CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

ThiefHott Too much of everything

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

mark.waltz You could make millions in an auction of the costumes and props for this oh so silly British farce that is overloaded with everything but plot and substance. It's one of those 1960's acid stained comedies where bored brazier manufacturer's wife Shirley MacLaine takes a lover, hides him in her attic(above the marital bed it seems) and has all sorts of strange surrealistic fantasies to comment on her strange situation. When husband Richard Attenborough has a sudden health crisis, her fantasies change to seeing him get better, thus neglecting her hidden stud (James Booth).Made around the time that various popular actresses such as Bette Davis, Elizabeth Taylor and Rosalind Russell took on roles that made them seem like drag queens, MacLaine took on several of them. From 1964's "What a Way to Go!" through this four years later, she really had only one hit ("Gambit") with the remainder getting more and more outrageous. There's no real sense of direction except just to keep getting sillier with each fantasy and costume change, basically turning Shirley into Liberace without a piano. Top that off with balloon like dummy dolls modeling braziers pulling people up for a mad, mad, mad world type final, and you've got Shirley MacLaine's real boobie prize. If this is what an acid trip looks like, keep me sober!

jjnxn-1 A relic of its time this poorly conceived so called comedy coupled with Sweet Charity and several other losers killed off Shirley's film career the first time around. Within two years she was finished on screen and was out of pictures for almost a decade until her comeback in The Turning Point. This is one of the unfortunate crop of late 60's movies that tried to cash in on the so called youth wave with the overuse of psychedelic colors and disjointed scenes rather than a cohesive script. The desired effect, whatever that was, is not achieved all that is accomplished is to bore the audience and leave them with eye strain from the overdone color scheme. Skip it!

Jay Raskin I found the film extremely hard to watch. I saw it on Netflix and I kept stopping it after fifteen or twenty minutes and resuming it the next day until I got through the whole thing.I generally like Shirley Maclaine and Richard Attenborough and I like splashy British psychedelic 60's movies like "Casino Royale" and "What's New Pussycat" However, Maclaine was unexpectedly listless and dull and Attenborough, despite a brave attempt, could not bring a spark of life to the movie. The great sets are wasted in a movie that seems to want to be hip or hippie, but doesn't know how.Someone named James Booth is the real star. It was a surprise to see such an unknown actor actually given more screen time than big stars like Maclaine and Attenborough. I kept thinking he was going to disappear from the movie, but instead his part just grew bigger and bigger to the point of pushing the other stars out. To be fair, He apparently did star in five or six movies low budget, moderately successful films in the 60's, but then went into playing mostly guest star television roles for the next 40 years. He plays a part that desperately needs the zaniness of Peter Sellers. One feels as if the part of Ambrose Tuttle, a crazy spaced out genius was written with Sellers in mind. Booth is much too laid back for the absurd cartoon style of the character and the work.The movie is visually quite interesting, but it pitches, rolls and jumps all over the place. Sadly, the director seems to know nothing about directing actors or scenes. The actors seem to be talking directly to the audience and not each other. This has the effect of making the movie seem like a long episode of the 1960's television show "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in," but without any jokes. The wonderful time that all the characters appear to be having is not infectious, but annoying.Anyways, I give the movie one star for Maclaine, one star for Attenborough and one star for the sets, but everything else is a gigantic bore in the film. If you're heavily stoned when watching, as the filmmakers appear to have been when putting this mess together, you can add another three stars.

diana-1 This light-as-a-bubble comedy annoyed me at first with its giddy farcicality but slowly won me over with the gentle wisdom at its core. Polyamory may not be for everybody, but in this story it transforms life for the three main characters: a lonely housewife, her businessman husband, and her underachieving lover. The story moves right along and takes some clever, unexpected turns before arriving at an enormous final irony. All the performances are good. (Special note to "Zulu" fans: "Blossom" contains a few sly allusions to that great film, including scenes where James Booth shows up in a red tunic. The effect is somewhat incongruous, though, because Tuttle's voice and manner are completely unlike Hookie's.)