I'd never seen this film in its entirety until tonight. I was disappointed. The cast were a great bunch, but the drama just seemed too....contrived.
The things that ruined the film for me:
1. It seemed too much like a play on film.
2. Alan Arkin with all his stupid disguises.
3. Audrey's hairstyles were awful.
Well, it was based on a play.
I didn't mind his disguises; the back of the DVD describes Roat as "master of disguise and voices."
How does Audrey's hairstyles detract from the film?
And of course, the reason a film would be ruined would be hairstyles. Yes. That has a lot to do with the plot devices, action, themes, and story.
Audrey's hair was the typical new style of the time -- a variation on the then-famous Vidal Sassoon cut.
I didn't think "Roat" was such a master of diguises & voices since I always recognized him RIGHT AWAY, and why bother with disguises since the woman was blind? All he needed to do was change his voice, right? But I still recognized the voices as belonging to Roat.
As I stated, the movie seemed too contrived and was more like a play put on film; it didn't flow naturally, like, for example, 'Streetcar Named Desire,' which was on stage long before being made into a film.
Yeah, I know it's kind of silly to pick on Audrey's hairstyles, but they were so strange-looking, they distracted me from the movie....The styles of that time? I'm OF that time, and I don't remember such odd-looking hairstyles from 'way back then.
Thanks for responding. I always appreciate feedback whether it's negative or positive.
why bother with disguises since the woman was blind?