Freaktana
A Major Disappointment
Kamila Bell
This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.
Francene Odetta
It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
dailyshampoo48
the comedy of this film falls entirely flat (hurr durr divorce edgy hurr) there are a few moments which make this worth the watch. van dyke of sitcom fame plays rob petrie, corrupted, and seems terribly comfortable in the role. debbie reynolds is interesting in her own way, as the slightly daffy housewife. jason robards, jean simmons and van johnson are also very entertaining and darkly funny in their respective roles. as a character study it's great, as pseudo-experimental 60s film with nifty camera tricks, it's a failure. all of which makes you wonder if they had put all these great actors in a room with one another, with a script, a rolling camera and no direction, there might have been a happier result.I enjoyed watching the various characters, especially the men, walk a moral tightrope of sorts; curiously, van dyke's character seems to maintain an air of decency despite it all. i wondered briefly if it were purposeful that the problems the characters identified in their marriage weren't the true ones after all; debbie on one hand seemed to have entirely unrealistic expectations about human behavior, while her husband seemed somewhat unimaginative and even intellectually stunted. "women need to stop crossing the lines between the sexes," what??seems to work best when it lets the story tell itself; otherwise unbearably clever, with a touch of hubris even.
jwkenne
It seems that not everybody remembers the world in 1967.To begin with, there was no such thing as no-fault divorce. A divorce had to involve one "guilty" party, and one "innocent" party. Two "guilty" parties would just be blown off with "You two deserve each other." And it was regarded as standard good manners for the man to offer himself up as "guilty", unless the woman was a complete slut or psycho. (See "The Gay Divorcée" for an example of a man who /doesn't/ follow this social rule, because he's a pig.)Now, also during this period, the usual rule was that the wife got the kids, and the wife and kids were entitled to be just as well off as they had been before the divorce. (Remember, as far as the Law was concerned, she and they were officially innocent victims of the Big Bad Man.) So alimony could be very high indeed.As to her getting a job....There was no such thing as professional daycare. If a divorced woman were poor, she could probably leave the kids with a neighbor, because poor folks have been doing that for thousands of years, but for a middle-class divorced woman to do that would have been regarded as shameless freeloading.There were relatively few jobs for women, and even fewer that paid decently. A woman could be a secretary, but shorthand and typing take years of practice. (There were no personal computers then; few people could type except for writers and secretaries.) And secretaries didn't make much more than minimum wage, anyway. The same for stitchers in clothing factories (America had clothing factories back then). Beautician? Cleaning woman? Hotel maid? Nurse? None of them paid all that well. There were a handful of woman doctors, lawyers, and the like, but the closest pointer to the future was that there have always been quite a few women in computer programming. But you couldn't just walk in and ask for a programming job if you'd never done it before.In short, this movie makes the usual exaggerations you expect in a comedy, but it is nowhere near "preposterous" or "ridiculously unrealistic". It's pretty solidly grounded in 1967 reality.Now, on the other hand, I can't say I like the movie all that much. I guess I'm too romantic to take divorce as a joke. But the performances are sound, and I have to say that Van Dyke and Reynolds both had guts to tackle this script at all. Both of them have always been typecast as "lovable".
reader4
I had mildly looked forward to seeing this film because of the stars. Dick van Dyke is usually good, and Debbie Reynolds almost always is. And I loved "Divorce Italian Style," so I thought the American version sounded promising as well.I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up. What a disappointment! The first twenty minutes consists largely of people all yelling at each other at once in different venues: a conference room, a living room, a courtroom...Debbie Reynolds has never looked less attractive. In fact, I have never seen her look unattractive until I saw this film. With her hair piled up on top of her head, and her pallid makeup, she reminded me of a blond version of the Katzenjammer Mamma.I nearly recognized Jean Simmons with her short blond hair, reprising her faded look from "Mister Buddwing" the previous year.Almost any movie that keeps my interest till the end rates at least 4 stars. I turned this turkey off after a grueling forty minutes. I didn't even laugh once. The only reason I gave it 3 stars instead of 2 is that it has a lot of well-known and talented people in it.
edwagreen
The film fails because it could have easily been made into a drama with some twists.Dick Van Dyke has some actual dramatic moments as Richard, a non-college graduate whose promotion has put a strain on a 17 year marriage to Debbie Reynolds. Ditto for the Reynolds character as well.Their marriage actually falters because of their friends, attorneys and marriage counselor, all of whom literally drive them to divorce.The film does take on some comical tones when it is shown that alimony is so high that an ex-husband, nicely played by Jason Robards, tries to marry off his wife so that he can be rid of that money responsibility.The film is all-too predictable. You know that some sort of reconciliation will be reached by Van Dyke and Reynolds just before their one year divorce decree becomes final.Van Johnson appears as a bachelor caught up in Robards'scheme to marry off his ex-wife Jean Simmons.
