Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

tomsview Janet Margolin and Keir Dullea, play Lisa and David, two young people who are being treated in an institution for teens with mental issues. She talks in rhymes, and he can't stand to be touched, but this is a movie that probes below the surface of all its characters. As Dr. Swinford the compassionate head of the institution played by Howard Da Silva says, "Sickness makes people do things they don't want to do". As he helps David, they touch on many subjects, including the things that trouble most people. Howard Da Silva gives a thoughtful performance as Dr Swinford, a man who also has vulnerabilities, but his reticence also make him less threatening, and David's problems revolve around threat, real or otherwise. As David starts to deal with his issues, he helps Lisa overcome some of hers, although her problems are far deeper than his.This was Frank Perry's first directorial effort and his wife, Eleanor, wrote the screenplay. To bring their emotion-charged story to life they needed actors who could match its intensity. Fortunately, their choice was inspired.This was also Janet Margolin's first movie and it was early in Keir Dullea's career. What formidable talents they were. Janet Margolin was simply one of the most beautiful actresses you would ever hope to see - she is luminous in this movie and her performance is heart wrenching. Keir Dullea also had a look; arrogance and sensitivity all at once - he had real presence with intensity to spare. Both had backgrounds in the theatre; they were just as comfortable on the stage as on the sound stage; intimidating talents for actors who only worked in film.Neither star had the huge career in movies that one would have predicted for them in 1962. Keir Dullea of course had a big one with Kubrick's 2001, and gave powerful performances in a number of other films such as "The Fox", but apparently he enjoyed more success on the stage.Why an actress as beautiful and talented as Janet Margolin wasn't besieged with offers for some of the big roles in the 60's and 70's is a mystery. Although she did a couple of films with Woody Allen, most of her work seems to have been in television. One movie I really liked her in was the moody, seriously underrated Hitchcock homage, "The Last Embrace", made seventeen years after this one. "David and Lisa" was another fresh, brilliant work from a period that was a fertile one for dramatic films. As well as being Frank Perry's first film, it was probably his best. What an eclectic career he had, everything from "The Swimmer" to "Monsignor".However, he and his brilliant young stars created something truly special with this film. To paraphrase a line from "David and Lisa" - it's a pearl of a movie.

Cosmoeticadotcom One of the earliest independent film successes in America, both in terms of box office and critical acclaim at international film festivals (including Oscar nominations for direction and screenplay), was director Frank Perry's issue oriented David And Lisa, produced by Paul M. Heller (My Left Foot), which was the first starring vehicle for two young actors of great potential whose careers eventually fizzled: Keir Dullea, who would reach his career apogee in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Janet Margolin, who a year later would star as Woody Allen's wife in his directorial debut, Take The Money And Run. These days, Perry is most well known for his unwitting camp classic Mommie Dearest. But, back at the start of his career, Perry was what might be termed a social realist filmmaker who made several other films in that vein with his then wife, Eleanor Perry, who wrote the film's screenplay, adapted from the book, David And Lisa, by Dr. Theodore Isaac Rubin.While there have been any number of films dealing with mental illness and institutions (Harvey; John Cassavetes' A Child Is Waiting; One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest; Girl, Interrupted, to name the most memorable) few have been as well wrought as this- from the screenplay (remarkable in its prescience and sensitivity, given its year of release), to the acting, to the political commentary, to the 35 millimeter black and white cinematography, by Leonard Hirschfield, which renders many of the shots as sort of moving Ansel Adams photographs of cityscapes…. While Lisa clearly is the more disturbed of the two protagoists, neither youth would, today, be institutionalized, although they would likely be overmedicated since preschool, and given an assortment of irresponsible diagnoses, in this age of made up alphabet soup armchair maladies of autism for kids who are merely a little slow, or ADD (or ADHD) for kids who are a little hyperactive. David would be diagnosed as having Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), while Lisa seems to be suffering from some sort of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Her subtly lascivious and sexual touching of the statues in the museum, which echoes a brief scene of her fondling her own breast (albeit covered) after she realizes her attraction to David, clearly suggest sexual abuse, not true schizophrenia, nor anything worse. Thus, their reunion at film's end does not really suggest that love can conquer mental illness, but that it can help alleviate some of the problems that teenagers have faced since time immemorial, and which adults have often misconstrued. And, we have no reason to believe that David and Lisa will be released from the school anytime soon. Their admissions of love, without directly stating it, simply suggest that they have gotten over the worst in their lives, and can continue with their full recovery.Reputedly, the film was shot for about $185,000, but made over a million dollars in rentals after its 1999 release, by Fox Lorber, on VHS and DVD. Unfortunately, the DVD is rather standard. The only 'extras' are some written filmographies of the three major characters, and director Perry. This film was also remade in 1998, by Oprah Winfrey, as a mawkish telefilm starring Sidney Poitier as the psychiatrist, and the execrable Lukas Haas as David. The original is better, and soap opera fans should note that Karen Lynn Gorney (then only fifteen), the original bad girl Tara on All My Children, and later to star in Saturday Night Fever, as Stephanie Mangano, plays the small role of Josette, another student at the school.All in all, this is a very good film, and one that without the advent of mass market DVDs would likely have had its negatives wither away in some vault. Instead, it can be seen not only as an important American film, historically, but one that entertains even as it enlightens, that rarest of artistic achievements.

bandw The movie opens with David's mother admitting him to a private facility for emotionally disturbed teens. David has a deathly fear of being touched by others (literally, he thinks he will die if touched) and he is obsessed with time and clocks. At the facility is a young girl Lisa who is schizophrenic, speaks in rhymes, and is quite disassociated from reality. The movie details how these two meet and the changes they effect on each other.Keir Dullea is perfectly cast as David. His gradual transformation from a near automaton, virtually incapable of interacting with others, to someone a little less rigid is a fine feat of acting. Dullea has played rather stiff personalities in other movies, most notably "The Fox" and "2001," and one wonders if his portrayal of David is but an exaggeration of his own personality. Janet Margolin is equally accomplished in her portrayal of Lisa. Howard Da Silva is very believable as the benevolent psychiatrist Dr. Swinford, but his role is not terribly demanding and we come to know very little about him personally.The black and white photography is effective and appropriate for the stark subject matter which is concerned exclusively with people and mental states. There are dream sequences that Alfred Hitchcock would have envied. The period details of the late 50s, early 60s (apparel, cars, home décor) are interesting.When the kids from the home venture into the wider world their behavior is often viewed as bizarre and threatening by others. It is one of the strengths of the movie that in this context, our having been with the kids for awhile and gotten used to them a bit, their behavior is somewhat understandable. Maybe the next time we see someone behaving oddly in public we might reflect on this movie. However, it is a question whether the sympathy we come to have for David and Lisa is in no small part due to the fact that they are so attractive.A psychiatrist might have a more accurate opinion, but for the lay person the story has many difficulties. We are led to believe that mere socialization can lead to rapid improvement in treating some of the most intransigent mental disorders such as obsessive compulsive disorder and schizophrenia. While it is true that Dr. Swinford is always lurking in the background, he is not shown here to have any deeper insights or worth beyond that of a good friend (not to underrate the value of a good friend). While we come to understand that at the root of David's obsessions is a fear of death, we have no idea how he wound up in the condition he is in. Lacking any further evidence we are left with the implication that it has something to do with his having an absent and remote father and a domineering mother. But surely that could not be the total cause of an impairment as serious as David's. What was David like before we meet him? It is hard to picture him functioning in the day-to-day world. We know even less about Lisa's background, nothing really. We are offered the common stereotype that schizophrenia is the same as multiple personality disorder, since Lisa alternates between being Lisa and Muriel. As to the others in the facility we get only a sketchiest idea as to why they are there; they all seem rather harmless.There is no mention of drugs. Even in the early 60s, drugs would have played a part in treatment. Also absent is any mention of sex which would have to be a major consideration in dealing with late teens, emotionally disturbed or not.We are left with the idea that things end on an upbeat note, however unrealistic. But, upon further thought, what is the future of David's relationship with Lisa? One cannot be optimistic about a sexual relationship - neither would be capable of caring for a child. And, if David is so afraid of simply being touched, there is going to be a long road ahead to any kind of sexual contact, let alone a satisfying relationship. And introducing sex into the mix of Lisa's problems is not going to simplify anything for her. Dr. Swinford is going to have to be more than a friend to deal with that situation. David's obsession with clocks and time leads to a moment of great prescience. It is his secret dream to have a master clock that sends out radio signals so that all clocks can be synchronized and everyone can have the exact time. Interestingly this foreshadows the existence of the atomic clock at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the existence of "atomic watches" several decades later.While it is admirable that this movie tackles the important topic of mental health in an era when such was not common, it would have been a more valuable exercise if it had gone deeper.

donjp This beautiful movie has more humanity and intensity than any violent or sexual-filled film that Hollywood puts out today. The magic and conviction of this film will look in your eyes and reach deep into your heart. The acting is superb.You feel like a voyeur uninvited watching a drama unfold.The actress has a sweet demeanor which is very rare in actresses today.The actor just pulls on your heartstrings with his ability to convey to the viewer that he cant touch,yet wants to ...desparat.ely. The simple scene in which the lead actor shares a slice of chocolate cake with the psychiatrist,shows an enormous amount of two humans interacting on a level of the patient and the doctor,yet each learning and teaching from another.The vulnerability and rawness of the film reaches so many different levels and scenes throughout the movie.This film has much more raw emotion than Nicholson's film"One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest".And that is because the story gets right to the point.It is beautifully done simple,and not trying to hard.Dr.Petersen