Robert Osborne didn't think it qualified to be an essential but Drew Barrymore did and I agree with her. It is quite different from other Scorsese movies but it is beautifully shot and full of great quirky characters and insights.
I hadn't seen it in 20 years but when I watched it the other day I thought it had aged very well. Kris Kristofferson is very charming too. Great soundtrack.
I agree with Osborne.
shareAnd I agree with Barrymore. It was a wonderful movie with a fine acting job by Burstyn. Ladd was a hoot in her role as the "earthy" waitress. IMHO, this is a movie worth seeing more than once. (For me, there is no higher compliment because there are very few movies that I care to see more than once.)
shareAs do I.
shareI agree with Osborne too. It's a movie I always wanted to see, but now that I've seen it, it's not one I'd particularly recommend to a movie fan. It's a great movie, but there are lots of great movies around, and I just didn't feel this one stood out as exceptional.
shareDefinitely not an "Essential"
About a year ago, I started watching TCM and I liked Drew for her childlike excitement on some of the movies. But after gaining experience of seeing many older movies in the last year - I've realized she is clueless.
Eespecially when after watching this movie, the "Essential" next week was Jezebel which is one of the all-time best. That's like comparing a solid cheeseburger to a filet.
Well I wouldn't call her "clueless" at all, but she gives a different perspective from Osborne's which reflects the next generation. Still though "essential" should be like the hall of fame. Excellent still doesn't mean essential, essential has to have an impact on society or change cinema or be truly groundbreaking/memorable in some way.
shareIts an essential this year too with Sally Field.
shareOn now TCM one great film....
shareSally thinks it's "almost" an essential. She says it's flawed, and mentions that some scripts problems were patched over with improvisation, but I wonder what she considers to be the flaws? Perhaps they'll discuss after the film.
shareEssentially trite and tedious. The flaws: jokey one-liners mixed with Cassavettes-like realism and improvisation; a patchy, episodic script that changes tone, and a basic senselessness. One wonders why Alice decided to move after her husband died, leave her best friend for an unrealistic dream and no job prospects, leaving her 11 year old alone for long periods day and night in a hotel room in an unfamiliar city when the trip from New Mexico to Monterey could be done in a night or two? Her singing isn't outstanding by any means, and note how she goes from a tough, foul-mouthed kid in the opening to a wife trying to please her hubby and crying herself to sleep to suddenly becoming a tough talking broad who takes up with Keitel. Why did Kristofferson let his wife and children go only to take up with Alice and the annoying Tommy? The scenes at the diner play like a sitcom which this became and most of the characters make little sense or are one note. Burstyn and Kristofferson are an unlikey couple; she seems more like his mother, yet he's smitten from his first sight of her in the diner and what would these 2 have in common? Also, he's too good to be true and the movie ultimately seems to say that women need a man as the end suggests she has given up her dream/goal for Kristofferson. As Audrey/Doris, Jodie Foster steals it IMHO.
shareCan't say I agree with most of your assessment, except for the part about Kristofferson. Definitely too good to be true.
shareI much rather have Sally Field on the show then Drew, Drew Barrymore is nothing more then an annoying dimwit. Sally Field thought that this movie was good but flawed , I loved hearing her honesty.
share