Simply Perfect

Just perfect...

Don't listen to the negative reviews

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

Not engrossing at all, maybe worthwhile to see Hepburn who is always graceful.Pretty much Dorothy Stratten's only movie, made when she was 19. She died shortly after making this film, while it was still in post production. She wasn't very experienced and it shows, but she had much promise.

How this film could get a rating of 6.2 on this site is a mystery to me. It's crystal clear why this film bombed upon release. It's the least funny romantic comedy ever made!The people who worked making it had a little too much fun and thought they were being adorable. There's hardly any plot - just people falling in love and bantering. So many bad ideas, especially the title which is so inappropriate it actually fits this terrible comedy!Bogdanovich was too much in love making this film, blinding him. It's embarrassing to see him trying to put himself in the movie in John Ritters character and having Colleeen Camp pretending to be Cybill Shepherd pretending to be a screwball comedienne!What makes this film interesting, though, is all the beautiful women displayed in front of the camera. Audrey Hepbun, Patti Hansen and Dorothy Stratten are gorgeous. Then there are the horrifying ones like the one playing the kid in the film and...Blaine Novak.

Considered the favorite of director Bogdonovich's own pictures, this is a very personal movie featuring his friends and characters based on his friends and himself. It's also astonishingly indulgent, which may put off many viewers (as it did upon first release.) Gazzara, Ritter and Novak play private investigators, hired to spy on a pair of married women who may be indulging in extramarital affairs. Ritter and Novak are tailing pretty, young Stratton while Gazzara has his eye on wealthy wife and mother Hepburn. During the peeking, peeping and following, other characters are woven into the mix such as the men's employer Morfogen and his efficient secretary MacEwan, sensuous cab driver Hanson, enigmatic Latin Ferrer and bombastic, frenetic country singer Camp. They bop around New York as if it's a tiny hamlet such as Mayberry, constantly running across each other and interacting, associating and cross-pollinating. Ritter, enacting the director's alter ego, goes for slapsticky laughs throughout with middling success. He tries hard, but his character isn't particularly interesting, engaging or even appealing, really. Gazzara coasts through the movie on understated charisma, allowing only an occasionally glimmer of spunk to show through. Hepburn isn't heard until halfway through. She lends an air of grace to the movie that would otherwise be absent, but also seems out of place against most of her other cast-mates save Gazzara. Rail thin, she's like a hairy Q-Tip with oversize designers sunglasses on much of the time. Stratton is truly pretty and occasionally displays a propensity for screen acting, but she has no character to play whatsoever. She's a prop. Novak is even skinnier than Hepburn and hairier, to boot! His "cool" character is frequently annoying. Camp is practically unbearable. Bogdonovich has said that she's basically playing herself throughout which is certainly no compliment! The less said about the rest of the cast the better because they are almost all really bad and, fortunately, most of them only did another project or two before disappearing from the movie camera's eye forever. Hyser and Pena being exceptions. Though the film is a Valentine to Manhattan, and parts of the city have rarely been presented so prettily lit and so affectionately displayed, the good news mostly stops there. The story, such as it is, is vague, non-involving and tiresome while the characters are alternately dull or grating. There is very little to take an interest in or root for, though there is a palpable sense of regret and suffocation where Hepburn is concerned. Music in the film ranges from classy and appropriate to intrusive and obnoxious. There's genuine sadness in the fact that Stratton is seen here playing a lovely woman, married to a lout, being followed by a detective when in real life she was a lovely woman, married to a lout, being followed by a detective and when the detective discovered she was being unfaithful, her husband killed her and then himself. This fact has been blamed for the film's dismal box office performance, but that's not the reason it failed. It failed because it is too personally specific to appeal to most people and too off-putting and self-indulgent to even bother delivering characters and plot that anyone could care about. Were "Giant" and "Rebel Without a Cause" hampered by the death of James Dean prior to their release? Did "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" tank when Spencer Tracy died soon after filming wrapped? Did people stay away from "The Dark Knight" following Heath Ledger's death? No. People actually are curious to see a movie after the star has died suddenly unless the movie is simply no good.

Its not the cast. A finer group of actors, you could not find. Its not the setting. The director is in love with New York City, and by the end of the film, so are we all! Woody Allen could not improve upon what Bogdonovich has done here. If you are going to fall in love, or find love, Manhattan is the place to go. No, the problem with the movie is the script. There is none. The actors fall in love at first sight, words are unnecessary. In the director's own experience in Hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. It is reality to him, and his peers, but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. So, in the end, the movie is hollow, and shallow, and message-less.