Very well executed

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

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

Sweet and naïve college grad Anne Welles (an appealing portrayal by Barbara Parkins), ruthlessly driven and ambitious singer Neely O'Hara (a gloriously histrionic Patty Duke), and the gorgeous, but untalented Jennifer North (the stunning Sharon Tate in an especially poignant role) all seek fame and fortune in show business only to be chewed up and spit out by the decadent fast line lifestyle they find themselves caught up in.Director Mark Robson treats the trashy material with admirably misguided sincerity and seriousness, thereby ensuring that this movie delivers a plethora of unintentional belly laughs, with Neely's training/climbing-up-that-ladder montage, the supposedly racy, but actually quite ridiculously tame French "art" film screening, and O'Hara's incarceration flashbacks at an asylum rating as the definite gut-busting highlights. Moreover, the shamelessly lurid script by Helen Deutsch and Dorothy Kingsley leaves no sleazy stone unturned: We've got everything from abortion to suicide to alcoholism and homosexuality to copious amounts of excessive pill-popping all present and accounted for in the delightfully lurid narrative. The game cast give it their proverbial all: Duke overemotes to the point where you swear that she's going to implode, Susan Hayward attacks her juicy role as bitter and aging Broadway veteran Helen Lawson with deliciously venomous gusto, Tony Scotti makes a likeable impression as dashing hunk Tony Polar, and Lee Grant lends sturdy support as Tony's protective sister Miriam. William H. Daniels' glossy widescreen cinematography provides an impressive vibrant and polished look. The lovably cruddy songs hit the catchy spot, too. A complete kitschy hoot and a half.

Checking out some of the other reviews I noticed a great disparity in responses to this film (which is not that unusual). What is interesting is that many of those who loved Valley of The Dolls and rated it very highly were in agreement with those that disliked it in that they all agreed that this film is a 'bad' film. Most seem to agree that the acting was very heavy handed and melodramatic, over-the-top, unrealistic, and poorly directed . . . yet some seemed to love it not in spite of, but because of those negative elements. For me, I also feel the acting, direction, and story are all either very weak or just plain bad, and yet I didn't respond favorably to those things. Sure, there is an element of fun and disbelief to this film that gave me some enjoyable moments, but overall I can't really recommend.

Among the most legendary of trashy movies, "Valley of the Dolls" is also compulsively entertaining. Anne Welles leaves the pristine snow-covered village of Lawrenceville for the savage Broadway jungle in Manhattan. Based on the lurid best-selling novel by Jacqueline Susann, the film chronicles the rise and fall of three young women: Welles, played by Barbara Parkins; Neely O'Hara, played by Patty Duke; and Jennifer North, played by Sharon Tate. Evidently, life is easy street in New York, at least at first, because opportunities are thrown at their feet; secretaries with scant shorthand skills become hair-spray models, mediocre singers become sensations, and women with bodies become stars of French art films.Reportedly a roman-a-clef drawn from well known show business personalities, "Valley of the Dolls" is glossy, big-budget nonsense from director Mark Robson, who previously directed such decent films as "Von Ryan's Express," "Peyton Place," and "The Bridges at Toko-ri." Perhaps Robson thought lightening would strike twice, and he could fashion another critical hit like "Peyton Place" from another trashy novel like Grace Metalious's 1950's scandalous best seller. However, "Valley of the Dolls" is no "Peyton Place." While Robson drew excellent performances from Lana Turner and a distinguished cast in his earlier soap opera, he unleashes his cast, and they go over the top in "Valley of the Dolls." Although directing three Oscar-winning actresses (Susan Hayward, Lee Grant, and Patty Duke), Robson let them chew the scenery shamelessly. While the bitchy performances provide guilty entertainment, they are often risible. Hayward is Helen Lawson, a tough Broadway veteran, who leaves no survivors; Hayward's badly staged musical number pits her against an out-of-control mobile, and her wig-pulling duel with Duke is justifiably famous for campy hilarity. Duke overplays the bitchiness throughout, and her final scene is a histrionic masterpiece of bad acting. The flashbacks of Duke in a sanitarium will have viewers rolling, especially when her toe cuts through a sheet. Only Lee Grant retains her dignity and under-plays a small, thankless role. Meanwhile, Sharon Tate is lovely, but wooden, and Barbara Parkins and Paul Burke do little with what little they are given by the script.The film's budget was obviously generous, and the now-dated 1960's fashions, make-up, and hair styles could be studied and copied for period films set in that decade. Also dated and offensive are repeated references to gays as queers, fags, and faggots; but, in fairness, the all-white cast lacks other minorities to denigrate. Except for the title song sung by Dionne Warwick, the tunes are instantly forgettable, although a duet between recovering addict Duke and wheel-chair bound Tony Scotti is like something out of "Airplane." The dialogue is either intentionally or unintentionally funny at times, and the use of "dolls" to refer to pills sounds forced. Although Robson likely entertained fantasies of producing another soap opera masterpiece on the order of "Peyton Place" or "Imitation of Life," he instead left a camp classic that is a guilty pleasure for many.

Have been reading through the reviews here and am amazed that no one has pointed out the thing that is most weird about this film. Which is: that this film is set in 1967 and yet there is absolutely NO pop music in it. Not even in the background on the radio! And remember this is the year of the Monterey Festival, the Summer of Love, Swinging London, Pepper, Forever Changes, Hendrix (the list could go on and on).Some of the other reviewers say this film is 'pure sixties' but no, no, NO! There's a tiny nod at fashion with Parkins' up-market outfits but that's about it. There's no fab gear, no op art, no e-type jags, no mini cars or mini skirts, this is just NOT 1967!This film hasn't even tried to be 'with-it', hasn't even put any 'token' pop or rock music in. You know the kind: 'groovy' party music with Hammond organs and bongos and electric guitars and go-go girls!There IS 'music' in this film, however, a LOT of it. You can't stop it. It keeps popping up to torture you like the monster in a horror movie. Now, I dislike show music, even when it's competent, but this is BAD show music! Others have gone into detail about it so I won't repeat their comments.You can't believe that in this same year you had The Graduate with wonderful songs by Simon and Garfunkel! It's like the makers of this film were on a totally different planet - the planet of Fuddie-duddie!I did watch it all the way though (albeit noodling on the guitar the whole time) and I have to agree with nearly everyone about one thing: Sharon Tate is very sweet.Thanks for reading! Bye!