Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

tomsview At first glance it seems odd that a play set in a single room in the Melbourne suburb of Carlton in 1953 would have inspired Hollywood to turn it into a movie.At the heart of Ray Lawler's play is the story of people who have a unique relationship, but are aging and trying to recapture happier times. The play had a terrific sense of nostalgia, and the annual gift of the kewpie dolls were sad symbols of a time that was ending. Finally, the characters must come to terms with what they want from each other or what they can never receive. Although the setting is Australian the emotions are universal.There were many changes for the film. Some may have actually tightened the drama: the conflict between old friends Roo and Barney starts much earlier and the character of Dowd is given more to do. However the Luna Park sequence is heavy-handed and the ending is softer.Ernest Borgnine gave a passionate performance as Roo, but he struggled with the accent and he was never laid back enough. Australian Vincent Ball who played Dowd probably could have played the part, but he was hardly international box office.A year later, in "The Sundowners", an American star did play the type of Australian represented by Roo - Robert Mitchum. He got the accent about right, and he caught the tone; what might "Doll" have been with him in the role? Anne Baxter fared best. Although the accent slipped here and there, she created a warm and disarming Olive. The accent probably would have been pretty close four years later after she had lived that time on a property near Gloucester in NSW with her American husband. She was a brilliant woman on many levels who wrote of her experiences in "Intermission" - a fascinating outsider's view of life in rural Australia in the early 1960's.Accents aside, John Mills seemed a little too hyper anyway, but Angela Lansbury otherwise hit the right note as Pearl.The whole production has the feel of a British Ealing production, especially Benjamin Frankel's score, which is similar to his work for British films.The location was changed to Sydney opening the action out from the play. The exterior of Olive's house was in Glen Street, Milsons Point - the whole street is now high-rise apartments and office blocks although the view over Luna Park can still be recognised.I still find the film interesting, flaws and all. Both play and film are set in an Australia that is hardly recognisable now, but both capture feelings of loss and fear of change that are as relevant today as they were then.

ellgees I recently watched this movie, believing it was an important Australian contribution to the world of cinema. How wrong I was!It certainly is a well-known film, but perhaps that is only because of the play on which it is based received much publicity. Or perhaps because of its leading cast of well-known Hollywood etc stars.This movie, originally titled "Summer of the 17th Doll," was in my opinion very disappointing. Firstly, I found the sound so distorted it was difficult to understand the dialog. The accents, mentioned here by other reviewers, were deplorable, and I will never understand why Australian actors weren't used in an Australian working-class story. I suppose the producers wanted "big names" in the important roles, but as hard as they tried, most of the cast never sounded convincingly like Aussies, so all I heard was a changing jumble of false working- class English accents.The movie itself had some welcome humorous moments, if one could ignore the above comment, and the story line was interesting and believable. What was UNbelievable was the exaggerated and histrionic reactions of the characters to their every frustration. I expected more than melodrama from actors of this calibre.It could have been so much better.

moonspinner55 Ray Lawler's play about two tempestuous sweetheart couples coping with the layoff season in Sydney, Australia comes to the screen without much humor and a misguided heart. Sugar cane cutters Ernest Borgnine and John Mills take Kewpie doll collector Anne Baxter and manicurist Angela Lansbury to South Australia to rest up and look for holiday work--but trouble brews with Borgnine, who has mysteriously left his job after fifteen years. Practically without plot, this character study has become, on film, a visual journey rather than an emotional or personable one. Paul Beeson's cinematography is certainly striking, even as the entangled relationships and mercurial tempers at the forefront of the story quickly wear themselves out. Forget about accents, these actors (interestingly, if unsuccessfully, cast) don't even look like Aussie natives. Borgnine's strong sense of character and natural way with a complicated chunk of dialogue nearly saves him, but it was a fundamental error to surround these stars with unknown players who really do sound like Australians. The lively section at the amusement park is full of raucous vitriol and Beeson's playful visual composition, but every scene back at the boarding house is a lost cause. A very strange project, indeed. ** from ****

Neil Cammack Many years ago I unwisely took part in an amateur production of Thornton Wilder's "The Matchmaker". I can still hear the mayhem created by those of us who tried, and failed miserably, to achieve an American accent and those (including, bizarrely, a stray Welshman) who just gave up and spoke their native idiom. Luckily out home-town audience was very forgiving and the local rag took pity on us.This dire experience came back to me when I saw "Summer of the Seventeenth Doll", but even so, not having seen the original stage play by Ray Lawler, I didn't realise how badly it had been butchered until I saw a TV performance by the Melbourne Theatre Company. The first reaction of an Australian audience will be to switch off because of the hilarious mangling of their native speech by an all-star cast who deserved better and would have been more gainfully employed on another project. Maybe that wouldn't matter to a foreign audience, but then again, perhaps the resultant strange mixture of assorted Cockney, Bronx and other sounds would have a subtly disturbing effect on any listener.Of more concern is the fact that the play's essence can't be divorced from its Australian roots, which include deceptively dry, laconic and understated speech cadences, without making it pretty meaningless. In fact it's the very antithesis of the overwrought, borderline- histrionic style of "serious" Hollywood films of the era. Anyone less like a laconic Queensland canecutter than the furiously emoting Ernest Borgnine would be hard to imagine. And switching the location from Melbourne to more photogenic Sydney settings, while trivial in itself, is symptomatic of the filmmakers' imperfect understanding of their vehicle.I don't know that "Doll" is a great play, but it is a good one. However, given the need for some audience-pulling names there was no real prospect of doing it properly in 1959. The accent problem, which is just part of the underlying cultural mismatch, is not to be dismissed, and I've never heard an American or British actor come close to a convincing Australian accent - even Meryl Streep. Even nowadays, with many high-visibility Australians in Hollywood, it would be a problematic vehicle because at bottom it's pretty stagy. It's just one of those movies that shouldn't have been made.