I first heard about this film in a book called Bad Movies We Love. It's a hilarious book if you can find it. Anyway, this film has a reputation as being one of the so-bad-its-good classics, like Valley of the Dolls or Showgirls. And while I have to admit, the story line is absurd, it's a very entertaining movie. After all, how many movies that last two hours and forty five minutes seem to fly by? Plus the casting was good, period detail, etc.
share[deleted]
I read Sidney Sheldon's Other Side of Midnight and found it to be much more lurid than the movie.
That aside, I enjoy watching Noelle crush Larry. Besides, the costumes, jewels and settings are enjoyable.
The book was wonderful and left me in shock at the ending. The movie was also quite good. Wish it would come on TV once in awhile.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Let's not ask for the moon, we have the stars".
I agree! Now a 2 hour and forty five minute movie is GRUESOME to sit through. I saw this movie an hour ago and didn't have intentions of liking it. I LOVED it. Granted, it is over the top, but it is very entertaining. It served it's purpose.
shareTime has been good to this one. I saw it when it came out in '77 just to see how the film treatment turned out. It wasn't that good back then - but went to see about three times just to see Marie-France Pisier and relish the Michel LeGrand score.
I watched the DVD of it a week ago and was surprised how much I enjoyed it.
Pisier was perfect as Noelle, as was Sarandon as Catherine. John beck was a dull Larry, but who cares about him?? LOL.
"The flip side of fear is understanding."
I think I watched it with my girlfriend back in 1977 or 78. Probably would consider it a "chick flick" now, but I would have to call it a "guilty pleasure," not a great artistic success, but enjoyed watching it very much. Hard to believe it was 2 3/4 hours because it seemed to fly by.
shareWhen this movie came out, I imagine that since it was based on a "trashy novel," critics felt compelled to dump on it.
Watching it many years later without that context, we have the freedom to just watch it as a movie -- and quite an entertaining one.
While the film is engrossing, the casting was disappointing and distracting. It's been awhile since I read the book, but I was taken aback how lousy the casting was. Physically the characters look *nothing* like what they were described in detail. Noelle is a honey-haired, regal, exquisitely beautiful goddess...while Marie-France Pisier was beautiful and sufficiently classy looking, she was brunette, if her hair had been bleached or she wore a blonde wig, then she'd have been fine enough. Still, physically the role called for a Catherine Deneuve, it described her almost to a tee.
John Beck as Larry when the character strongly brought to mind someone like Warren Beatty or John Travolta, a dark-haired, devilishly handsome, cocky, sexy bad boy type.
Susan Sarandon, while quirkily attractive but not beautiful, was yet another miscast. Her part of Catherine was an elegant, placidly beautiful, intelligent-looking brunette. Jaclyn Smith would've been perfect. Or to a lesser extent Katherine Ross, Jennifer O'Neill or Lois Chiles.
All 3 of the pivotal roles were terribly miscast...it's as if those in charge think no one has read the novel, or more likely, they just don't care and cast regardless of what the characters look like!