A Disappointing Continuation

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Molly was probably a likable character, and I got the impression Blythe Danner was giving a good performance. But somehow this movie never registered with me. I did like the old-time music (Ralph Stanley wouldn't want me to call it bluegrass) and the big-band music used in one scene in the 1940s.My biggest problem was that I could never remember which of the male characters were which (and apparently Molly had the same problem seeing as how she couldn't make up her mind which one to like), and even though I like Beau Bridges, I never saw any of the men as resembling him until the 1960s.This was probably a good movie to those who like novels such as 'Wuthering Heights'.

This movie doesn't have the action and gun-toting violence (thank goodness) of modern-day movies, and I found the story compelling and the actors believable. It introduces us to an early and charming Blythe Danner; Anthony Perkins is stilted and unapproachable - as the character called for, and Beau Bridges is someone you just want to hug. It was interesting to see how the producer/director made the movie span about 30 years - both in the actors, and in the setting. The scenery was beautiful to me - but then I'm from Texas, so I know how beautiful Central Texas is. Produced before ratings, I would give this a GP because it deals with a beautiful lady and her love of two different men.

It's seems clear that Sidney Lumet was unfamiliar with the setting, the characters, the story...I mean, Gid is a cowboy wearing OVERALLS--Gid's NOT a farmer! He was afraid of Texas, and moved back east to New Jersey to shoot the remainder of the film--no wonder the film looks like a TV movie. It should have been directed by someone else, someone who understood the place, and written by a screenwriter who understood the characters and story, like McMurtry himself, perhaps??? Maybe someday it will be re-done, and done justly. It's a moving and complex story, one that deserves to be told in the affecting way it's written. Eastwood as director? It spans a 45-year period, and though challenging, with the appropriate writer and director and actors would make for a timeless, memorable film.

Coming on the heels of The Last Picture Show, this Larry McMurtry adaptation must've sounded like a sure thing with the likes of Beau Bridges, Anthony Perkins, and Blythe Danner before the cameras and the great Sidney Lumet behind but ultimately this film is a case of too much too soon. This story, which resembles last year's The Hi-Lo Country, could've been much more interesting in the hands of others. Bridges and Danner give their acting chops a good exercise but it's a case of bringing on newcomers before their time while Perkins is just miscast period. Even Lumet shows he's in unfamiliar territory by shooting the outdoor sequences in a flat, TV movie fashion while keeping the performances more in tune with the melodramatic films of yesteryear instead of being true to the times in which the film was made. Imagine what Sam Peckinpah or Martin Ritt could've done with the material. Neither being completely horrible or forgivably worthwhile, Lovin' Molly will remain an interesting footnote in the careers of all involved.