Truly Dreadful Film

What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Even George Segal himself acknowledged that he had a bland screen presence (Halliwell's Film Guide-1995). Most people wouldn't list him as one of their favorite actors. However, he was definitely okay for this film. Segal's character in this movie is quasi-tragic, a talented commercial artist and a family man, married to adequately attractive Eva Marie Saint and with two cute, wise-cracking daughters. Why he seems to want (or needs) to throw this away for drinking and women makes for somewhat compelling viewing, and leads to a great climax at a party for a lot of sophisticated art types on a very cold winter's night, in which first a lot of drinking and then temptation lead to one of the better conclusions you're likely to see.

I know that movies about alcoholics aren't implicitly bad. I know that movies about people obviously headed for ruin aren't implicitly bad. I know that movies from the seventies aren't necessarily bad. But up until the last scene, I found the movie irritating. I'm sure that that is probably some of what the director wanted: we're supposed to be irritated by the stupid things the characters do, we're supposed to be irritated by all the same things that get under the skin of Brooks Wilson. Somehow though, the irritation wasn't translated for me. It was dumped directly into my veins without any intermediary.I think that it's mostly because it's a seventies movie and I find so much of seventies movies tiresome. As soon as I started watching it, I found myself gritting my teeth as I saw the city streets and all the late sixties and early seventies cars and clothing. I know that the movie has value and it was probably a very interesting film when it was released. And I think that the ending makes it worth it, but only just.If you can see past the seventies style or don't have the negative reaction that I do, you will find it much more enjoyable. If you don't like seventies movies, you probably won't like this one either.

George Segal (not as scruffy as he typically had been at the start of the decade) plays a troubled husband and father suffering through career uncertainty who cheats on his wife (Eva Marie Saint, cast yet again as a doormat-spouse). Segal is an affable screen presence, but we never learn much about what makes him tick, what causes him to hurt the ones he loves. Talented director Irvin Kershner hit a few snags in his career; here, the semi-improvisational ground he's treading desperately needs a center, or a leading character we can attach some emotions to. The dramatic finale is well-realized, and Segal's comeuppance is provocative and thoughtful--at least something is HAPPENING; overall, it's a cynical slice of the marriage blahs, one that probably played a lot fresher in 1970 than it does today. ** from ****

In the great Jean Renoir classic "Rules of the Game", a character played by the director himself comments that "everybody has his own good reasons." This rightly has been taken to be the great humanist director's basic philosophy of life. Seeing, over and over again, this understanding, non-judgmental attitude by a narrative artist toward his characters' weaknesses is what makes art film audiences love Renoir's work and consider him one of the greatest filmmakers of the 20th century. Irvin Kershner's "Loving" is one of the rare Hollywood films worthy of being called Renoirian, and it is for just this reason. Even though "Loving" is filled with highly-flawed characters making seemingly disastrous choices about their lives, its genius is how it puts the audience in a position where it cannot (or at least cannot with any decency) judge them. This may be more than many audience members can handle, being so used to films with heroes and villains about whom they are allowed to feel smugly superior. The legendary "New Yorker" critic Pauline Kael, in her rave review of the film, wrote that it "looks at the failures of middle-class life without despising the people; it understands that they already despise themselves" and that there's "a decency in the way that Kershner is fair to everyone." We could use a few more films like "Loving" out there in the American film cannon. If you every get a chance to see this film, don't hesitate to do so!