Reviews & Ratings for
A Fine Madness More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

17 reviews in total

---

18 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
Sean Connery Shows His Versatility, 31 August 1998
Author: Pem from Arlington, Virginia

This nicely done adaptation of Eliot Baker's comedic novel (screenplay by the author himself) displays Sean Connery at his versatile finest. In the midst of his "Bond" persona (two years after "Goldfinger") Connery gives a brilliant, anti-typical performance as Samson, a poet to whom art is everything, and the polite fictions and civilities of society nothing. As a man, he is rude, crude, sexist and insensitive to the feelings of everyone, including himself. He is a monster in the mode of Gully Jimson [ "A Horse's Mouth" (1958)] or the real-life Dylan Thomas. A genius whose talent is little recognized, the poet reacts violently to the humdrum restraints of a culture that considers genius anti-social. That underlying tension, and his penchant for enjoying every attractive woman who happens to be in the vicinity, get him classified as a psychotic and put on the fast-track schedule for a pre-frontal lobotomy. Connery's talent and charm save this very funny movie from the somewhat offensive obnoxiousness of its hero, and clinch its optimistic argument about the ultimate triumph of artistic greatness. Also, don't miss the lovely performance by Coleen Dewhurst as a psychiatrist-seductress.

---

23 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
A Fine Waste of Celluloid, 13 April 2003
Author: Guy Grand (eatmap@pacbell.net) from Los Angeles, CA

Okay, to borrow a few things from the previous commenter's observations, sure, this is an adaptation from a novel, and apparently the main character is an obnoxious lout who happens to be a genius.

Here's where this film fails in just about every department.

Not for a second do we buy that Sean Connery's Samson is a "genius" in any sense of the word. He's a thick-headed brute who hollers anti-establishment rants that really aren't enlightened nor are they particularly radical. The fact is, though, that he hollers a lot. There is no modulation to Connery's performance. No sense of a human being in there. His character is drawn to just be the hunky societal interloper whose mere physicality and scowls suggest a counterpoint to everyday norm. Genius, he is not.

Topping poor Connery in the shouting department is the screeching yowl of Joanne Woodward, whose hapless wife character of Samson, Rhoda, is given all the depth of a punching bag (literally). Connery takes swipes at her head, connecting with her skull in the end, along with throwing every dish in the apartment in her direction. He even shoves her down the staircase resulting in a broken leg, and perhaps, 1960's sentiments saw this as an uproarious moment of hilarity. You know, madcap abuse of the wife is always so mercilessly humorous. Anyway, you get the picture (reference the above reference to "thick-headed brute").

Jean Seberg is absolutely wasted in this performance. She plays the stifled wife of a renowned psychiatrist, Patrick O'Neal, who for some reason, and quite illogically I can only add, winds up having sex with Connery in a whirlpool bath and then dumping him the next time she sees him. There is no logic in having her character even in this film other than to flesh out the above-the-line star wattage on the marquee.

Only Clive Revill, playing a hare-brained psycho-therapist in every sense of the word, cuts loose with the material and lends a Peter-Sellers-like diversion for a total of 3 minutes screen time.

I cannot conceive of any audience, whether in the '60s or today, eliciting anything more than ho-hum chuckle and a wan smile over this pale comedy with absolutely no focus and one of cinema's most ill-conceived one-note main characters.

My rating: 1 out of 5 stars.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
It's a little heavy on kookiness..., 20 June 2006

Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca

As a poet who is institutionalized, Sean Connery distances himself quite grandly from screen alter-ego James Bond. Connery is unexpectedly gregarious as the avant-garde writer, Joanne Woodard is suitably shrill as his spouse, the supporting cast (including Jean Seberg and the wonderful Zohra Lampert) is terrific, but this is an extremely bumpy, frantic piece on challenging the system. Director Irvin Kershner has always been a little erratic, and his shifts in tone take a while to get used to. The script, from Elliot Baker's novel, is uneven, yet the film certainly looks good, with handsome photography and fine use of New York locations. Often gets confused with "They Might Be Giants", another comedy which also co-starred Joanne Woodward and dealt with a certain madness. ** from ****

---

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
A Peculiar Combination Of James Bond And Ralph Kramden, 7 January 2009

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

A Fine Madness marks Sean Connery's venture into screen comedy and while the man has had many funny moments in his film, comedy was not his strong suit. Ironically he's cast opposite Joanne Woodward who as we know was married to someone who many critics also said was not at his best in comedy.

Whatever else is wrong with A Fine Madness I have always loved Connery's character name, Samson Shillitoe. One of the best screen names ever invented and so right for a would be poet.

Samson for Connery is a peculiar combination of James Bond and Ralph Kramden with Joanne Woodward as his long suffering Alice. This lout is also a chick magnet in the James Bond tradition, though God knows why. He's suffering writer's block and can't seem to finish this epic poem he's trying to write. He also has a process server in John Fiedler chasing him down for back alimony to a former wife.

Woodward puts him in the hands of psychiatrist Patrick O'Neal who claims he can cure creative people of their hangups so they can do their thing. Connery proves an interesting case however to O'Neal's colleagues, Colleen Dewhurst, Jon Lormer, Werner Peters, and especially Clive Revill who's developed a modified lobotomy that can really cure anti-social behavior. You'll find few screen characters as anti-social as Samson Shillitoe. He's also of interest to O'Neal's wife Jean Seberg who just plain ain't getting any lately.

There are some funny moments in A Fine Madness, but ultimately I found it unsatisfying. When all's said and done, though Ralph Kramden threatened many times to bang/zoom Alice to the moon, he never really did. Connery has battered Woodward and quite frankly she's a battered spouse. Why she puts up with him is beyond me completely.

And I'm surprised that this script didn't offend Joanne Woodward's feminist soul. She did the thing though to an unsatisfactory conclusion.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Indescribably horrible mid-'60s "comedy" nightmare, 9 January 2008

Author: pat pat from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

While this may not be the worst film I have ever seen, it comes very close to being the worst comedy of all time. And it may be the most sexist film ever to be produced in the United States. Wife-beating is portrayed as humorous, cheating on your spouse is depicted as admirable, and yelling at, humiliating and degrading women is de rigueur throughout the movie. It's a distillation of everything that was wrong with '60s comedies.

Sean Connery plays a violent, philandering, selfish, hateful bully who imagines himself to be a brilliant poet. When he suffers writer's block, his screeching, yammering nag of a wife (Joanne Woodward, at the nadir of her career) sends him to a pretentious psychiatrist for treatment. After Connery ends up seducing the psychiatrist's sexy wife (Jean Seaberg, in a squandered, vapid role), he is condemned (spoiler alert) to have a lobotomy. Yes, folks, this is a lobotomy comedy. It's about as funny as it sounds. Along the way the audience is treated to "wacky" chase scenes, goofy camera angles, rinky-dink pianos and theremins in the soundtrack, and incessant shouted dialogue -- while every female role is an insulting caricature: the prissy old matron, the nymphomaniac secretary, the harpy of a wife, the bored socialite, and so on. Connery's poet is supposed to be a lovable anti-hero, but he comes across as loathsome and contemptible, and by the end you'll want to give him a lobotomy yourself just to shut him up.

What makes all this especially puzzling is that Connery was the top leading man in the world when "A Fine Madness" was made, riding high on the unparalleled success of his James Bond roles. Why in heaven's name did he choose this embarrassingly amateurish script when he had the entire film industry at his feet? A terrible career blunder.

Imagine taking the film "Charly" (aka "Flowers for Algernon," about a retarded man who is given brain surgery), the worst episode of the TV sex farce "Love American Style," and some outtakes from the Keystone Kops, and then editing them all together into a disastrous mash- up of conflicting styles and painfully unfunny humor -- voila, you have "A Fine Madness."

The only redeeming features are the true-life location shots on the streets of mid-'60s Manhattan (which New-York-o-philes might enjoy), and a hilarious mini-documentary about Sean Connery made in 1966 to promote the movie, included on the DVD as a bonus. Aside from that, though, "A Fine Madness" is a depressing fiasco of a film, not even worth watching in the "so bad it's unintentionally funny" category. And to top it all off, the ending makes absolutely no sense, and serves to render the entire film pointless, even when accepted at face value. What were they thinking?

If, by writing this review, I can save just one person from having to endure sitting through "A Fine Madness," then my life will have been worthwhile.

---

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
An underrated film, 23 June 2006

Author: Oblique Devon from United States

A largely underrated film. Released in 1966 (a year after Thunderball), Connery obviously wanted a departure from the static James Bond debonair and so took on the volatile character - Samson Shillitoe (erratic poet). The transition is not a complete alienation of the Bond character. He still gets the girls, though there is some poising and strutting.

If you think of this movie as a precursor to Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" it is brilliant in sort of a "The Odd Couple" sitcom vein. Those looking to see "action hero" Sean Connery will probably be disappointed. "A Fine Madness" looks to be inspired by the antics of Charles Bukowski and the revival of the dialog between pyschotherpy, psychopharmacology and brain augmentation in the early-mid 60's.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A Divine Madness?, 18 January 2011

Author: Andrew Goss from Australia

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Cute music, New York street scenes, lots of pace, some really good actors, an audacious plot, probably ahead of its time, some delightful vignettes, so what went wrong? Probably the fact that it is neither funny nor illuminating. There is humour, mostly visual, but this is outweighed by Shillitoe's wanton violence and abusiveness when thwarted. The film could not exist without Samson Shillitoe, no other set of characteristics would bring all those disparate plot and character elements together. You might say that Shillitoe is the creator of the story, indeed, of the little world that the film inhabits. As I watched, a memory began to surface, of the God Thor in Douglas Adams' novel "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul". That, with Shillitoe's obscure references to Apollo, and the failure of Menken's surgery, suggest that Shillitoe is not mortal, but a God of the classical era come amongst us on a whim, or perhaps in exile. Anyway, that's the only excuse I can think for for this shambles.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
One Flew Under the Cuckoo's Nest, 4 July 2010

Author: Jay Raskin from Orlando, United States

Sean Connery did make about half a dozen excellent non-James Bond Films. This is not one of them. They include "The Man Who Would Be King," "Robin and Mariam," "The Name of the Rose," "The Untouchables," "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." He is 80 years old now, and it would be nice if the Motion Picture Academy honored him with a lifetime achievement award (as the American Film Institute did in 2006).

Here's the positive side. There are some pretty shots of New York City circa 1966, giving the film a bit of a Neil Simon-Woody Allen look. The first half hour is fine. We get a good introduction of the characters. Connery messing up a Lady's Club invitation to read his poetry is not as funny as it should have been, but is the funniest scene in the film.

Unfortunately the film goes nowhere after that. There's no character development and almost every comedy bit and scene falls flat. Many scenes are punctuated and underscored by loud, energetic music. This seems to be done on purpose to distract the audience from thinking, "What? Why is that supposed to be funny?"

The name of Connery's character is Samson Shillitoe. I assume that the name has something to do with the famous writer Stirling Silliphant. I'm not sure if the character had anything to do with the man.

I do think Sean Connery and Joanne Woodward deserve some credit for developing their characters as much as they do. They are working hard, one might say frantically, to make something out of the script. Everybody else, including Jean Seberg, Patrick O'Neil, Coleen Dewhurst and Zohra Lampert are wasted in non-roles that should have been played by less talented actors.

Altogether, not an enjoyable film, but possibly worth a look as an example of a bad New York City mid-60's comedy. It'll make you appreciate "Barefoot in the Park" that much more.

---

Fun social satire made redundant by One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 3 May 2012

Author: Dave from Ottawa from Canada

The idea that free-spirited creativity is a social disorder that must be cured by a well-meaning but thoroughly incompetent psychiatric establishment is the theme here, and one quite familiar to anybody who has seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Sean Connery was a great choice to play a blocked, womanizing writer at the core of the drama and he centers the film with his amiable exuberance. Comparisons to Cuckoo's Nest are inevitable, and this film lacks the other's stifling power and resonance, but it shares a common vision of the psychiatric profession acting as a microcosm of authoritarian abuses in society at large. Still, this is a funny and charming, much lighter satire on the same subject, energetically directed by Irvin Kirschner, and enjoyable for Connery fans in any case.

---

Pre counter-culture pablam, 27 May 2010

Author: ultimessence from United States

Alright, this film is generally awful, admitedly...However, I always try to look at any motion picture in the context of it's day and in it's retrospective historical perspective.

I like to look at movies as sociological studies, and the best ones transcend their time, becoming truly timeless.

"A Fine Madness" fairly stinks of clueless farce. The filmmakers completely lacked any shred of inspiration; a must for ALL art, IMHO.

Just looked at it; it's big,loud and randy without any awareness of the cultural changes about to happen in the late 1960s. These artifacts are unintentionally funny, as with any generation gap showing the older generation trying to be hip, but just embarrassing themselves, as when the Rat Pack tried fruitlessly to stay cool in the late 60s. Hollywood was out of touch with the youth of the counter culture, and with some exceptions, like "Hard Days Night", "Alfie", "Medium Cool" and "Easy Rider", most 1960s movies that tried to look authentic and relevant to the times, failed.

So, despite its badly written characters, it's hopelessly dated Psychiatric themes, its corrosively dated sexism and the apaulingly visionless, artless presentation, there ARE a few interesting elements.

Clearly a big budget film, I was impressed by the progressive bravado that the director showed in manhandling New York City. These bold tracking shots and cunningly calculated hand held camera work was quite new for 1966. These classy looking outdoor location scenes merging actors staying in character with the hubbub of the steaming cauldren of street life in Manhattan could not have been pulled off with a small budget. Look at that amazing tracking shot of Connery running on the Brooklyn Bridge. Many neighborhoods were captured in a stunning naturalism that was unprecidented. So if nothing else, it is as amazing a record of the city as when Harold Lloyd caught it back in the 1920s.

It's too bad the story couldn't have been embued with a great script. Perhaps something about the Village, with all it's alternative zeal, and incorporating the changing times which the city was such a part of.

The Music score tried to be wacky and inventive too...One could even see elements of Danny Elfman 30 years earlier, with all the big, burlesque horns and drums. Evidently the score was trying to compensate for the dull script and shrill, yet pedestrian performances by spicing up the soundtrack. But after a while the relentless music became as grating as Joanne Woodward's shrill hollering voice.

We have to wonder what Billy Wilder or Elia Kazan would have done for this material? Sigh...But Hollywood has always been bottom line, and wants to make its profit fast. Art? Who cares. Vision? Timelessness? Feh, sez the Movie Machine that has forever pandered to the lowest common denominator.

One leaves this dreadful film with the notion that it was teetering right on the precepis of the Martini vs. Mariquana epochs and fell back into its pre-sexual revolution, postwar establishment ethos with the thud of someone who just missed his train.

Interestingly and awkwardly, one is easily reminded of one of Connery's famous statements in a latter interview where he cavalierly remarked that 'Women should be hit now and then to keep them in line', or something to that effect. One can imagine his brutish Samson saying the same thing in this antique archive of a darker time in American HIStory.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another review

---

Related Links

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