Spoilers (not that it matters): This is the most ludicrously melodramatic line in the movie sung (actually spoken) by Lauren Bacall, an aging actress staging a comeback in a musical in this "suspense thriller". There is nothing suspenseful or thrilling in this movie, and the alleged musical the actress is starring again, seems to have been improvised on the spot instead of being fleshed out even minimally; which only serves to undermine an already unbelievable plot.
The villain of the piece is a disturbed young man who has developed an obsession of this actresses old films. He is never explained, and we learn nothing about him, other than he has chosen complete isolation as he pursues his obsession. His sister comes to his apartment to try to talk to him before he shuts her out too. He remains at this level of anonymity for the rest of the film. If this was intended to add to the mystery or interest of the character, it doesn't succeed. We care nothing about this character, other than he appears to be a sad, lonely young man with little social skills. It's hard to believe however that a guy this good-looking with this good a voice, would be this lonely and isolated. If he were truly mentally ill, he would have been evaluated by now.
The movie is mean-spirited and sadistic, only Maureen Stapleton seems to actually be alive and fleshed out in the movie, and James Garner seems to be there only as a prop as the boyfriend.
I actually came across a copy of the book this movie was based on, in the value bin of a bookstore many years ago. I leafed through it, to see how a movie this bad could be based on a successful novel. The book is written as a series of "letters", which used to be a popular style in the late 1800s. In the book, the heroine is aloof, her secretary is abrasive (she actually responds to the fan's first letters by saying "Are you for real? Why don't you go bother another actress?" Something a real assistant to a celebrity would never do: antagonize an unknown loony.) The boyfriend is presented as an aloof lug. The villain is presented as an emotionally-numbed narcissistic verbose bore. The author is deliberately laconic about the heroine's demise at the end. In short, the book is deliberately written as emotionally distanced. Why the author thought this would be effective in a thriller, I have no idea. Why the book was a success is a true mystery.
Unfortunately, the emotionally flat part of the book got translated into the screenplay. The older actress is never developed, the lonely and pathetic villain is never explored, and nothing actually "develops" in this movie. There is no arc of any kind. The actor playing villain pumps as much life as he can into a dead script and dead lines that do nothing to help him; to the point where you actually start feeling sorry for the actor, not scared of the character! This movie deserves to be forgotten about and obscured in film history. This may sound harsh, but it contributes nothing to the viewer, will waste two hours of your time, and will leave you wondering why it was ever made based on its screenplay.
Lauren Bacall deserved much better than this, and why she didn't demand better is the biggest mystery about this movie. I'm sure it's not one of the films she enjoys talking about.
I'm glad the "villain" of the piece, went on to bigger and better things.
Bacall sings "I want it all!" at a point in this film; that's especially ironic, considering there's nothing here.
Two stars.
The villain of the piece is a disturbed young man who has developed an obsession of this actresses old films. He is never explained, and we learn nothing about him, other than he has chosen complete isolation as he pursues his obsession. His sister comes to his apartment to try to talk to him before he shuts her out too. He remains at this level of anonymity for the rest of the film. If this was intended to add to the mystery or interest of the character, it doesn't succeed. We care nothing about this character, other than he appears to be a sad, lonely young man with little social skills. It's hard to believe however that a guy this good-looking with this good a voice, would be this lonely and isolated. If he were truly mentally ill, he would have been evaluated by now.
The movie is mean-spirited and sadistic, only Maureen Stapleton seems to actually be alive and fleshed out in the movie, and James Garner seems to be there only as a prop as the boyfriend.
I actually came across a copy of the book this movie was based on, in the value bin of a bookstore many years ago. I leafed through it, to see how a movie this bad could be based on a successful novel. The book is written as a series of "letters", which used to be a popular style in the late 1800s. In the book, the heroine is aloof, her secretary is abrasive (she actually responds to the fan's first letters by saying "Are you for real? Why don't you go bother another actress?" Something a real assistant to a celebrity would never do: antagonize an unknown loony.) The boyfriend is presented as an aloof lug. The villain is presented as an emotionally-numbed narcissistic verbose bore. The author is deliberately laconic about the heroine's demise at the end. In short, the book is deliberately written as emotionally distanced. Why the author thought this would be effective in a thriller, I have no idea. Why the book was a success is a true mystery.
Unfortunately, the emotionally flat part of the book got translated into the screenplay. The older actress is never developed, the lonely and pathetic villain is never explored, and nothing actually "develops" in this movie. There is no arc of any kind. The actor playing villain pumps as much life as he can into a dead script and dead lines that do nothing to help him; to the point where you actually start feeling sorry for the actor, not scared of the character! This movie deserves to be forgotten about and obscured in film history. This may sound harsh, but it contributes nothing to the viewer, will waste two hours of your time, and will leave you wondering why it was ever made based on its screenplay.
Lauren Bacall deserved much better than this, and why she didn't demand better is the biggest mystery about this movie. I'm sure it's not one of the films she enjoys talking about.
I'm glad the "villain" of the piece, went on to bigger and better things.
Bacall sings "I want it all!" at a point in this film; that's especially ironic, considering there's nothing here.
Two stars.