Reviews & Ratings for
Loving More at IMDbPro »

16 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Slow-going, but worth it, 11 July 2004

Author: DepartmentStoreLover from Australia

LOVING is a film for the patient movie buff. It is not a film for those who want to see murders or car crashes every five minutes. It is a maturely-told, sensitively-acted, -written and -directed film about a commercial artist's marital (and extra-marital) entanglements. It relies on character rather than plot to convey its points.

All the actors are spotless in their portrayals, especially George Segal and Eva Marie Saint as the artist and his harried wife. It is a film that slowly builds interest in the characters which is amply rewarded for the audience by the film's conclusion. LOVING is a film that will leave you silent at the end, and thinking about it for days afterward.

12 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Critically acclaimed for a reason, 13 July 2004
Author: (wrongjohn) from united states

I caught this film on late night cable (maybe even the 'romance' movie channel) and it left a deep impression. There is a gap between this type of melodrama in European cinema at the time and the 'revolution' that was happening in American cinema, particularly the suspension of moral judgment outside of epiphany. The main character is having a typical middle age, middle class crisis and we are allowed to see it unfold unencumbered by a personal transformation, a complete crash. This type of screen writing is having a revival in shows like 6 feet under on HBO. I would recommend it to anyone interested in that dark, muddy 1970's American cinema that seems to put the middle class of the 1960's to rest but doesn't become another 'desert road trip' film.

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
"Everybody has his own good reasons", 6 July 2003

Author: (saltsan) from Texas

In the great Jean Renoir classic "Rules of the Game", a character played by the director himself comments that "everybody has his own good reasons." This rightly has been taken to be the great humanist director's basic philosophy of life. Seeing, over and over again, this understanding, non-judgmental attitude by a narrative artist toward his characters' weaknesses is what makes art film audiences love Renoir's work and consider him one of the greatest filmmakers of the 20th century. Irvin Kershner's "Loving" is one of the rare Hollywood films worthy of being called Renoirian, and it is for just this reason. Even though "Loving" is filled with highly-flawed characters making seemingly disastrous choices about their lives, its genius is how it puts the audience in a position where it cannot (or at least cannot with any decency) judge them. This may be more than many audience members can handle, being so used to films with heroes and villains about whom they are allowed to feel smugly superior. The legendary "New Yorker" critic Pauline Kael, in her rave review of the film, wrote that it "looks at the failures of middle-class life without despising the people; it understands that they already despise themselves" and that there's "a decency in the way that Kershner is fair to everyone." We could use a few more films like "Loving" out there in the American film cannon. If you every get a chance to see this film, don't hesitate to do so!

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
One of the best American films ever made, with Segal's finest performance, 9 September 2010

Author: roegcamel from United States

LOVING is an absolute masterpiece. It's aesthetically impressive (lensed masterfully by cinematography guru Gordon Willis), stunningly well acted by the entire cast and expertly written with a fine balance of side-splitting humor and deep insight into the male mid-life crisis.

Segal, giving the performance of his impressive career, stars as Brooks, a graphic designer who is married to a lovely, devoted lady (Eva Marie Saint, never better) and has two young daughters. Brooks is dissatisfied with his home life and has been having an affair with a college age girl. He's convinced that he's in love with his mistress, but she could be anybody; he's willing to strike up an affair with any attractive woman who makes eyes at him. He is at a crucial career juncture as well; if he lands a big account he's going for, he can make a down payment on the big house his wife wants... but as the deal looks like it's going to go through, he becomes increasingly disinterested in his relationship with his wife and starts looking for a way out.

The film contains a great many comical moments (e.g. when Segal gets drunk at a private bar, his physical antics are hilarious), but the bulk of the goings-on are genuinely cringe-inducing; we feel no end of sorrow for Brooks' wife, yet the film does an interesting job of making us somehow feel for the self-centered Brooks (much of this is owing to Segal's immensely charming performance, a trick he repeated later in the thematically similar BLUME IN LOVE). It's a challenging, engaging film that's deserving of a much larger audience. Don't miss LOVING.

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
a minor but worthwhile film, 24 July 2008

Author: kc119 from Vacaville, CA

In the wake of Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice came a string of similar sex comedy/dramas including Loving. George Segal was on a role in the late 60's/early 70's, but this is one of his lesser known efforts from the period. And seeing how few votes this movie has gotten here on IMDb, it's still quite unknown despite being available on DVD since 2003.

The film has a typical plot of it's time: successful man throwing away his perfect life with wife and kids with his unfaithfulness. Eva Marie Saint who plays his wife is far more attractive than the woman he's seeing on the side, so it was hard for me to feel any sympathy at all for this guy. A young Sherry Lansing (the future Paramount producer) shows up in a small but memorable role, looking like the twin sister of Raquel Welch. She should of played the "other woman" instead, we would of understood why he was cheating on his wife a whole lot more. Not only did Lansing's career end not long after Loving, but the actress who played the other woman, Janice Young, vanished completely after Loving, as did the other major actress in the movie, Nancie Phillips. Neither of their IMDb listings list them as being deceased, so i'm definitely curious as to their whereabouts.

One major reason why this movie deserves more attention is that it now possesses more historical importance than ever before. As noted in the trivia section, there's a scene that takes place at a construction site, and that scene was shot on location at none other than the World Trade Center construction site, of all places.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
sleeper Segal film, 3 September 2009

Author: RanchoTuVu from Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico

Even George Segal himself acknowledged that he had a bland screen presence (Halliwell's Film Guide-1995). Most people wouldn't list him as one of their favorite actors. However, he was definitely okay for this film. Segal's character in this movie is quasi-tragic, a talented commercial artist and a family man, married to adequately attractive Eva Marie Saint and with two cute, wise-cracking daughters. Why he seems to want (or needs) to throw this away for drinking and women makes for somewhat compelling viewing, and leads to a great climax at a party for a lot of sophisticated art types on a very cold winter's night, in which first a lot of drinking and then temptation lead to one of the better conclusions you're likely to see.

4 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Garbled drama about the unsatisfied working-class..., 15 June 2006

Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca

George Segal (scruffier than ever) plays a troubled family man with a suffering business who is cheating on wife Eva Marie Saint, cast yet again as a hand-wringing wife. Segal's an affable screen presence, but we never learn much about what makes him tick, what causes him to hurt the ones he loves. Talented director Irvin Kershner has hit a few snags in his career, but the semi-improvisational ground he's treading here desperately needs a center, or a leading character we can attach some emotions to. The finale is well-realized, and Segal's comeuppance is provocative and thoughtful. At least something is HAPPENING. Overall, it's another cynical slice of life, and it probably looked a lot fresher in 1970 than it does now. ** from ****

1 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
A bit of a chore, 27 August 2009

Author: rolee-1 from United States

I know that movies about alcoholics aren't implicitly bad. I know that movies about people obviously headed for ruin aren't implicitly bad. I know that movies from the seventies aren't necessarily bad. But up until the last scene, I found the movie irritating. I'm sure that that is probably some of what the director wanted: we're supposed to be irritated by the stupid things the characters do, we're supposed to be irritated by all the same things that get under the skin of Brooks Wilson. Somehow though, the irritation wasn't translated for me. It was dumped directly into my veins without any intermediary.

I think that it's mostly because it's a seventies movie and I find so much of seventies movies tiresome. As soon as I started watching it, I found myself gritting my teeth as I saw the city streets and all the late sixties and early seventies cars and clothing. I know that the movie has value and it was probably a very interesting film when it was released. And I think that the ending makes it worth it, but only just.

If you can see past the seventies style or don't have the negative reaction that I do, you will find it much more enjoyable. If you don't like seventies movies, you probably won't like this one either.

1 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
A God-Awful Film, 28 August 2009

Author: lorelei3 from VA, US

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I just finished watch this movie and it was one of the worst 1.5 hrs. I've spent in my life.

Let me work backwards on this; when the final credits ran I was so confused by the abrupt ending that I had to rewind just to make sure that the movie didn't cut off the ending. It made no sense whatsoever.

Immediately after the fight scene, the redhead just walks away. You'd think she would have said something and wouldn't it have been better if Brooks had seen her standing there?

There is no relationship between the viewing audience and the actors, you end up not caring at all about the characters.

Oh and don't let me forget the biggest mystery of them all, and this really kills me. The part where the guy goes into the room with the drunk girl -- you know he's going to take advantage of her but there are no repercussions and no one ever knows! Why did they put this in there if the hidden TV cam didn't even catch him?!?!?

I beg of you all, don't watch this. The only reason I rated it a 4 rather than a 1 is because of the groovy 70's music and fashion.

Add another review

Related Links