Such a frustrating disappointment

Overrated

A Disappointing Continuation

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

I can't add too much to the other reviews. We have a devoted son trying to fulfill his mother's wish, and he goes to extremes in order to fulfill it, all the while trying to unknowingly fulfill his own.I saw this film when it was first released, and was just astounded as to its simple form. It was heart warming and heart wrenching all at once, though I didn't feel it at the time, but admired its simplicity in form. This is the kind of film making they simply don't do anymore. The shots are basic, functional, non-energetic, and do their job. No steadicam work, no overhead remote wire work, nor sweeping helicopter shots. And for that matter there's no wit filled dialogue. No excessive use of foul language. No explosions, gunshots nor car chases. No phony and juvenile romantic moments. No fake intimacy. No fabricated outlandish scenarios. No pre-teen raunch jokes and humor. None of that.It's the way movies used to be. The movie going audience was different back then. More mature. More adult. More willing to behave themselves and take life seriously but also acknowledge a time and place to have fun. They were also smarter when it came to the human condition. They weren't raised on fast food cinema with superheros gallivanting around CGI worlds. It was a different time. A different place. It's what going to the movies used to be like.And that's who this film is for. For those people, the movie audience of yesterday, who didn't mind taking in a matinée to see a romance or detective story on the screen. The kind of movie goer who wasn't waiting to be wowed by the next big breakthrough in special effects, CGI and other technical wizardry. They went for the actors and story.And those are the kind of films Greta Garbo was in. Oh sure, she was beautiful to be sure, but she was also an actress with reclusive tendencies--a quirk that made her legendary among her comeliness and presence on screen. People thought she was beautiful, and then her natural character was captured via lens and film to relay to the movie going audience of the 30s and 40s. People fell in love with her, her characters, her performances, and her films.In this film we bring all those elements together to form a compound for the classic movie lover who lived in the 80s. For anyone who loves their mother, for anyone who loves classic films, for anyone with a misled faith in Hollywood endings, such as I and many others, this film is for you.I haven't seen it since it was first released. And it was a pleasure to see it again.Check it out.

A painfully protracted, maudlin and predictable drama, my twenty-fifth Sidney Lumet film, Garbo Talks, gets filed precipitously on the low quality end of my quest.The film documents a harried young working man named Gilbert (Ron Silver), who is son to Estelle Rolle (Anne Bancroft), eccentric, feisty and above all, an obsessive fan of Greta Garbo. When Estelle becomes afflicted with a brain tumor, her son decides to go on an obsessive quest of his own: track down Greta Garbo, and bring her to his mother.Anne Bancroft is in full-on, chew-the-scenery Auntie-Mame mode here, that kind of feisty ol' gal that film loves, where she mouths off to people, and stands up for her ideals, and ends up in jail all the time. She stands outside of the film as an obvious artificial construct, and every scene with her is yuk-yuk lame; every note striking false. The rest of the characters are equally as one-dimensional, but tremendously less-interesting. Ron Silver is flat as can be, and his attempted love triangle is as telegraphed as anything else in the film: He is dating affluent Lisa Rolfe (Carrie Fisher), but becomes smitten with oddball co-worker Jane Mortimer (Catherine Hicks), and I called every scene three scenes before they happen.That's the other problem. One-dimensional characters can survive if they are posited in an intriguing and captivating story, but there's simply nothing here. The film's pace is glacial, resplendent with extraneous material that strengthens absolutely nothing, and when the film does begin to follow a linear plot, it's both plodding and uninteresting. There are plenty of guest stars, so to speak, including Harvey Fierstein as a gay New Yorker (imagine that) in yet another highly inessential scene.Late in the film, it attempts to make a halfway-decent statement on the nature of idolatry and its role in our lives, but by that time, none of the characters exist as real people, and the film had bored me into submission, so it functions as a case of far-too-little, far-too-late. The film is my twenty-fifth Lumet-directed film, making him easily my most-viewed director, but outside of a couple egregious misses (A Stranger Among Us, anyone?), he hasn't plumbed the painfully uninteresting depths of Garbo Talks.{Grade: 4.5/10 (C/C-) / #21 (of 24) of 1984 / #23 of 25 Lumet films}

There are two stories here. The obvious one is about a man who grows by succeeding in impossible quest: the dutiful son fulfills his dying mother's wish, to meet her idol. That makes for a very pleasant movie. The more interesting story, beautifully summed up in the animation of the opening credits, concerns the role of idols in our lives. The conversation that forms the culminating scene of the movie hints, in several subtle ways, that this relationship has an almost religious dimension: because our interaction with media idols can mark the defining moments of our lives; and because of the intriguing way that Garbo talks... This second story makes this film exceptional.

Anne Bancroft has one of my favorite "renowned actress who really wants a great part" stories regarding this movie. She wanted the role, but Sidney Lumet wasn't going to give it to her. He'd just seen one of her husband's (Mel Brooks) lesser known, but still good movies, "To Be or Not To Be," and told her he was looking for someone older, less glamorous, less beautiful.And she said, "Look, in that movie, I was carefully photographed, I was lovingly lit, and I was sleeping with the producer!"So she got the part. And did such a good job.