At Long Last Love (1975) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
59 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
At Long Last It's Over
cstotlar-16 August 2013
Peter Bogdanovitch is obviously in love stars and being among them - the starrier, the better.After a while, some of his films like this one seem to feel like "us" (the stars) vs "them", (the unanointed audience). He seems to have assembled a sure-fire formula for success - the glitziest supported by a Cole Porter score. The problem, of course, is that the singers can't sing or dance at all. What in the world was in the mind of the director. He was star-struck - that much is completely obvious - but it ended up that the stars were stuck. So was the audience.

Curtis Stotlar
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A paean to the past which doesn't pay off...
moonspinner5523 April 2011
Writer-director Peter Bogdanovich attempts to resurrect the fast-talking, romantic-minded musicals of the past with "At Long Last Love", but he fails to infuse it with the proper talent. As a wealthy heiress in smart society circa 1935, dating an immigrant gambler but in love with a playboy, Cybill Shepherd doesn't quite invoke the spirit of Jean Arthur or Ginger Rogers. She's boxy and flippant, like a female impersonator, and she never connects with anyone else on-screen. Burt Reynolds fares a bit better by emulating Clark Gable--affable yet quizzical--though he has more rapport with Madeline Kahn as a Broadway chanteuse than with shallow Shepherd. We can see that, but why can't Bogdanovich? Because the picture is meant as a showcase for Shepherd's musical and comedic talents, however her dancing abilities are nil and she's pseudo-addlepated without being funny. The movie, scored with Cole Porter songs (which the actors sing live), doesn't soar, however Kahn manages to blossom regardless--and in unexpected ways (she's softer and more womanly than ever before). John Hillerman, as Reynolds' valet, and Eileen Brennan have a nice romantic subplot, and Mildred Natwick is well-cast as Burt's dotty, energetic mother (essentially the same character she played in "Barefoot in the Park"). Bogdanovich approaches the material with a giddy sense of fun, but the results are like an inside-joke: the audience comes in after the punchline. *1/2 from ****
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Tries Hard But Falls Short
richievee31 May 2019
I am a BIG fan of Peter Bogdanovich's stellar "The Last Picture Show" and "Paper Moon," so I wanted to like "At Long Last Love." Alas, the film is a disappointment on nearly every level. All of the lead roles are played by accomplished and likable actors. They try hard, and the singing is (meh) acceptable, but Bogdanovich just cannot seem to inject any flair and momentum. Most scenes just lie there with no sense of forward motion. I enjoyed many of the comedic moments, but the nebulous story line caused my interest to wander. I would place "At Long Last Love" well ahead of the director's tedious "Nickelodeon," but that is not saying a whole lot. A mildly entertaining, if overlong, two hours of your life.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
It just lasts too long unless you love this kind of film
AlsExGal19 August 2023
Burt Reynolds is not a musical entertainer, and this is not to say that people who aren't professional singers can't be charming in a musical setting. He just simply has no charm here. He is awkward, and he looks ill-at-ease. Likewise, Cybill Shepherd, who in Last Picture Show has a certain charm and presence is not charming in this movie at all.

I'm also sorry to say that the situations where the songs come out seem contrived. This is not to bash Bogdanovich, or musicals, it's simply to say that a project that he had dreams and aspirations for didn't work out. It's not just a case of bad casting though, because the script is terrible and the jokes fall flat. Bogdonavich wrote the script, but why didn't he simply get a good writer? Just because you're a good director, it's not automatic you're also an Algonquin roundtable wit. I think what Bogdanovich was aiming for was something like the early sound musical films of Ernest Lubitsch. Those were all done with live singing on the set, and that is what he was trying to reproduce, but it's simply impossible when you don't have the talent, the script, and the same lightning-in-a-bottle that Lubitsch had to put it all across. At Long Last Love wanted to be charming and magical, but to me, it completely misses the mark, plus it's boring.

I'd always heard that this film ruined the first incarnation of Cybil Shepherd's acting career, but I looked it up and she didn't take a break from acting until the early 1980s. This for sure didn't hurt Burt Reynolds' career. The whole story of it does rather remind me of the old 1984 film "Irreconcilable Differences" in which a rising Hollywood director abandons his wife for the up-and-coming star of his big hit film, makes a musical version of Gone With The Wind that bombs starring his new girlfriend, and winds up losing his shirt, his career, and his girlfriend. I wonder if this film was an inspiration for portions of that film? Hmmm.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Terrible in a way that is nearly impossible to grasp
M. David7 July 1999
Remember the scene in the remake of "The Fly" when Gena Davis and Jeff Goldblum are tasting a steak and then tasting a steak that has been sent through the molecular transporter? The reaction is that the transported steak tastes "synthetic", like a computer's "interpretation" of what a steak is. That's the same sensation you get with "At Long Last Love". Bogdanovich, heady with success and power, decided that he could make a "live" musical, the way they had to make them in the Thirties. "Hey, I know what Musicals are made of!" you can imagine him saying. What he didn't understand was casting and historical context. His musical is plastic, inept, and grotesquely embarrassing. It is a "must-see" for your All-Time Worst Movies list, along with John Boorman's "The Heretic: Exorcist II". It's that bad.
16 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Hear Burt sing!
Mister-613 September 1999
Or on second thought, don't.

You don't go into a movie like "At Long Last Love" for the singing talent of the cast; this group couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, so the kids say.

This is a movie that is more in the vein of "What's Up, Doc?", where everything is a setup for a gag and nothing is taken seriously. At times, I think it would have been best to pay the extra money and get Streisand as the love interest.

But no, we're stuck with a tuneless Shepherd who sings (sings?) her love to a tone-deaf Reynolds while Kahn and Del Prete (who?) croak to one another, all to the desecrated tunes of Cole Porter.

I'm sure that Porter was not only turning in his grave, he was doing jack knifes, somersalts and half gainers. Peter, using the music is fine, but shouldn't you have gotten some actors who can actually, I don't know, SING???

The movie looks good, the sets are grand, the comedy pieces stand out, and Hillerman and Brennan make good impressions as Reynolds' and Shepherd's respective servants/best friends. As for the rest, who could have went into this thinking it was a good idea? Anyone? Besides Bogdanovich?

Some day, they'll take the musical numbers out of this movie, re-edit it back together and this will become a landmark comedy and a new success for Bogdanovich, but until they can get the money together for that....

Three stars. Mostly for the comedy bits and for the fact that Kahn is the closest to a singer this movie has. If that gives you some idea....

When this movie ends, you'll be singing, "At Long Last OVER!".
17 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Underrated, Ambitious Musical
JimFK30 June 1999
This is definitely a case of people running around saying a film is terrible they've probably never seen. Upon release, the film was trashed, probably partially because of its type of cinema being out of favor (this was Scorsese/Altman time) and because of people's annoyance with Bogdanovich and Shepard on talk shows and such. But with time as a distancer, watch this film and dare to tell me it isn't superiour to "Everyone Says I Love You" in every way! I LIKE "Everyone says..." but this film, with its cinematography, and its use of Cole Porter tunes to advance the plot, while uneven, is much more ambitious than the charming Allen film. If you didn't like the Allen film, you may well not like this -- but Reynolds, Shepard, Eileen Brennan singing, which got trashed upon release, is just as good as Roberts, Norton et al warbling in "Everyone." This is a funny, unique work that does occasionally suffer from the cutes -- but so what? Polly Platt, Bogdanovich's ex-wife, always talks about this as one of his "he's no good after he left me" examples, but at least his musical retains its music (she's one of the creators of James L. Brooks' "I'll Do Anything"). This film is a target from so many for no good reason. I recommend this and "Nickelodeon", another overlooked Bogdanovich picture, to be rediscovered as the just plain good films they are!
31 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
DON'T BELIEVE THE REVISIONIST "LOVERS" OF THIS DRECK
kiga-110 May 2023
Many reviewers are treating this movie like a misunderstood classic whose time has come.

To say they are wrong is not an opinion it's a fact. I love the fact that they can't respond directly to my review, it must drive them crazy.

But you can't substitute trained musical singer/actor/dancers with stars who aren't trained experienced in this sort of style. It's embarrassing and painful to watch.

(I feel the rage of the apologists of this movie brewing since they can't respond to this.)

Trying to mix "witty" Hepburn/Tracy-type banter with non-singers attempting Cole Porter was a mistake.

Cybil Shepherd and Burt Reynolds were especially bad and the mugging by Eileen Brennan and Madeleine Kahn was embarrassing.

You can't have it both ways: either stick with a non-musical witty comedy or surrender to the fantasy of musical numbers and overdub. But this is a jaw-dropping travesty for all concerned.

There is a certain style, urbanity and lightness of touch required to pull off Cole Porter and none of these folks had it.

The singing was so off-key as to be painful (even the normally reliable Madeleine Kahn) and the dancing although barely competent, was high school level.

The movie is as bad as the reviewers said it was back in 1975 and the restored scenes only highlight how unsuited these actors are for this type of material.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I love this movie!
lengel4619 January 2005
This movie is one of my all-time favorites! I saw it three times in the theater and thankfully was able to record it during a rare TV broadcast. I watch it at least once a year.

The costumes and set design are beautiful. I love the basic black and white color-scheme throughout. John Hillerman and Eileen Brennan are wonderful with their witty repartee. Cybil Shepherd is the ideal spoiled,dumb blonde. And Burt Reynolds truly is the consummate rich, playboy bachelor (probably actually type casting back in 1975) It's very campy and of course the songs are phenomenal.

Forget what the critics say. WATCH THIS MOVIE
28 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I liked it
crose59 February 2003
When I saw it in'75 (I was 25 at the time) I walked out of the theater smiling, and sang Cole Porter tunes in my car all the way home. It was a preview, so it hadn't been panned yet and I had formed my own opinion. Eileen Brennan cracked me up in her wanton pursuit of John Hillerman. Cybill was just my age and a knockout and, no, she doesn't sing badly. I've never been a big fan of Burt, but I liked him more after the movie than before. Kahn was marvelous, Del Prete the weak link, because I couldn't understand his English. Don't expect it to be more than cotton candy, it's sweet without substance and doesn't pretend to be more. It was probably the first exposure I'd had to Cole Porter since Can-Can (1960 - I was 10 then) and I fell in love with his music again, and forever. It's not the Music Man or Top Hat or Flying Down to Rio, but just go along for the pleasant ride, enjoy the sets and costumes, and, especially, the words and music. If you want to trash it, go ahead, but I think that those who do need a glass of champagne(or two)and to just chill out. --- Carl
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"A total wreck, a flop..."
majikstl2 August 2004
In this attempt to make a new old movie, Madeline Kahn, playing a supposedly famous stage star named Kitty O'Kelly, performs the song "Give Me a Primitive Man" in a supposed Broadway musical (supposedly written by Cole Porter). The number is dreadful. The concept is stupid, the staging clumsy and Kahn may or may not be putting us on, in much the same way she parodied Marlene Dietrich in BLAZING SADDLES. The only interesting thing about it is trying to figure out if the musical number is supposed to be bad. I mean, is it supposed to be good but was just badly done, or was it supposed to be purposely bad to show that Kitty isn't very talented, or was it supposed to be intentionally funny-bad, and just isn't funny? Just what the heck was director/writer Peter Bogdanovich trying to do?

That is the question that haunts AT LONG LAST LOVE. All the songs -- torn violently from the Cole Porter songbook -- are badly performed. Indeed, all the numbers are so consistently awful, it would seem that it was Bogdanovich's intent. But why? Obviously, some of the songs are purposely butchered -- sung by characters who are supposed to be drunk or hung over or desperately trying to be nonchalant. So, it is bad enough that Bogdanovich goes out of his way to render some of Porter's witty lyrics gratingly unmelodic and sometimes totally unintelligible, but in other unfortunate numbers, the songs seem to be victims of incompetent staging and performances that are either simply indifferent or just flat out lousy. It is hard to say which is more offensive: that Bogdanovich would choose to mangle Porter's music or that he couldn't be bothered to do the songs justice.

This is all the more perplexing since this is supposed to be a valentine to Cole Porter, a celebration of the wit and charm of his songs, all wrapped up in a pretty package designed to look like the Lubitsch comedies and the Astaire and Rogers musicals of the 1930s. Well, the packaging is nicely done; the art deco set design looks great. But the tone of the movie is schizophrenic: The plot is featherweight: a silly tale of the idle rich dilly-dallying around in a game of change-partners-and-romance. Yet, though the film was conceived to honor Porter, his material is approached with something slightly above contempt. It seems that everyone thinks they are just too good to be involved with the project, or worse, with Porter's music. The result is sophisticated bemusement performed with juvenile arrogance; sweetness soured by disdain.

This type of story is not meant to be taken seriously by the audience, but the players ought to at least respect the material enough to fake some interest. Instead, we get something akin to amateur night at the high school talent show. This sort of comedy doesn't require great acting, but it does demand a certain attitude, a sincere appreciation for style and a knack for comedic timing. John Hillerman, Mildred Natwick and Duilio del Prete get into the spirit of things, though the comedy styles of Kahn and Eileen Brennan are a bit too broad for this kind of material. (They fare much better in nostalgic parodies like THE CHEAP DETECTIVE and CLUE.) But they all fall under the shadow of the nominal stars, Burt Reynolds and Cybill Shepherd. One doesn't expect Reynolds to be Fred Astaire or Cary Grant, or even Edward Everett Horton, but at least he could have tried to stifle his tendency to mug for the camera like a teenage boy trying to show his friends how cool he is. By the same token, Shepherd is in her are-we-done-yet? prom queen mode, seemingly bored with the whole affair. Neither can sing well, and unlike the supporting players, they don't even try.

But, as bad as Reynolds and Shepherd are, all the blame has to go to Bogdanovich; he is the one who miscast them in the first place and then made no apparent attempt to make them behave. Bogdanovich apparently loves Cole Porter, yet he lets Reynolds and Shepherd treat the songs like they are reciting dirty limericks: they snicker and snort and contribute smarmy asides. Possibly Bogdanovich was aiming for the film to have an easygoing attitude, a sense of contemporary improvisation. But the resulting scenes look like everybody is walking through the material on the first day of rehearsal. Instead of casual, the tone is callous; indifferent rather than infectious. Light and airy does not come easy; in the movies actors have to work hard to make it look like they aren't working at all. Timing is everything, in comedy and in music. A film scholar like Bogdanovich should have realized this.

The film's title song asks the musical question "Is it a fancy not worth thinking of? Or is it At Long Last Love?" Under Bogdanovich's direction, it turns out to be both.
22 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Ahead of its time
mcelesia-15 January 2005
This film was widely misinterpreted at the time of its release. As the other commentator on this page mentions, Bogdanovich not only used non-professional singers, but the songs were recorded live! Each actor had an earpiece through which they received a transmission of the basic melody. I was fond of the movie from the very beginning, being such a devoted fan of Madeline Kahn (just check out her Primitive Man number), but the true finds of the movie were the delicious Eileen Brennan and the deadpan John Hillerman, as the faithful servants. I do not hesitate to say that Eileen Brennan, with that incredible delivery and posture, a cigarette dangling from her lips, was the best thing to hit a Hollywood kitchen since Thelma Ritter in All About Eve! I hope this film will eventually be released in DVD. And by the way, shame on you Mr. Bodanovich for apologizing for your creation. Too bad she was not nominated for an Oscar.
23 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Far better than its reputation suggests
utgard143 July 2020
There was a time I would have watched this movie and joined in the choir of voices trashing it. Thankfully I'm way past that time. I admit it's not a perfect movie but I like it a lot. It's a fun homage to the Astaire and Rogers style of musicals from the 1930s. The many Cole Porter songs are enjoyable to listen regardless of the quality of the singers. For the record I don't think they're bad. I especially love the vintage set designs, wardrobe, cars, etc. It really makes the style of the period come alive. It's all just so lovely to look at. This is far from Peter Bogdanovich's best film but it is my favorite work of his. Call it a guilty pleasure if you want but I think it's a very upbeat entertaining movie that most people with obstruction-free derrières will enjoy.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What a train wreck!
jjnxn-110 May 2013
Glue footed travesty that makes a mockery of the very films it sets out to honor. Bogdanovich has seemingly no understanding of the genre and even if the cast were better the film would still be deeply flawed. A very few performers acquit themselves without shame, unsurprisingly they are old pros Mildred Natwick, John Hillerman and too a lesser extent Eileen Brennan. Madeleine Kahn tries her best and isn't terrible but the songs aren't suited to her unique brand of talent and the direction does her no favors. Duilio Del Prete is a nonentity who makes no impression. That leaves the leads who are awful both separately and together. Reynolds at least seems to be giving it the old college try the problem being that he can neither sing nor dance and shares zero chemistry with Cybill Shepherd. Early in her career here she is hopelessly out of her depth, in time she was able to perform a song with at least a little finesse, not here. She also dances with no grace whatsoever and is stiff in her scenes, the movie stops dead whenever she is on screen. A mess!
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Exhilarating Musical
drednm3 November 2002
An homage to 30s musicals, this vastly underrated film features tongue-in-cheek performances by Cybill Shepherd and Burt Reynolds, and terrific comedy turns by Eileen Brennan and Madeline Kahn.

Kahn does a great, obscure Cole Porter (all music in this film) called "Find Me a Primitive Man"; Brennan shines in the "Gentlemen Don't Want Love" number. Duilio del Prete, Mildred Natwick, and John Hillerman are also quite good.

Many obscure Porter songs and a few well-known ones. The costumes and sets are nice and evoke the 30s with the star blacks and whites with hints of beige. While the dancing may be a little rough, the stars more than make up for it in their zest and obvious enjoyment of the material.

The entire cast has fun with this slight story of changing partners until each finds at long last love. Reynolds might be a tad too silly but Shepherd has fun and display a great set of pipes. Ultimately, Brennan and Kahn make this one worth catching.
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Stinker!
paskuniag10 August 2002
I didn't realze that Cole Porter fans who frequent the IMDB were such a desperate lot as to praise this travesty of a film to the high heavens.

And it's not as if this movie has only minor flaws to it. It has major flaws from the get-go, such as a pair of non-singing, non-dancing leads who are suppose to sing and dance. Credibility ends right there. Overlooking the fact that Burt and Cybill shouldn't be singing or dancing on film is like Max Bialystock telling Leo Bloom to overlook the fact that Max's chosen director for "Springtime for Hitler," Roger De Bris, is wearing a dress. I'm with Bloom- there's something definitely out of place here.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Aside from casting Andy Devine or Marcel Marceau, I can't think of any actors LESS suited to a musical than the folks in this one!!
planktonrules11 October 2008
Director, writer, producer Peter Bogdonovich has managed something amazing in AT LONG LAST LOVE. He actually managed to make a musical with leads who actually sang worse than those in Joshua Logan's PAINT YOUR WAGON. I used to think seeing and hearing Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood singing in Logan's film was the height of horrid casting, but Bogdonovich managed to find four singers who were equal to or worse than Marvin and Eastwood. That's no small feat, as perhaps only Andy Devine and Marcel Marceau were more ill-suited to a musical than Madeline Kahn, Burt Reynolds, Cybill Shepherd and Duilio Del Prete (not to mention many other supporting actors in the film who simply couldn't sing).

And, by the way, WHO the heck is Duilio Del Prete and why is this Italian playing a guy called "the Spaniard"--especially since his command of English and acting skills are marginal, at best?! Plus, his having previously been in THE ASSASSINATION OF TROTSKY wasn't exactly a glowing endorsement of his talents! This is just one of many bizarre casting decisions by Bogdonovich.

Bogdonovich's idea of making a homage to 1930s style musicals (complete with excellent and familiar Cole Porter songs) isn't bad at all. In many ways, the film is reminiscent of some of the Astaire/Rogers films--minus the quality singing and dancing. In fact, it looks much more like a community theater or talent show production because of all the insane choices that brought the quality of the film to an unbelievably low level. It's really a shame, as a similar idea was very well executed in MOVIE MOVIE a film made about the same time as AT LONG LAST LOVE. Here, however, wretchedly inappropriate actors and singers doomed the film from the start--especially since audience members really wanted to hear singing that didn't totally suck or see dancers with two left feet (go figure!).

This film was crucified by the critics--and deservedly so. The singing is simply so bad, so grating and so painful that the viewer is left to wonder what the heck everyone involved was thinking! In fact, 1979's book, "The Fifty Worst Movies Ever Made" included it among it's selections--and I heartily agree.

Cole Porter must have spun in his grave like a rotisserie when this terribly failed experiment debuted. What an incredibly big waste of a nice idea and a film only of interest to the curious and bad movie buffs.
14 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Has a lot of problems, but somewhat of a guilty pleasure
TheLittleSongbird26 January 2011
Granted, this movie is flawed and far from the greatest movie musical of all time, but I do not think it is down there with Xanadu, Can't Stop the Music, Mame, The Wiz and A Chorus Line as among the worst. That said, it is somewhat of a guilty pleasure especially for the music and cast.

The story though(while essentially a homage to 30s musicals, an idea I liked) is rather weak, and the script could have done with more work. The film is also overlong, and some of the singing especially from Burt Reynolds(never liked his singing even on All Dogs Go to Heaven) and Cybill Shepherd is not that great, though I think Mame's singing is worse.

However, I don't think At Long Last Love deserves its meagre reputation. I honestly think there are worse movie musicals and worse movies too. Peter Bogdanovich is a rather curious choice for director but he does well. I would not put At Long Last Love up there with his masterpieces What's Up Doc?, Paper Moon and especially The Last Picture Show though. The film looks decent, with some nice cinematography and production values. The choreography is nicely done in general, while the songs and score are outstanding. I loved the cast, Madeline Kahn was a treasure and she is delightful here and she has one of the better singing voices in the movie, as is Eileen Brennan. People may say the characters are dull, some are, but in Brennan's case because of the way she acts it which is brilliant by the way her character is the anti-thesis of dull. The only real weak link, as Reynolds and Sheppard are actually fairly reasonable when it comes to the acting, is Del Prete, whose character and performance does get annoying.

Overall, At Long Last Love is far from a masterpiece and has a lot of glaring problems but due to the cast and music it is for me not that bad. 6/10 Bethany Cox
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't bother!
cfc_can4 August 2000
I am a lover of musicals but this film is a prime example of why they died out. It is basically plotless and the characters have no appeal whatsoever. Reynolds especially looks ridiculous. The swimming pool scene with him and Shepherd is full of unintentional laughs. I spent a long time looking for this film as it seldom turns up on TV and I'm not sure if it's on video or not but it wasn't worth the wait. Check out Burt's "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" instead.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Misunderstood Film Masterpiece
dckit5 February 2005
I love "At Long Last Love"! I really think the enmity displayed by critics at the time was most probably personal given Mr. Bogdonovich and Ms. Shepherd's public relationship. People wanted them to fail. I think the main problem people had with this film is that they didn't know how to categorize it. Not too long ago, I saw Mr. Bogdanovich speak at a preview of "The Cat's Meow" (another great evocative film) and asked him if we might ever see All on DVD, he said "probably not". This is a shame, because I think so many aspects of this film are brilliantly executed. I only hope, in time, that Mr. Bogdanovich will relent. While no film is perfect, it's a truism to state that many great films were panned when released but are seen as great today. As well, many great works of art have been reviled, only to be revered as masterpieces later on. At Long Last Love is one of them. The sets, costumes, cinematography, songs and story are wonderfully true to the period of the 30's (as Mr. Bogdanovich, an accomplished film historian would know) and I think Ms. Shepherd, Ms. Kahn, et al. were simply super given the difficulty of the tasks set before them. That they come across as breezily indolent as they do is a true testament to their acting chops. Consider they had to sing on cue, while swimming and meeting camera marks. A great experiment in Cinema Verite meets the Artifice of the Golden Age. Too bad it was so misunderstood. Then again, if you don't get it, you don't get it. Why some complain about Ms. Shepherds singing, I cannot understand. Ms. Shepherd's voice is better than many a modern singer. I hope we will someday see a full length version with all songs restored (like "Which", sung with aplomb by Ms. Shepherd) on DVD. Mr. Bogdanovich, please relent!! I think you would be very surprised at how many people would happily snap this up.
25 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not the top, but not the bottom, either
Lockout_Salties8 January 2022
After hearing about the death of acclaimed director Peter Bogdanovich, I thought it was high time I sit down and watch one of his movies. But I didn't feel like watching the classic The Last Picture Show, or the equally highly regarded Paper Moon, or even his debut, Targets. No, I wanted to watch one of the "worst movie musical of this or any decade." And you know what? It wasn't that bad.

Critically eviscerated on its release and a notorious box-office bomb, At Long Last Love's theatrical cut has been gone for decades. In its placed I watched the more well-received Director's Cut. It's a bit baffling how a film this harmless was dragged through the coals the way it was. It has its problems, but nothing about it is offensive or even all that horrible. It's certainly possible the Director's Cut is significantly different than the theatrical version, but for now it's impossible to know.

The main problem with At Long Last Love is the abundance of musical numbers. The filmmaker's opt for a quantity over quality approach, which is both baffling and damaging. It doesn't even work from a thematic standpoint: if the film was trying to emulate the musicals of the 1930s, there should have been way less. For comparison, Ginger Roger and Fred Astaire's Top Hat is about 100 minutes and features eight songs. At Long Last Love is 123 minutes and has sixteen. Sixteen! Surely that must be a record. Regardless, all the budget was poured into just getting these sixteen mediocre numbers on the screen, instead of using it to make a smaller amount of absolute showstoppers. A lot of these songs have real potential: "You're the Top," "Just One of Those Things," and "Most Gentlemen Don't Like Love" could have been extremely memorable sequences, and "Find Me a Primitive Man" and "Well, Did You Evah?" should have been hilarious. But by shoving in these numbers as well as a dozen more (including the complete duds "But in the Morning, No" and "Alpha and Omega," the former being uncomfortable and the latter being forgettable), things get lost in the shuffle, and all the numbers are reduced to very slight dancing or nothing visually interesting at all.

Another flaw of the movie is the costume design and art direction. Practically everything in the movie that's not grass is monochrome. I get what the filmmakers were going for: it's in theory a clever nod to the black-and-white necessity of the musicals of yore, but it gets distracting and annoying. Distracting because you end up constantly searching the frame for a sign of color, and annoying because you become conscious of how the film being shot in color is entirely redundant. What if the color of the costumes related to the emotional states of the characters? They could start out with just black and white, but as they join with the people they love more vibrancy introduced. But, no: the film might as well have been black-and-white, and little of value would've been lost.

Perhaps it seems like I'm being to harsh on a film that I gave a mildly positive rating. It's worth explaining, then, that the film is not without merit: Cybill Shepard and Burt Reynolds are extraordinarily charming, and surprisingly not horrible singers. Although they're not Oscar-worthy, they do pretty much exactly what they're asked to in terms of acting. Kahn and Del Prete are also solid, although the latter's singing is lacking a bit. Most of the songs themselves are great, and their renditions here don't take away anything from that. Finally, the ending is not at all what I was expecting, going for a note of ambiguity instead of heavy-handedness like most musicals.

The plot is paper-thin, which is totally fitting to the homage theme, but unfortunately means it can't compensate for the flawed musical numbers. Same goes for the characters: charm and likability aren't enough to sustain personalities. Luckily it is short by musical standards: 123 minutes may seem excessive, but compared to the likes of the endless Paint Your Wagon (a whole 164 minutes of mediocrity and terrible singing), it's nothing. If you feel like turning your brain off and watching a decidedly imperfect but fun movie, I'd recommend this one. Fun and lightweight, At Long Last Love is a lot better than it's reputation would lead you to believe, and something I have great affection for despite its shortcomings.

Final Score: 57/100.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not REALLY bad, just bad...
JasparLamarCrabb26 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
One thing a movie musical should not do is come to a grinding halt when most of the cast members begin to sing, but that's exactly what happens in Peter Bogdanovich's fitfully entertaining film. An homage of sorts to the sophisticated musicals of the 1930s where high society types live, love and break into song (usually written by the Gershwins or Irving Berlin) and dance. Instead of Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, and Edward Everett Horton, we get Burt Reynolds, Cybill Shepherd, and John Hillerman...and Madeline Kahn, Eileen Brennan and somebody named Duilio Del Prete. Not necessarily lacking in talent, but this crew, with the exception of Kahn, show absolutely no musical capabilities. Reynolds looks the part, with Gable-esque mustache and tuxedo, Shepherd is undeniably charming and both Hillerman & Brennan are great comics, but Bogdanovich really sets them up for failure, having them sing (croak in most cases) a slew of Cole Porter songs and dance around lightly to mask their lack of ability. The film is not REALLY bad, but it is bad. There's cinematography by the great László Kovács, art direction by Gene Allen and a few clever wisecracks (delivered in most part by Brennan). There are a few colorful cameos by the likes of M. Emmett Walsh, Liam Dunn and Mildred Natwick, as Reynold's energetic mother.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Completely underrated musical comedy and tribute to Cole Porter
rse27 October 1999
I saw this film years ago in Radio City Music Hall in NYC and have never been so delighted with a Hollywood treatment of musicals in my life. The sophistication of Bogdanovich's direction I felt caught the real essence of Cole Porter and his wonderful music and lyrics. All of that slightly off-key singing and crazy phrasing was the perfect touch to a truly atmospheric musical.... a refreshing bit of tongue-in-cheek that I have never forgotten. I have been trying for years to get my hands on a video of this movie, but, alas, most people have never heard of it..... It deserved a better fate....
14 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
it's not the top, but it certainly ain't the bottom
Howard_B_Eale6 September 2015
As a viewer who had been bombarded with negative commentary on this film for almost 40 years without having actually viewed it, I suppose I'd drunk the Kool-Aid and assumed that the naysayers were right. But after viewing the Blu-ray (which is a presentation of James Blakely's "unauthorized" re-edit of the film, which he did to amuse himself while working at 20th, and then quietly placed "his" version into TV distribution), I now see how off-base these attacks were.

It's difficult to know, without seeing the 1975 cut, nor the first TV re-edit done by Bogdanovich himself, where the differences in the versions lie (and complicating matters, Bogdanovich was finally able to tighten up bits and pieces and add an entire missing 90-second sequence to the Blakely cut for the Blu-ray). Indeed, seeing the Blakely cut, it's hard to imagine how the trims or changes would have happened at all, as the majority of picture is in long, unbroken shots (beautifully lensed by Laszlo Kovacs). From the occasionally dupey and ragged image quality here evident in the current Blu-ray transfer, it would appear that some numbers were simply discarded entirely in 1975, and replaced by lesser source material by Blakely. The looseness of the structure would have enabled some chess-playing with the sequence of events, but it's hard to imagine the film being truly butchered beyond recognition.

In any event, it's more fruitful to view this film as a very earnest experiment, rather than a "throwback musical". The decision to shoot all the musical numbers live, with the actors not only using their own voices to sing, but doing so on-camera without overdubs, immediately places the entire enterprise in some cinematic twilight zone, out of time, floating weirdly between an era of 1930s Lubitsch and 1970s underground cinema. But, amazingly, it works, in no small part due to the uniformly appealing and earnest cast. Cringe-worthy duff notes aside, even Burt Reynolds pulls it off, and is often genuinely charming in his menage-aux-trois pairings with both Cybill Shepherd and Madeline Kahn. Duilio Del Prete clearly carries his musical numbers with ease, unlike the other three leads, but avoids upstaging them with what is obviously a better-trained singing voice.

Indeed, the film works astonishingly well as an ensemble piece, perfectly suited to the double-entendre-laden Cole Porter tunes around which it is all based. The group sequences in tight quarters, such as the repeated bits in playboy Reynolds' chauffeured limos, are completely charming. The physical comedy is a gentle slapstick, not overly broad.

It doesn't all hang together perfectly. The already-thin narrative feels stretched to the breaking point somewhere around the three-quarters mark, and the whole thing feels a bit long in the tooth at 121 minutes. It's easy to see how mid-1970s audiences would have found the entire enterprise utterly confounding, even after enjoying Bogdanovich's PAPER MOON two years prior. It overreaches, but is no failure.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Intermittently amusing, but off key and unfocused
lemon_magic23 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
When I watched the "Cinema Snob" do a take on "At Long Last Love", I was expecting one of his classic hatchet jobs...but he was actually rather kind to it. So I thought I would give it a go for myself and see if the movie really deserved the drubbing it got from critics like Micheal Medved.

Well...yes and no. "Yes", there is something..."off" about the musical numbers. They're leaden, clumsy, and unfocused; they lack the razor sharp choreography and deft vocal performances that someone like Crosby or Kelly or Astaire could give songs like these. (Astaire and Rogers would make gravity and momentum seem irrelevant, but none of these actors are anywhere near their level.)

I'll grant you that the characters are supposed to be mostly tipsy/drunk while they are performing them, and if you watch them with that idea in mind...no, sorry they just aren't in the same league as the performances they supposedly pay tribute to. And there are an awful lot of them.

And "No"; the director throws so much stuff at the wall that some of it is bound to stick, and some of the material is at least amusing. For that, we can thank Eileen Brennan and John Hillerman (the "second banana" couple) who play the servants/friends that the stars play off and play with. Brennan and Hillerman actually give the best performances in the movie, and in my mind, they bring the thing up at least one notch. And however mediocre the screenplay is, these actors are pros - even at half power, someone like Burt Reynolds is going to be worth looking at.

So I'd say that it's not so much that the movie is terrible - it's just a big letdown to the Cole Porter legacy. I'm not sorry I gave it a second chance...but I won't give another one.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed