The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

08.02.2010 was on TCM today as it was Julie Christie Day Interesting vehicle for a snapshot of the transitional time set in the very short time of the late 1960's to early '70's when the world fundamentally changed forever. Long before airport security, political correctness and at the start of sex without feeling and/or consequences our characters soldier on in a time capsule.It is a lovely little look at curious characters and a character who perhaps does not exist. It is a rare period piece of the period that garnered much more attention at the "New Extreme" rather than this hold on of the "Old Guard", an extension of former moralities with a creeping in of the new modern world, almost unaware that it exists.John Hurt plays a curious little man-boy who is very socially awkward whose role does not become clear until the last 20 minutes. Julie Christie is a divine little character living in a world that may or may not really exist and Michael Sarrrazin, well, he is an idealized character that Adrian Grenier's calls to mind or vice versa.In the end it was far too long a run for the very short hop. The snapshot of a very small part of that time is indeed captured well, but there really is no story and no metaphor, just a fantasy and not a drug-fueled one. Recommended only for Movie Nutcases.

I saw it as a teenager maybe 15 years ago. I've searched high and low for it ever since then. It was nowhere to be found, the forgotten film, if it had not been for Julie Christie in it. She's absolutely stunningly gorgeous in this film with long brown hair and long slim legs. I wonder why she made it. She was a huge star then and this film isn't much, a little trifle of a movie. The story is so slight it leaves a lot of space for Julies beauty. There's a nice pleasant Sunday atmosphere in the film. I remembered it as much more gloomy but it is more of a romantic comedy, although with a very slow pace. We don't learn much about these beautiful and rich people who are not completely spoiled and quite charming. What I remembered after the first time I saw it was how empty their lives are. You can't feel sorry for them, though.I would like to thank the people who made this film and wonder what it felt when it just disappeared. I wish this film was more known and loved. Films like this don't get made anymore. I can see why it wasn't a hit since no one comes out happier, neither the characters nor the audience. The script was by Tonino Guerra, the same man behind "Blow Up". This can explain the brilliant and poetic ending to the film, set at an empty airport, which made me always remember "In Search of Gregory", love it, and start my own search for it.

The always appealing Julie Christie and a very young John Hurt help this otherwise unworkable curiosity. It starts off badly with Brit pop star Georgie Fame warbling a second-rate ballad over the opening credits with a remarkably off-key voice. We begin with Julie Christie in Rome getting an invitation from her father to attend his fifth wedding (taking place in Geneva). But I must admit the invitation is delivered in one of the most bizarre bits I've ever seen or heard of. The invite is on a recording in the shape of a large postcard, and for some reason, Christie's friend has a turntable in the dashboard of his sports car, and he plays the postcard for her. It's so odd it's almost worth catching the film for this alone---and since it's in the first scene you can skip the rest of the movie.And the rest of the movie fumbles its central premise: Christie becomes obsessed with a man she never meets, the title character. Too bad he's embodied by the Lurch-like dullard Michael Sarrazin. This character should be dynamic and charming and all the things a woman like Christie's character should fantasize about, not a vacuous lump like Sarrazin. His casting sinks the film. If anything, it would've been better to have made Christie the object of a man's obsession---now that would be more believable. Still, it's a nice idea for a set-up, as the stories of Gregory mount up and turn him into a Harry Lime-like mystery man. But the confusion starts early as Christie sees a poster of Sarrazin at the airport and for some unknown reason seems to think that is Gregory (or is she already half-delusional and the film is really about a neurotic young woman?) This continues throughout as she fantasizes about Gregory with Sarrazin's face, even though there is no definite determination that Gregory looks like her Sarrazin-shaped mental picture (we never see the real Gregory). Then, as an illogical late-movie trick, she runs across Sarrazin at the airport and thinks it's Gregory (as do we) and takes him to bed. Turns out he's NOT Gregory, but a complete stranger, yet he looks just like the picture of Gregory in her head. That's the kind of weird idea that could work in a novel, but on film is all wrong. As is this film, including a second helping of Georgie Fame at the end, continuing his off-key warbling. Incidentally, this film was partly made by Universal Pictures U.K. branch but obviously looked like such a dud that Universal in the U.S. never gave it any kind of release here. No loss to cinema.

So much promise, so little delivery. Considering how much talent was involved in this production, one would expect a great deal more--but there are precious few highlights in this muddled Euro flick. Julie Christie looks good but barely breaks a sweat, Adolfo Celi over-emotes, Michael Sarrazin phones in his performance, and only John Hurt seems to be making much of an effort on camera. None of them are done any favors by Tonino Guerra's bloodless screenplay, and the photography of Otto Heller and Giorgio Tonti is unimaginative at best. The print currently airing on Sundance also seems washed out--the film looks like it was shot in Eastmancolor, but wasn't--and Georgie Fame's theme tune is genuinely wretched. Is there anything here to recommend? Well, Hurt is good, but his character is peripheral to most of the action, and Ron Grainer provides some good music for a bizarre recording sequence that imagines the title character as a wacky hybrid of composers Harry Partch and David Whitaker. Only recommended for hardcore admirers of la Christie.