BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Armand at first sigh, one of many home films, mixture of crisis, family problems, selfish characters and a strong pillar of family. in fact, one of splendid performances of Julie Andrews . that fact is the most important point in film. than, Jack Lemmon trying create a credible Harvey. his character is not bad but too common. the script gives a lot of clichés, the situations are not always credible, the line is too simple to not seems be boring. the third - a too large family and confusion as result. another good thing - presence of Robert Loggia who creates not a great but a nice role using, in smart manner, many of its possibilities.a film about family crisis , middle age and fears.short - a work who, at first sigh may be one of Hallmark movies. the difference - beautiful performance of Julie Andrews.

evanston_dad This Blake Edwards movie is like all Blake Edwards movies. That means it's fairly lame, has no particular style by which to distinguish itself, and looks like it's been airbrushed.This one revolves around some mid-life crisis topics afflicting a middle-aged couple played by Jack Lemmon and Julie Andrews. Andrews is diagnosed with a tumor and spends the film waiting for test results; Lemmon has the hots for Sally Kellerman (who wouldn't) and spends the movie dithering about it. Lemmon and Andrews are good actors, and they almost make the film worth watching, but only almost.Grade: C

moonspinner55 An interesting misfire. Director and co-writer Blake Edwards tries for an autobiographical touch in this family-laden drama, and was rightly accused of narcissism by the critics (who probably wouldn't have pounced so hard had the picture been made with a bit more flavor). 60-year-old architect in Southern California expounds on life's woes while his too-patient spouse deals privately with her own agonies. Although Jack Lemmon does get to spout off with some well-written (if familiar) tyrannies, and Julie Andrews is allowed to put in her much-needed two-cents near the finish, I felt Edwards' film was far removed from reality. It seems to exist in a poor-sports netherworld in which only the wealthy are unhappy. Perhaps it's time for Edwards to get away from the beach-front condos of Malibu and see how the other half lives. *1/2 from ****

harry-76 The part of Gillian, which Julie Andrews portrayed in "That's Life," gave me a queasy feeling: here was a character who was suffering from a possible career-threatening throat ailment. The film was made in 1986.In real life, ten years later, Andrews would be experiencing a like situation, and two years thereafter awaiting results of a throat operation with parallel consequences.This was not unlike a similar feeling I got when Elizabeth Taylor underwent her well-publicized brain operation in 1997. I vividly recalled her 1959 role of Catherine in "Suddenly Last Summer," in which the crux of that script was built around Catherine's receiving a brain operation.As fine as both of those performances were, the art vs. life aspects were equally as impressive, and unnerving.