Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Woodyanders Sweet and naïve college grad Anne Welles (an appealing portrayal by Barbara Parkins), ruthlessly driven and ambitious singer Neely O'Hara (a gloriously histrionic Patty Duke), and the gorgeous, but untalented Jennifer North (the stunning Sharon Tate in an especially poignant role) all seek fame and fortune in show business only to be chewed up and spit out by the decadent fast line lifestyle they find themselves caught up in.Director Mark Robson treats the trashy material with admirably misguided sincerity and seriousness, thereby ensuring that this movie delivers a plethora of unintentional belly laughs, with Neely's training/climbing-up-that-ladder montage, the supposedly racy, but actually quite ridiculously tame French "art" film screening, and O'Hara's incarceration flashbacks at an asylum rating as the definite gut-busting highlights. Moreover, the shamelessly lurid script by Helen Deutsch and Dorothy Kingsley leaves no sleazy stone unturned: We've got everything from abortion to suicide to alcoholism and homosexuality to copious amounts of excessive pill-popping all present and accounted for in the delightfully lurid narrative. The game cast give it their proverbial all: Duke overemotes to the point where you swear that she's going to implode, Susan Hayward attacks her juicy role as bitter and aging Broadway veteran Helen Lawson with deliciously venomous gusto, Tony Scotti makes a likeable impression as dashing hunk Tony Polar, and Lee Grant lends sturdy support as Tony's protective sister Miriam. William H. Daniels' glossy widescreen cinematography provides an impressive vibrant and polished look. The lovably cruddy songs hit the catchy spot, too. A complete kitschy hoot and a half.

robertshort_3 The rating of 1 out of 10 refers to the film from an analytical perspective - I would probably give it a solid 10 on the "guilty pleasure" scale. Yes, the movie is really awful if you objectively analyze it - bad writing (from an equally trashy, compulsively readable novel), bad directing (from veteran Mark Robson, who has done very good work over the years) and bad acting (ranges from wooden to outrageous overacting - Sharon Tate looks beautiful but does very little else, Patty Duke really chews the scenery in her first "adult" role, and Susan Hayward - for shame!) In fairness, the New England scenery is beautiful and the music is OK, (but really didn't care for the theme song) But for all its badness I guarantee you will stick with it to the end. A great time-waster for a rainy or snowy day - just sit back, turn off your better judgment and sense of intellect, and enjoy!

Dalbert Pringle C'mon, now - This sensationally sleazy piece of trash from the screwy 60s really should've been a whole lot better - 'Cause, believe me, it couldn't have possibly gotten much worse.The way I see it, the frequent, unintentional laughs that occurred throughout Valley Of The Dolls (VOTD) did absolutely nothing to compensate for all of the terrible "everything else" stuff that took place in this disappointingly dumb picture.Pathetically written, incompetently directed, with certified b-grade performances all around, VOTD is, without question, a shamelessly trashy adaptation of Jacqueline Susann's shamelessly trashy novel of the same name.In a nutshell - VOTD's decidedly drab and seemingly uneventful story revolves around the ups and downs and all-arounds of 3 ambitious young beauties breaking into show biz and their inevitable "introduction" (nudge-nudge-wink-wink) into NYC society.Remembering that this is, of course, 1967 - These 3 babes, in one way, or another, always seemed to be getting themselves mixed up with all the wrong men and ending up taking all the wrong drugs, for all the wrong reasons. But, I'll be damned if they ever seemed to be getting anything worthwhile happening in their miserable, little lives, at all.Ho-Hum! What a bloody waste of talent! Trivia notes - The so-called "dolls" that are referred to in this film's title is a slang term used for barbiturates that are taken as sleep aids.Made on an estimated $5 million budget, VOTD (as of 1973) had earned itself $50 million, worldwide.To date, Jacqueline Susann's garbage novel of the same name has sold over 30 million copies, worldwide.Actor Richard Deyfuss made his screen debut in this film.VOTD is considered to be one of the top 100 "Most Amusingly Bad Movies Ever Made" - But, I'll tell you something.... I wasn't amused.

capone666 Valley of the Dolls A lot less people would be inclined to take antidepressants if they only came in the form of suppositories.Since they don't, the girlfriends in this drama pop'em by the handful.At different points in their careers, fashion model Anne (Barbara Parkins), movie star Neely (Patty Duke), and girl next door Jennifer (Sharon Tate) each become addicted to polychromatic prescription pills colloquially referred to as "dolls".Anne takes her dolls to cope with her cheating husband (Paul Burke); Neely needs them for her ego and; Jennifer pops them for depression.But the highs don't last and soon all three women must face an array of consequences, from breast cancer to suicidal to psychotic breakdown.Based on the best seller by Jacqueline Susann, this salacious cautionary tale relies on gratuitous sex and sentimental twaddle to compensate for a flaccid script.Furthermore, the real pills corrupting young women in the 1960s were the contraceptive kind.Yellow Light vidiotreviews.blogspot.com