply

I love this movie. I turned 12 in 1972. I had conventional parents who wanted conventional children, but there was this freedom and magic and experimentation in the air and on the radio. This movie reminds me of that time.

I only just watched it now, for the first time.

reply

Yeah total late 60's/early 70's time capsule
I didnt like it much but love the retro hair, decor, attitudes...
Interesting artfact

reply