Crappy film

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

I enjoyed the movie, even though it has its flaws.One of the problems is that Daisy is really not a sympathetic character. Yes, you feel very sorry for her when Christopher Plummer's character informs her that she is no longer allowed to visit her mother in the asylum. However, she never seems to be grateful for her fame and monetary success. Instead she runs off with Redford's character when she is supposed to sing with a children's choir. She is being groomed for movie stardom the same way Judy Garland, Deanna Durbin, Kathryn Grayson, Jane Powell, and countless other singing and non singing performers were as well. The viewer doesn't really feel sorry for her since she almost seems to create much of her unhappiness. It is true that teenagers don't always think maturely, but back then with her poverty and fatherless life, one would think Daisy might be more grateful with her chance for success. Natalie's own voice was not good enough to be used for the songs (except for the brief introduction of "You're Gonna Hear From Me"), and it's evident when you listen to the FSM Silver Age Classics double CD recording of the film. I like Jackie Ward very much as a singer, but I don't think she sounded much like Natalie Wood. Carole Richards sang for Cyd Charisse in Brigadoon and Silk Stockings, and she sounded like Cyd. Rita Hayworth's vocal dubber Nan Wynn also sounded like her. If the film contained a more believable sound, I might have been more convinced that Daisy was more realistic. For fun, go to You Tube and look up the videos of lostvocals3. He presents the songs with Natalie's recorded tracks. I have never been a huge Natalie Wood fan. I enjoy her work, and I have seen several of her films. I do think she turned in a good performance, even though she never looked fifteen years old. They could have made the character a bit older but then you would lose out on the parts where they commit her mom due to her being a minor and also Redford's marriage proposal isn't as necessary. However, she does turn in a solid portrayal.I wish Redford's character could have been shown dallying with a handsome hunk, but it was 1965 after all. I enjoyed his performance, but I would have liked to have learned more about his character and his career. Was his career ever in danger due to his drinking and sexual partners? Was he protected as long as his box office stayed strong? I also wish I could have seen some real reaction from Daisy when he reappears long after he leaves her in Arizona. How can he just come back with flowers after dumping her? Well, it's the character all right. He is self absorbed and lacks responsibility.Christopher Plummer's character is ruthless. After kissing Daisy and getting involved with a minor (after he chastises Redford's character on the same behavior), he later says he doesn't care what she does or what happens to after she completes the movie she is in the middle of shooting. That's it. Finish the picture and he can get a new girl to take her place. It's true. When Garland left MGM in 1950, there was Debbie Reynolds, Jane Powell, and Kathryn Grayson to fill in. I enjoyed Plummer's chilling performance.I too wish Roddy McDowall had more to do, but he was fine with his limited screen time. I liked Ruth Gordon and Kathryn Bard was strong too.I agree with the many reviewers and their comments on the hairstyles and clothing not being really from the 1930s. However, I still think the film does a good job at showing the studio system at that time.

This film seems way ahead of it's time, made in 1965 it's one of the first to show a darker side of Tinsel Town. Natalie Wood plays a tomboy who's plucked from obscurity and becomes a teen singing star. Her character is almost immediately jaded by the experience, manipulated by a studio head and a dubious male heartthrob, played by a stunning looking Robert Redford. Ruth Gordon once again stands out as the teen stars' mother. Christopher Plummer is excellent as the smooth studio head with Roddy McDowall as his cold assistant. Katharine Bard plays Plummers' wife, and her character is fascinating. She seems to float and flow when she moves and her character sums up the film's overall feel. Distant, detached and alien yet seething with anger and disappointment.The problem with the film is that it's very dark in tone. That is to say the slick big budget production is overshadowed by a strange menace, highlighting the fact that the studio system was basically a people factory, uncaring and cannibalistic. Audiences at the time must have been very confused, expecting a light, breezy musical. Instead it's a realistic yet stylized downer, reminiscent of Valley of the Dolls, which was yet to come. There's very little genuine romance, sentiment or humor, just a steady flow of odd scenes.This is one of those movies that many have never heard of, it remains obscure despite it's almost epic appeal. It's certainly worth a look, but just try to nail it down to any specific category.

Natalie Wood is fifteen year old Daisy Clover, a feisty kid who lives in a shack with her dotty mother, Ruth Gordon, in 1936 Los Angeles. She comes to the attention of Christopher Plummer, owner of Swan Studios, who smooths the rough edges off her cygnet image, dresses her as Alice in Wonderland, and puts her in "major motion pictures" as "America's New Valentine." It's what Wood has always wanted -- fame, money enough to lift her mother out of poverty, and, mostly, self actualization. It's all expressed in the theme song we hear her sing -- "You're Gonna Hear From Me." An ambitious movie, it has some sizzling moments but they're constantly undercut by some incredibly unimaginative elements. Let me get them out of the way first.That theme song. "You're Gonna Hear From Me." It's not badly constructed, it's appropriate to the story of Wood's rise to fame, her thumos, as the Greeks would have called it. But it's one hundred percent generic. It belongs in the same category as "Tomorrow" and "I've Gotta Be Me" and "The Impossible Dream." Worse, the orchestration, by Albert Woodbury, is thoroughly modern in its instrumentation and harmonies. I presume the motives were commercial. "You're Gonna Buy This Record." You get to hear it in all its prodigiousness three times. And the narrative itself is rather like a soap opera. Wood is betrayed at every turn. The charming, extremely handsome, poetry-quoting Robert Redford first seduces her, then is forced by circumstances to marry her, then deserts her -- REALLY "deserts" her, leaving her alone, without transportation, in a shabby motel in the middle of Arizona -- for a male lover.She turns to Plummer, studio owner, who offers her understanding and comfort -- then he begins schtupping her too.Tragedy upon tragedy. Her beloved mother dies. Wood goes into a mute depression, delaying the picture she's making, until Plummer's patience runs out and he begins slapping her face while she mourns. By this time, the viewer aches more intensely than Wood herself for her luck to turn.We don't get to see much movie making, only one scene of Wood doing a musical number about a circus, and it there is a complete absence of any sense of realism. According to the movie, the complicated scene involves singing and dancing and it's all shot in one take. In the middle of it, Wood walks up to a mirror and looks into it, and the director, Robert Mulligan, commits the stupidest move any director can be guilty of. Wood peers into the mirror but instead of looking at her own face, as she should, she's gazing obliquely into the glass and looks directly at the camera lens behind her. Isn't there SOMEBODY who's job it is to see that the audience isn't hit over the head with such a clumsy device that can only serve to undercut the suspension of disbelief? I mean, when is the last time you saw your face in a mirror by looking at the reflection from an angle of 45 degrees? But there is some good stuff too. First, Natalie Wood gives what is probably her finest performance. She was never a Great Actress, but she shows more skill here than in anything else she's done, probably with help from Mulligan. She is into her cynical and determined character, but she's vulnerable too. She's no cutie pie here. And watch her face as Plummer introduces her to her audience and accompanies her down a long staircase. Half a dozen emotions -- happiness, satisfaction, fear -- all flit across her features second by second, colors across a frenzied chameleon. A marvelous scene.And, here and there, Mulligan challenges the conventions of the genre, of films in general. Wood's breakdown during a looping session is well done. And there is a long scene in which Plummer explains Redford's treacherous character to a devastated Wood. She's been awake all night and is lying on a lounge next to the pool. Plummer's performance is a tour de force. And Mulligan shoots him from behind Wood's reclining figure. Her head is propped on her hand. She never utters a word. And not ONCE does Mulligan cut to a reaction shot. Through the entire scene we see nothing but her tousled hair. It take self confidence to do something like that, and it takes guts.The skill and the buffoonery just about cancel each other out and what we're left with is a formulaic story of someone's rise to the top, the disillusionment that follows, and a couple of magnificent performances and well-stage and edited scenes.

I haven't seen this movie in years. So I got it streamed through Netfix. I want say I remember it was not suppose to be a good movie when it came out. I saw it with my parents and all I could remember is the songs and Natalie Wood. On second viewing I find this film was very underrated. Natalie Wood actually pulls off being a 15 year old. I think because she is only 4"9' and is very petite. She announces to her mother, Ruth Gordon, she can sing and she goes for a audition and they like her. Ruth GOrdon is at her eccentric best. But it is sad what happens when Daisy's near to do well sister takes things in her own hands. Since Daisy is a minor. Christopher Plummer is excellent as the merciless studio head. When Daisy has a emotional breakdown, Plummer makes no qualms about her position with him, even though she had been carry on a affair with him. He asks the doctor if she can go to work and if she cannot go to work make her certifiable so I can get the money from insurance. He goes on to tell he she is there to make him money, not the opposite and promptly fires her nurse.. It was a great scene. It is a a more really about making movies more then about Daisy Clover, and the stars She is just the device they use. Robert Redford is some Errol FLynn type and sweeps the 16 year old Daisy off her feet. One would have to be blind not to see a train wreck coming. But he tells her things he knows she wants to hear and he even pays attention to her grandmother. All I have to say when she marries him , look up what happened to Jean Harlow on her wedding night to Paul Bern. Not quite as deadly but... you get the idea. I think Daisy is a variety of characters but mostly Judy Garland with a little Deanna Durbin, evident by the end and how Miss Durbin left Hollywood at a very young age. All in all I liked the movie. Wood is great and she looks like she is having a great time. Plummer should of gotten a Oscar for his role or at least nominated. Ruth Gordon was good but her roles diminishes greatly after Daisy became famous. And Redford is great playing the louse. Gee they still haven't figured out how to get rid of those bumps on his cheek. lol. .