A wealthy businessman whose wife has divorced him, is bitter about the divorce, and prevents his ex-wife from seeing their child. The ex-wife takes him to court, and a judge tries to ...
See full summary »
A former CIA agent, John Creasy, is hired as a bodyguard for a girl in Italy, who becomes the daughter he never had. When she is abducted, Creasy's fiery rage is unleashed, and despite being badly wounded, embarks on a bloody revenge spree.
A wealthy businessman whose wife has divorced him, is bitter about the divorce, and prevents his ex-wife from seeing their child. The ex-wife takes him to court, and a judge tries to determine what will be best for the child.Written by
Definitely a forerunner to "Kramer vs. Kramer" with Bing Crosby starring as a father who has custody of his young son. His wife (Mary Fickett) divorced him years ago for a Washington political person. Crosby is a successful businessman who has a wonderful relationship with his son. Enter mom and her husband who want custody of the child.
Anne Seymour, in a one-scene restrained performance, plays the judge who surprises everyone with her decision to give the boy to his mother since the child has no ties with her. An embittered Crosby goes on a brief binge while being consoled by Inger Stevens, an assistant to his attorney played by the usual movie-lawyer E.G. Marshall.
The film is interesting and well acted by all but my flaw with it is that the child is constantly bounced around as Crosby and Fickett fight it out. In addition, the Solomon-like decision did not apply here. If we remember our bible, the woman who was willing to see Solomon divide the child really didn't love the child at all, if she wanted this to happen. In the film, the mother finally relents as she sees that the child really wants to stay with his father and therefore, in the tradition of Solomon, she loves the child more. This is wrong and the writers of this picture should have read the bible more carefully.
Naturally, everyone comes to his senses in this one by the end as a reasonable solution is obtained. One could question why this solution couldn't be put forth at the beginning of the controversy.
Nevertheless, the film shows insight in its discussing the effects of divorce on children, the anger of one parent in particular and that a child should remain with the female parent. Yet, haven't we come a long way in equality for both parents?
10 of 17 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this