Then here's your chance! I continued watching this movie to see if it continued to be as bad as the early scenes were. It was. Awkward dialog was rampant throughout the film. De Niro -- an actor I highly respect -- was wooden. The plot...once you figured out that it had one...meandered along. Elia Kazan was a great director, with the emphasis being on "was". He was beginning to lose his touch, and although he had some nice cinematic shots, the story stumbled along.
If you're wondering if I didn't find anything good about the movie...well, it's a very lavish production. visually, the film looks great.
Among the other actors, Tony Curtis was fine as a star with tremendous insecurities. Robert Mitchum and Ray Milland were fine as studio executives, though some of their dialog was questionable. Jeanne Moreau...a great actress...in other films. Jack Nicholson was interesting in a smaller role. Donald Pleasence was good as a misplaced screen writer. It was good to see Dana Andrews (as a floundering director), Peter Strauss, and John Carradine (as an old tour guide).
This film had potential, but Elia Kazan flubbed it. It's never good when you watch a film to see just how bad it is.
If you're wondering if I didn't find anything good about the movie...well, it's a very lavish production. visually, the film looks great.
Among the other actors, Tony Curtis was fine as a star with tremendous insecurities. Robert Mitchum and Ray Milland were fine as studio executives, though some of their dialog was questionable. Jeanne Moreau...a great actress...in other films. Jack Nicholson was interesting in a smaller role. Donald Pleasence was good as a misplaced screen writer. It was good to see Dana Andrews (as a floundering director), Peter Strauss, and John Carradine (as an old tour guide).
This film had potential, but Elia Kazan flubbed it. It's never good when you watch a film to see just how bad it is.