My God what a MESS!


This picture is almost hard to believe. Sometimes it's charming and interesting to watch really smart people act silly...and sometimes it's THE FORTUNE. This clunky, painfully unfunny farce really has to be seen at least once to be believed. The fact that Mike Nichols directed Warren Beatty and Jack Nicholson to such ill effect is stupefying. All 3 men are noted for being incredibly intelligent and precise artists, they all won multiple Academy Awards and I would imagine the chance to make a mock screwball comedy must have had it's appeal, but, the results are so underwhelming one sits slack jawed in wonder as to how the scenes could possibly have stuck to the celluloid.
This is a pretty hard to see film . TCM ran it the other night and, I think, it's the first time it's been seen in years. I'm not surprised. I would hope that its creators have gone to any lengths possible to burn the negatives that exist one by one and try to get IMDB to remove it from their resumes.
I'm surprised that it hasn't become more of a cult film, sought out by enthusiasts and that there aren't midnight screenings of it with people dressed in costume and silly mustaches.
If you can find 88 minutes that you can't fill by having your teeth drilled or listening to old George W Bush speeches, I highly recommend destroying a small part of your brain and heart by snuggling up to The Fortune. It makes Ishtar look like The Marx Brothers!

"What's the rumpus?"

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Thank you. I'll take that road trip. I have looked for a copy of this comedy for decades -- it impressed me that much -- and found one through a British distributor of collectibles. Whomever does not find Nicholson's explanation of sanitary napkins hilarious should be shot at dawn.

reply

[deleted]

I have to essentially agree with the above. I'm not even sure that Nichols really wanted to do a farce, but maybe felt he had to to get a hit after two (at least commercial) flops. I have nothing against dark comedy, on the contrary, but this movie isn't really that dark, or at least not comedically so. I mean, compare it to say, Arsenic and Old Lace.
Also, there is a difference between darkness and nihilism. It's entirely possible to approacch the subject of death, or even murder, from a comedic point of view, but you have to take the reality of death seriously for it to be funny. In contrast, Nichols said somewhere that this movie is about people who are so naive that they don't even know that when you kill someone they die. Well, then why should we care about them or anything else in this movie?

reply

TCM just ran it again and... wow. Where does one begin? The forced dialogue, the complete lack of chemistry between all three leads, the unbelievably bad acting of same -- a real mess, indeed. It's kind of shocking when a supremely talented cast and crew come together to make a total bomb. However, there are drinking games to be had: take a shot every time Warren says "kiddo." You'll be passed out before the end of the first reel.

I will say this: Florence Stanley was a hoot and the art direction was divine.

reply

I agree, I saw it last night as well, and I had never even heard of this movie before. It's no wonder they never show this film on tv, it's awful. I'm left scratching my head as to how you can take three outstanding actors and have them flop all over the screen like dying fish. There is no chemistry among the actors, and their timing, gestures, interaction, and dialogue are way off. It looks like Nichols was going for an edgy black comedy, but it doesn't come off that way. It's tough to blame the actors for this stinker, I'm sure they did the best they could.

reply

Sorry, but you people are ridiculous. No "chemistry"? What a load. Nicholson, Beatty, and Channing were all funny together and Nicholson and Beatty in particular gave mostly excellent performances.

I think this is largely a case of some people being told a film stinks and then being unable to view it with an independent mind so they see what they've been told they should see. It's not the greatest movie ever made but it's funny and entertaining. The over-the-top denunciations here are dumb and false.

reply

I'm with you on this, King. I enjoyed it immensely, and thought the actors had great chemistry together. I mean, they weren't supposed to be totally in sync and copacetic with one another. That's where the comedy came in. They were never on the same page emotionally or dramatically, and always at loggerheads over everything!

Reviewers here are ragging ( ) on this movie for no good reason!

To a new world of gods and monsters!

reply

I couldn't have said it better. I saw this when it first came out and have been looking for it ever since. It was a hoot then and it is now. Watching it alone, I laughed out loud countless times. I have to thank TCM once again.

reply

The reason people are lashing out is because it HAS nichols, nicholson, beatty and channing. it should have been brilliant. instead it's one big misfire. the pacing is off, the script just isn't that clever or amusing (or, dare is say it, daring. it's no 'war of the roses' in terms of dark comedy, so it's not a case of people who don't like it expecting some robin williams /chris columbus fare. i saw it when it came out and thought, hmmm, disappionting. then again last week and thought 'wow, i was right. and then some'. it really is one misbegotten failure. both my friend and i, who both love dark comedies, indy film, edgy stuff and the like (i'm trying to say we're not 18 year old fans of CGI blockbusters that pass for film these days..) thought "Ishtar?" while we were watching it. and for the record, Ishtar is nowhere near as bad as its legendary status would have one think.

reply

I just watched it for the first time and knew nothing of it. About twenty minutes in, I was thinking "Is this really as awful as I'm seeing it?" Went here, and started reading the reviews. It was uncomfortably unfunny at times, and some of the jokes you could see coming (so slowly) that when the expected 'funny' part was revealed it just seemed boring and cliche. I made it through to the end, but wasn't even sure how it ended. Did Stockard get left by her family when the whole truth came out? That was my take on it. Anyway, it was really bad IMO and it had nothing to do with advanced negative input.

reply

Talented people tried to do something different. Not the worst or best film ever made but it has its place in film history,

reply

I actually remember seeing this in theaters with my parents when it first came out. The movie was wildly anticipated (Nicholson! Beatty! Nichols! How could it not work?). I remember that the placement of Beatty's name before Nicholson's (but with Nicholson's above Beatty's) was widely discussed.

But the movie was a disappointment in every respect, critically and at the box-office. It was one of those movies that seemed to open and close the same day. Even as a kid, I knew it was a dud.

It's failure was due to the egos of Nichols, Beatty and Nicholson. All three could trace their superstar status on projects that worked outside the mainstream movie industry (Nichols with "The Graduate", Beatty with "Bonnie & Clyde" and Nicholson with "Five Easy Pieces".

By 1975, all three WERE the mainstream and they ended up making the kind of self indulgent, bloated movie that their predecessors occasionally made and often ended or stalled their careers. This kind of film happens to every single star whether they're actors or directors. They get one or two major films behind them and suddenly they think everything they do is perfect despite evidence to the contrary.It's the kind of film they think is "different" or "ground breaking". They fail to realize how stale and out of touch it is (Peter Bogdanovich fell into the same trap with "At Long Last Love"). Add unfunny to the list of things going against "The Fortune". It's too bad because Channing is the only one who's worth watching in it and she is really good. The whole movie feels forced because it is.

Director Nichols must have realized how bad things had gotten because after this, he would not direct a major film eight years!

reply

well said condeuce. interesting what a divergence of opinion this movie engenders, though..

reply

I think that we as an audience in this day and age are not used to slower paced movies. This was set in the 1920's and things are subtle and understated with the tension between the characters bubbling up. To me this film felt like an adaption of a play. I enjoyed this film,

reply

It has nothing to do with it being slower paced. I'm an older moviegoer, and I'm not only used to the older, slower paced movies....I prefer them. I have wanted to see this for years, and went in with high expectations (considering the cast and the director.) I could not have been more disappointed. The performances were all off....way off. No chemistry (as said before), not funny or compelling on any level. By the end, I was just praying for it to be over.

reply

Agreed. Being set in the 20's doesn't mean a thing. The movie was made in the 70's - when it was set is irrelevant.

It's not that it has bad timing. It just isn't very good.

reply

I agree with OP. What a train wreck.

"George is dead. Call me back."
RING. Hello?
"Hi. It's George."

reply