Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Martin Bradley Critically reviled at the time of its release this Otto Preminger film indeed suffers from some serious miscasting, (Michael Caine as a gentleman from the Deep South; Jane Fonda as his Southern Belle of a wife), and it does lay on the hysteria a tad thickly not to mention having a few plot stands that could do with some serious tidying up, but like so many of Preminger's pictures it's also seriously underrated. Preminger was always in his element when dealing with serious subjects in a melodramatic fashion, (here the issue of racial prejudice as well as the sexaul shenanigans of the well-heeled and not so well-heeled white folks). If the accents vary widely the large cast otherwise acquit themselves with aplomb, (Fonda is excellent, then there's always a young Faye Dunaway, Burgess Meredith, always good as a villain, Robert Hooks, Beah Richards and George Kennedy), while the director once again makes very good use of the wide-screen. If the material is handled more conventionally than in several of Preminger's preceding pictures it nevertheless shows a master's hand at work making this a movie ripe for rediscovery.

jovana-13676 First of all, I like Michael Caine in any movie. ANY MOVIE. And his partner is Jane Fonda. And then there are two other hot couples. I think that this film is more about gentrification and how it effects everybody, the racial tension is just a backdrop. In fact, it's a good depiction of another form of segregation and the bleak future that we live in now. Maybe when this film was released back in 1967, when the Civil Rights Movement was huge, very few people were able to see it coming. But, it's gotten worst after that thanks to gentrification: whites dominate the suburbs and minorities dominate the centers. So, this is a soap opera with a vision. It transcends races. And what makes it transcending is its soapy character. The main villain here is not exactly a racist, but more of an ambitious and crooked narcissist.Put that kind of a character against any backdrop and he'll make a mess of it. Even in a 100% white movie taking place in Boston.

rixrex I saw this film when very young back in the 70s, and didn't remember much about it except that it had some sort of big problem. Saw it again recently, and realized what the problem was right at the end of the film.Other than being quite melodramatic with many caricatures, Michael Caine with a southern accent, uneven and moving between seriousness and lampooning, I realized the ending was really miserable.All the other things could be forgiven since the film does capture a viewer's interest, but the ending is such that it seems about 20 or 30 minutes of film was left on the cutting room floor. We have a tragic incident where a white farmer's son is killed in an ill-planned blasting by a KKK styled group of men, and barely a minute after he is set out on a neighbors table, the father is back outside promising to rebuild with no sense of anyone grieving.Then a couple more minutes pass, and he and his black neighbors are marching to his property with tools and implements, pushing past the Sheriff, to put the farm back into order, with no resolution or prosecution of those responsible for killing the child. It's as if a whole sequence is missing, meaning the boy's funeral, an investigation and the capture of the main character who caused the death, or at least that he has some sort of retribution for his murderous act. It just seems like the editors were told by the producers to make cuts because the film was already too long.Besides this weird and unsettling rushed ending, the whole setup of the film seems much more like the 1960s when it was filmed rather than the 1940s when it supposedly took place. Had it been about a Vietnam Vet returning home and fighting against a corrupt and bigoted system, rather than a WW2 Vet, it would have been more believable. Even some of the attitudes and clothing, and soundtrack seem more 1960s, when it was filmed, than 1940s. Indeed the battle against racial inequality as presented here is more believable as a 1960s attitude, as it seems more modern than the attitudes of the 1940s.Other than these two problems, the film is a fairly mediocre but entertaining melodrama, with capital M.

MartinHafer While I would not agree with Harry Medved that this should have been one of his inclusions in his exceptional book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time", it is a bad film...but it's also highly entertaining. Plus, while bad, it just isn't bad enough to make any list of worst films. Now if there was a list of overdone and stupid soap operas, then it WOULD clearly make that list--with nearly enough crazy plot and overacting to put it up there with the best of the worst! The film may have at one point begun with high-minded aspirations. Heck, a film about people triumphing against race prejudice in the 1940s is a good idea. But, unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the film makers lost there way and the end result was a shrill and silly spectacle. Too bad, but the film in no way is in the same league as good race relations films with similar themes like "Pinky" and "Intruder in the Dust"--two fine films that I strongly recommend.Why is the movie so enjoyably bad? Well, much of it has to do with the often cartoon-like characters. The good guys are perfect and noble and the bad guys are like Snidely Whiplash! In particular, you've got to see the snarling and scene-chewing performance by Burgess Meredith--who, I think, kept mixing up this role with the Penguin from "Batman"! That much bellowing and wheezing is like watching a couple of pigs rutting--not a real Southern bigot. Real bigotry is often deceptively nice or at least overtly evil--not funny like his character in the film. It's funny because it was just so badly overdone--like a pot roast cooked for 9 hours! Another hilarious portrayal is George Kennedy as the Sheriff--they don't come much dumber! Now this isn't to say the rest of them were particularly great, though a few performances were decent--Jane Fonda was good and Michael Caine's character was stupid and one-dimensional, but at least I could respect his assuming a somewhat credible Southern accent. They it begs you to think "of all the actors in the world, why pick Michael Caine for the part".Apart from that, if I were to try to describe the film it would be like "Miss Jane Pitman" combined with "Dynasty" combined with "Valley of the Dolls" and "Peyton Place"--it's not a pretty concoction to say the least. Yet, the combination is so bad and hokey and silly that you want stop watching--even if the film is ridiculously overlong and bad. And the ending was, perhaps, the most overdone and awful ones I've seen in some time--as the director apparently lost his mind and just blew everything up! To make things worse, the kid at the end might just be the dumbest child in movie history!! Having all the cast hold hands and sing "We are the World" would have been more believable! By the way, director Otto Preminger has long had a very good reputation. Sure, he made some wonderful films like "Laura" and "Anatomy of a Murder". However, later in his career his output became craptastic--with films like "Bunny Lake is Missing", "Skidoo" and this film--hardly the sort of end to a famous career.