 "My favorite Natalie Wood film" | 2009-10-09 |
| - Reviewed By history buff from Ontario Canada |
| I just wanted to say that of all Natalie Wood's films this is her most credible role. I find her totally believable as Deanie and the whole movie is cast well. I wouldnt change a thing about the casting, director, etc. It does make a big statement about small town USA. A classic everyone should have in their personal dvd collection. |
| |
 "Overrrated" | 2009-10-03 |
| - Reviewed By Stanwyck from Texas |
I'm afraid I can't agree with most of the other reviewers of this film.
Sometimes you watch a movie expecting to be dazzled with brilliant dialog enacted by competent actors, excellent direction and creative editing.
This movie has some moments, but they are few and far between. The movie starts off very choppy- cutting from one scene to another without pausing anywhere for more than a few seconds. A great deal of the acting is wooden, with many examples- Natalie Wood's father, her teacher, the minister (particularly), and several others. Pat Hingle is not wooden though- he overacts so badly that you begin to hate seeing his character. Unfortunately, nobody has anything really worth saying.
The only bright spot is Barbara Loden, who plays Warren Beatty's wanton sister. She really shines in her role.
The music is strange too. The opening bars of the main title sound like they were originally written for a war movie, and then it descends into schmaltz. The soundtrack music often doesn't work with what is happening on the screen. An example is when Natalie Wood jumps into the reservoir above the waterfall.
|
| |
| "splendor in the grass, what's not to like about this movie ?!" | 2009-09-06 |
| - Reviewed By P. culbertson |
| what a great movie, warren beatty in his first movie, natalie wood when she was young. a love story with a lesson, but not "preachy", just enjoyable to watch. |
| |
| "Fat Free, Brilliant Storytelling and Editing" | 2009-08-23 |
| - Reviewed By By Definition from Winnetka, CA USA |
I agree with all those who have praised Elia Kazan's genius, William Inge's timeless story, and Warren and Natalie for their poignant portrayals in Splendor in the Grass. The macguffin in the plot is the consummation of Deanie and Bud's relationship, a Romeo and Juliet story of parental manipulation, with a rich and inexhaustible supply of character depth and detail. Kazan's cup runneth over.
From Pat Hingle's depiction of an overbearing, oppressive father who smothers his victims with his love and ambition, Audrey Christie as Deanie's manipulative mother, and all the guidance counselors, doctors, coaches, and students along the way, the entire supporting cast is unparalleled. This film is about pain and misunderstanding, but there's no laughter to relieve the tension. And if the sexual revolution of the 1960's had any core opus or opening salvo, SITG is surely one of them.
What is surprising is how the parents of the families get along with each other and take pride in their children's pending engagement. This tends to isolate the barriers to happiness as being not so much familial as societal.
SITG has a lot to say about family and peer relationships that remains relevant for all time, and it moves so quickly and passionately to tell it's ironic and painful story. SITG has a flow, efficiency, and economy of storytelling that is most unusual and quite literary, especially by today's standards. The story structure and editing are as tight as any film ever made, and nothing ever, ever gets bogged down.
If you want to see how much meaning and richness can be communicated in just a few seconds of film, I invite you to examine SITG. The use of surprisingly short scenes lasting only a few seconds which dissolve from one to another is so effective. Once one scene is complete, there is no waiting, no ponderous pause, no wasted motion...the editing moves at the earliest possible moment to the next scene. For example, there is less than a minute of screen time from the final breakup until Bud meets his new lover, Angela.
This isn't like editing in commercials where cuts flash by at subliminal speeds. In SITG, dissolves are used to express short elapses...fade out and fade in is used to express longer passages of time. What a fine education and discipline is here for any filmmaker.
There are so many great character actors from the period, but an often overlooked one is Kermit Murdock as Dean Pollard (at Yale), who finds himself sandwiched in between the father's desires and those of Bud. As the story moves forward, Bud's father becomes increasingly desperate to maintain control of Bud, but instead loses control of his own life. That confrontation between Ace Stamper and Dean Pollard in the Dean's office very nicely juxtaposes the stock crash with the clash over academic goals. "What's the matter with people?" he says, even as his own irrationality is quite apparent.
One scene for me that didn't work, however, was Ace Stamper's suicide. More could have been made of it, but Kazan chose to avoid any examination of Bud's feelings towards his father's death, and handled the sequence in an uncharacteristically detached manner.
Fred Stewart as Del Loomis the storekeeper strikes an emotional tone of indifference and apathy. But his repeated admonition to "always drink plenty of milk, Deanie", is a sly, Freudian way of saying, "Listen to your mother, she knows what's good for you."
The late Kazan seemed to have an understanding of human nature and an interest in people that far exceeded most of us mere mortals. But if his movie is a meal, perhaps he uses too much MSG at times to enhance the flavor of his story. The long New Year's Eve party sequence, with a cadre of tuxedo-clad bachelors lusting after Ginny Stamper, is one over-the-top scene that could have used too much MSG, but still makes it's point uncompromisingly. Perhaps even more annoying is the movie's final hospital sequence, a below-the-belt blow upon the viewer, with Deanie calling out in her drugged-out state "who's there?", and Bud vomiting in the corridor, as authority figures once again keep the lovers apart. No, it's not fair, not even to the audience.
Natalie Wood handles her role with more intensity and clarity than any of her other work, armed with her perpetually pained smile. Warren with his trademark look of consternation is, if anything, even more indispensable as a mirror of the story's contradictions.
Despite the ongoing theme of frustration and failure, the film itself was a marriage between a story, a director, and two stars... made in heaven. |
| |
| ""LOVE THIS MOVIE"!!! " | 2009-02-03 |
| - Reviewed By Jeannette |
| I've seen it so many times, and I never get tired of it! It's such a great film! Warren and Natalie look gorgeous! Actors today have "NOTHING" on these two..including the rest of the cast who were awesome!! Every time I see it I tear...it's so sad yet so beautiful!! It's also on my list of top movies!! This is one movie you can't miss!! |
| |
| "The first movie that ever made me cry myself to sleep" | 2008-12-16 |
| - Reviewed By An Amazon User |
| The first time I watched this movie I was only 22 years old. I had only been married one month to a man I didn't want to be with. I still yearned for my first and only true love; the same man I am still in love with 26 years later. I remember crying myself to sleep that night as I related my own story to Natalie Wood and Warren Beatty in SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS. The similarities were astonishing. While this movie isn't for everyone, if you've ever been in love with the same man you know you can never have again, it is a "must see". |
| |
Expedited Available
