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

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

writers_reign Playright William Inge had something of a penchant for the catalyst, employing them to good effect in Picnic, Bus Stop and, of course, in this play. Whilst Tennessee Williams is arguably a better dramatist he doesn't always translate to the screen as well as Inge who had four solid successes with the three mentioned above plus The Dark At The Top Of The Stairs, even Ted Williams didn't hit like that. It is, of course, Shirley Booth - in her film debut - who carries the film though Burt Lancaster is solid in support playing much older than his real age. Trivia buffs will relish the fact that Humphrey Bogart lobbied for the part of Doc and was nearer to the correct age than Lancaster; this is only trivia if you know that Booth made her stage debut in 1925 opposite Bogie. This is a fine film that stands up well after more than sixty years.

dougdoepke One thing for sure—the film certainly goes against the glamorous 50's mold. Probably no movie from that prettified period is as dour as this one, from the dowdy Lola to the grim- faced Doc to the bleak photography to the plebian sets. I kept yearning for lively little Marie (Moore) to bounce in and give my eyes some relief. My guess is Hollywood was out to show Broadway that they could entrust their Meaningful stage plays to the notoriously commercial West Coast.Sure, Booth gets the spotlight and responds by emoting like she's on New York's center stage. But with that whiny voice and desperate demeanor, she's more pathetic than sympathetic. Then again, that may be the point, but you've got to wonder why the hunky Doc (Lancaster) stays with her in about as egregious a piece of visual miscasting as I've seen. But then maybe he too pities her long lost youth that won't ever come back no matter how hard she yearns. Looks like they're both paying a price for a mistake made years earlier. Of course, as might be expected, the screenplay's loaded with symbolism, especially her "dream" soliloquy. So get out your Freud if you care to.In my little book, the movie amounts to a one woman show that hasn't worn well, despite the studio's good intentions. Then too, catch that pat, unconvincing ending, so typical of the time. The dour production, however, does manage to put a dent in the bosomy Technicolor spectacles that ruled the 50's Hollywood roost. I'm just glad the talented Booth eventually moved on to TV and the less stagy Hazel (1961-1966).

Robert J. Maxwell What a downer. Burt is a recovering alcoholic married to Shirley Booth, a mindless optimist who lives in the past and can't seem to simply SHUT UP. My God, that voice! That shrill assurance! The maudlin exhumation of a night long ago devoted to the delights of Venus.How did Burt Lancaster's Doc ever manage to quit boozing when he has to face Hazel and the untrammeled entropy of her mind and her household? She doesn't make breakfast. He has to drink instant coffee before going to work. She's forgotten to buy orange juice. When he returns his dinner is late. It began to remind me of MY marriage.Meanwhile there is a sub plot involving a mating ritual between luscious student/boarder Terry Moore and muscular hunk Richard Jaekel. That's depressing too. She doesn't want to give it up but he wants nothing but. The 1950s were pretty bad.Watch the tragedy unfold if you want. I'm off for a bottle of Louis XIII Rare Cask 42.6. I need it bad.

Like_Wu_told_me The film's odd combination of staginess and 1950s sexual mores and social conventions makes for a mildly interesting but very dated take on marriage, aging, alcoholism, and sex. The dialogue is talky, overly expository, and not terribly involving, and the Alcoholics Anonymous subplot feels awkward and tacked on. The absurd prudishness of Burt Lancaster's character, emblematic of 1950s social norms and ideals, is so central to the storyline and his character that it really brings the film down. The hysterical aversion to sex he exhibits makes Lancaster's lifeless, incoherent performance even worse. Shirley Booth gives a good, if broad, performance as Lola. Her physical and vocal mannerisms are often grating, but her pathetic loneliness and clinginess is moving. The lack of chemistry between her and Lancaster is difficult for the film to overcome, but Booth emphasizes her character's nostalgia and vicarious nature in touching ways. Terry Moore gives a solid performance. She brims with empathy for the semi-pathetic Delaneys, while at the same time emphasizing the greenness and playful sexuality of her character, the consequences of which startle her when Turk (Richard Jaeckal) goes a little too far late one night. Moore does a great job of balancing the sweetness and respectfulness of her character with her youthful sexuality, serving as a perfect foil to Lola. The role is limited, but it's an admirable performance. The film is only somewhat interesting overall, although certainly worth seeing at least once for (some of) its performances and for a window into the 1950s.