IMDb > Where Love Has Gone (1964) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Where Love Has Gone
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Where Love Has Gone More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 33 reviews in total 

37 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

Where Camp Has Gone...

Author: Poseidon-3 from Cincinnati, OH
6 May 2003

Fans of great "bad movies" should lap this up like a bowl of frosting. Loosely based on the Lana Turner-Johnny Stompanato-Cheryl Crane murder incident, Harold Robbins fashioned a novel to cash in on and exploit the gossipy tale. This resultant film carries on the tradition in high, campy style complete with hilarious "racy" dialogue, glamorously sanitized sexual shenanigans, concerned social workers, over the top sets and decor and signature Edith Head costumes. Velvet-voiced crooner Jack Jones (later to be immortalized as the pipes heard in "The Love Boat" theme song) kicks off the film with a yummy title song against dreamy shots of San Francisco. Hayward stars as a socialite sculptress who finds herself paired with WWII hero Conners. Her gorgon-like mother (Davis) steers them toward marriage, yet, when Conners doesn't do her bidding, pulls out all the stops to destroy the union and press for a divorce. The marriage does produce a daughter (Heatherton) who, years later, finds herself in juvenile hall after filleting one of Hayward's live-in lovers. Though the tale spans twenty years, Conners and Hayward (and Davis!) look exactly the same throughout. The hair, clothes and furnishings show no evolution, nor any feel for the period. (Hayward has her customary bouffant bubble 'do which she wore in virtually every film from the '50's on, no matter what the time, place or character!) Hayward frets and yells and suffers while draped in fur accented suits (or sometimes in her uproarious sculpting scarves) with her bizarre accent fully in place. Somewhat paunchy Davis sashays around in her pretty concoctions, wearing an intriguing grey wig and doling out orders. At times she resembles her old nemesis Joan Crawford and one could easily picture her in the part as well. Conners does all right, though no matter what histrionics he could come up with, there's no room for him in this film. The battle royale is between Hayward and Davis. Davis was already miffed at Hayward for just having remade "Dark Victory" as "The Stolen Hours". Then there were differences over the script with Davis reworking scenes until finally Hayward pulled her weight and demanded that the script be shot as originally written (which was no Pulitzer Prize winner.) Later, Davis had yet another battle (which she won) over how her character's fate should be played out. The animosity between these two women is palpable. Amid all the soapy trappings and turgid dramatics, there is some really hateful fire and some awesomely bitter moments between them, which are fun to behold. Anyone wanting to get plastered should do a shot every time one note Heatherton whines the word "Daddy". Nearly twenty belts of booze ought to do anyone in! She is hilariously bratty and annoying, though she does get some decent licks in, notably in a scene with Seymour. Greer shows up as a sympathetic and concerned case worker. She holds her own with dignity against the fire-breathing Hayward. The dialogue is riotous throughout with some lines actually eliciting guffaws. The lawyer has a great one about the deceased and his relationships with the mother-daughter team, "He wasn't any good at double entry bookkeeping, but he was great at double entry housekeeping". "Star Trek" fans will be startled to see Kelley in a film like this, referring to the bedroom habits of Hayward. In the source novel, Davis' character comes across far more sympathetically, though that may not have been as interesting for the cinema. Also, Conners' character had a devoted second wife who was carrying his child. Most of the novel's plot line made it to the screen, however, though the film's ending is far less happy. There's very little resembling reality in this movie, but thank God for it. It's a glossy, pseudo-sordid potpourri of theatrics and glitz with occasional verbal fireworks.

Was the above review useful to you?

31 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

A Bette Davis/Susan Hayward Movie

Author: M. J Arocena from New Zealand
24 April 2007

I don't think my comment is worth ten lines but I'll try, the little I have to say I want to say it because this is one of those really bad movies I like. The kind of bad movie with little treasures buried in it. Bette Davis and Susan Hayward as mother and daughter and let's stop right there for a moment. Two actresses who never took the easy way out. That, in itself, makes the movie a collector's item and, I guess it is. Then, based on a Harold Robbins best seller based on the Lana Turner, Johnny Stompanato's affair, remember? Lana's daughter stabbed Johnny Stompanato, her mother's lover and, it seems, her lover too That should be enough to make a classic melodrama. Unfortunately, a classic, this one, it ain't'. But a must for movie nuts, like me.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

Where Did Love Go? ***1/2

Author: edwagreen from United States
28 March 2006

Danny has some very serious emotional hangups. Seems that she plunged a knife into her mom's boyfriend. Was it to save her mother? Was it out of a jealous rage?

With a film starring Bette Davis and Susan Hayward, you know that the fireworks are there and they sure are. Nevertheless, they are well matched by a terrific performance by Joey Heatherton as the disturbed teenager. What happened to Heatherton after this film? She was a fine dramatic actress with great potential.

Davis is her usual overbearing mother and has created lots of turmoil for the seriously emotionally unstable Hayward. Both are like sticks of dynamite in the scenes that they appear opposite each other. (In her autobiography Davis lashed out at Hayward stating that she said her lines and would immediately leave the set at the end of the scene.)

In a strong supporting performance, Anne Seymour plays the psychiatrist who tries to help the young Danny. Remember Seymour? Usually a grade-B actress, she gave a fine supporting performance as Broderick Crawford's faithful but neglected wife, Lucy, in the 1949 Oscar winner "All the King's Men."

An emotionally charged film that brings out all the stops. Mike Connors costars as Hayward's ex. An ultimate crowd pleaser due to the fine acting of Davis and Hayward. A downer at the end but still worthwhile seeing.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

''Daddy, I lost my SWEATER!''

Author: phillindholm from Rohnert Park, CA
26 October 2010

And that's not ALL poor Joey Heatherton's lost, in this lurid melodrama adapted from the Harold Robbins novel. Produced by Schlockmeister Joseph E. Levine (''The Carpetbaggers'') ''Where Love Has Gone is a VERY thinly disguised dramatization of the Lana Turner/Cheryl Crane/Johnny Stompanato case in which he was supposedly stabbed to death by Lana's daughter Cheryl. Here, the central figure is a famous sculptress (Susan Hayward) who resents her domineering mother (Bette Davis) and spends most of her time in the sack with various low-life lovers. Heatherton is her neglected teenage daughter, whose estranged father (Michael Connors) flies to her defense when she is accused of the murder. This leads to a lengthy flashback which shows, in detail, the courtship, marriage and eventual divorce he and Hayward endure.And, back in the present (where no one involved looks a day older, let alone wiser) things get worse, as one sordid revelation after another leads all of this to it's laughably melodramatic conclusion. Davis, who reputedly didn't like the script (or Hayward either, for that matter)and sporting a white wig and very thick eye makeup,reads her lines like an elocution school teacher, while Hayward bellows hers so loudly that people who saw this in a theater could probably hear them in the bathroom.And it's Hayward we have to thank for this exercise in excess, because she insisted the script be filmed as written-refusing any changes. Heatherton, trying (and failing) to look 15 yeas old, does little more than pout her way through her part, while occasionally delivering some howlers: ''Oh, Daddy, what's wrong with me? I love all the wrong people-and I HATE all the right ones!''. Oh Yes, and blaming the loss of her virginity on ''Horseback Riding''?. Connors, a few years away from ''Mannix'' is just there. ''Star Trek's'' DeForest Kelly is around as a sleazy art critic, while Film Noir bad girl Jane Greer (making a comeback after a heart operation)is a reserved, but concerned probation officer.And it's Greer, along with Anne Seymour (''All The King's Men'')as a psychiatrist, who give the best performances.This was pretty Hot Stuff for 1964, though less so these days. Despite the box office success it had, it's largely forgotten now.A new DVD has just been released by Olive Films, And the plush Technicolor production is something to see-remastered for the first time in all it's Widescreen Glory. And in spite of (or ,maybe because of) it's Producer attempt to cash in on what was really a very seamy incident in Hollywood History, the film is very entertaining, and a time capsule from a bygone era.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

"What is a honeymoon but two weeks of telling each other lies?"

Author: moonspinner55 from las vegas, nv
9 September 2007

Society sculptress in San Francisco marries a war veteran who turns to the bottle once he fails to carve out his niche outside of his domineering mother-in-law's realm; sometime later, the daughter they share apparently kills mom's lover in a jealous rage. Harold Robbins' best-selling roman à clef lifts its sub-plot from the real-life Lana Turner/Johnny Stompanato case, and those bits and pieces are rather interesting; however, much of the movie is spent with bickering marrieds Susan Hayward and inert Michael Connors trading barbs, and the promising idea loses its impetus and becomes a stillborn soaper. Connors, heavily made-up and with lacquered black hair that never changes during the story's many years, twitches and twists his mouth into a grimace throughout the entire movie, only coming to life while tipsy in a brief dinner scene. Hayward fares better, but her slurpy, silly lines are pure camp ("You're a kept-man, not a war hero! And a drunk! A drunk! A DRUNK!"). Bette Davis is pretty much wasted as Hayward's mother (who would've thought a film co-starring these two high-powered ladies could be so dull?) and Joey Heatherton scowls continuously as the teenager in trouble (I loved her retort though about how she lost her virginity: "It happened horseback riding!"). Tatty-looking picture has some fun trappings (such as Susan's round bed, Princess telephones, and fashions that often match the room decor), but the plot is lazy and Edward Dmytryk's direction is completely rote. Film opens with picture-postcard shots of San Fran coupled with a cheesy title tune crooned by Jack Jones which unbelievably netted an Oscar nomination! *1/2 from ****

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

"When You're Dying Of Thirst...You'll Drink From A Mudhole!" - Valerie Hayden-Miller

Author: Blooeyz2001 from Florida
18 October 2003

This film wanted to cash in on the Lana Turner scandal involving her daughter murdering her boyfriend. Susan Hayward (somewhat of a hambone, but still great!) plays a San Francisco sculptor (with a thick Brooklyn accent) who's work is good only when she's sexually promiscuous. Bette Davis (just 10 years older than Hayward) plays Hayward's domineering, buttinsky mother. She's got a pot belly & wears a "white" George Washington wig that starts turning green as the film progresses. Mike ("Mannix") Connors plays Hayward's boozehound husband who wears more makeup than Hayward & Davis combined (it's disturbing because he looks like a corpse)! Joey Heatherton (20 at the time) plays the murdering "15" year old daughter of Hayward & Connors. She plays the part squinty-eyed, whiney, & child-like one minute, & sassy with a smart-mouth the next while smoking. This is an annoying, unlikable character! Part of the film is told in flashback, yet there's no difference anywhere to be seen from 15 years prior, or the present. Absolutely nothing changes, clothes, hair styles, the sets, etc. This is a great film for Susan Hayward & Bette Davis fans, & soap opera lovers, but I doubt anyone else can sit through this.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

A Potboiler That Blows the Lid Off

Author: vic6567 from United States
23 July 2006

This movie begins with a murder, but the real crime is that this piece isn't on DVD.

While this story is said to be based on the Turner/daughter/lover murder the real punch of THIS story develops out the relationship of the Danielle (Heatherton) character's parents; two people from totally opposite worlds brought together by the drama of war, and sudden celebrity.

Each is ambitious, headstrong and in fact in love.

However their fairy tale includes a powerful matriarch, played by Bette Davis, her performance is stunning; her character so evil and ultimately unpunished for the pain she brings to the lives of everyone in this story.

Their daughter loses most when their relationship is destroyed, "I want to be ten years old and have a mother and father." This movie is her story.

People who criticized the production values, 15 years pass where no one ages note the vehicles used from the war are old, the present includes cars from the early 60's. Frankly I was left thinking hmm what a genteel time when a teen in trouble was only 'sexually active', today she'd have to be portrayed as a crack whore! The story builds to a final confrontation wherein Luke (Connors) takes an approach many fans of the Mannix series will recognize. The revelations of the night of the murder surprised me, with Valerie (Hayward) character tapping inner strength to face down her mother, and paying the ultimate price.

I watched this at the egging' of a friend, in the end I couldn't wait for the finale, screaming and shouting at the TV like the 4th quarter of the Superbowl.

The rich are just like you and me, except they have the money to hide their troubles. 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

A watchable 1960's potboiler

Author: Isaac5855 from United States
8 December 2005

One of my favorite guilty pleasures from the 60's is WHERE LOVE HAS GONE, a turgid 1964 soap opera loosely based on the events surrounding Lana Turner when her daughter Cheryl was accused of murdering her then boyfriend Johnny Stompanato. In this story, the actress becomes a sculptor named Valerie Hayden-Miller and Mike (Mannix) Connors plays Luke Miller, her no good husband. Joey Heatherton is amusing as the daughter and Bette Davis does her fair share of scenery chewing, sitting in the world's ugliest chair, as Valerie's mother. The movie holds a certain morbid fascination since it is loosely based on fact but everyone involved is either overacting or not acting at all which can be quite fun to watch. Hayward is an appropriate hand-wringing heroine from the 60's and Davis just looks embarrassed. I remember reading somewhere that Davis agreed to do this movie so that she could pay for her daughter's wedding. Need I say more?

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Susan Hayward: A Star Is A Star Always

Author: williwaw from United States
24 April 2011

Paramount Pictures assigned star Producer Joseph E Levine to bring the torrid best seller roman a clef of the Lana Turner Johnny Stompanato murder to the screen. Levine cast surefire box office queen Susan Hayward to play "Lana, and to play the other strong female role, the one and only Ms. Bette Davis. There was a long time interest to see these two great stars in a film. Directed by Edward Dymtryk the film is a powerhouse with great acting by Susan Hayward and Bette Davis. I wish they had cast another actor other than Mike Connors in the role of Hayward's lover and Ann Margret rather than Joey Heatheron. Ms. Hayward got top billing over Ms. Davis--the first time in her great career Bette Davis was billed under another great female star!-- and wore great stylish outfits by Edith Head. It is now well known that Bette Davis and Susan Hayward did not get along at all during filming. Susan Hayward was afraid of Bette's well known use of tricks and since Susan Hayward had both cast approval and script approval and top billing, had Bette Davis boxed in. No changes were allowed. In fairness, the script did need more juice and a tougher script would have benefited the talents of Susan Hayward nd Bette Davis. Bette Davis carped about Susan Hayward until her death, and Susan Hayward joined Joan Crawford, Miriam Hopkins on Bette's "hate list". (Soon to be joined by Faye Dunaway and Lillian Gish. Where Love Has Gone with top notch Paramount production values is an old fashioned film and is best seen to see two great movie stars Susan Hayward and Bette Davis!

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Where has the art director gone?

Author: mrsastor from United States
16 June 2008

I'm going to side-step the whole Lana Turner murder plot and just address the big flaming hole in this film.

About ten minutes into the film, we flashback about twenty years to approximately 1944, where we remain for at least an hour. No one changes. Not one bit. Everyone looks exactly the same, even wearing the same 1964 costumes and hairstyles. Someone was thoughtful enough to give Luke a 1940s automobile, which he drives down a street full of 1960's cars! (In 1944, there shouldn't be a Corvair parked across the street). Besides the hair and clothes, all the homes are decorated in the same 1964 decor they had prior to the flashback (oh, those AWFUL grays that just ruin Hayward's "studio"...!) It doesn't really matter what redeeming qualities the film might have outside of this, and I didn't really see much, you can't just insult the hell out of your audience with a lousy flashback that is only twenty years earlier because the characters say it is, and expect them to respect the rest of the film. This is really, really bad; the so-called flashback is the worst art and set direction I have ever seen.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history