CommentsXp Best movie ever!

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

writers_reign Despite solid competition from Scott Fitzgerald and Irwin Shaw John O'Hara was the indisputable Master of the American short story in the twentieth century. In a career spanning just over forty years (1928-1970)he could skewer a person/situation in 750 to 1,000 words as his earliest New Yorker stories demonstrate. During the last decade of his life he published six outstanding collections of stories with each one boasting at least one (and often more than one) 'long' short story (another form he had mastered in the early thirties with his prize-winning long story 'The Doctor's Son'. 'Natica Jackson' dates from his last decade and in fifty + pages O'Hara nails thirties Hollywood to the wall in a combination of narration and dialogue which tells us all we need to know about how Hollywood works. This occupies about four fifths of the story leaving only one fifth for the story of Natica Jackson, a high profile star who, in the wake of an auto accident, falls in love with a research chemist with tragic results. Hitherto happily married with two children the chemist reciprocates Jackson's feeling with the result that his wife, in an act of revenge, calmly takes their two children out in a boat and drowns them making it easy to dismiss Natica Jackson as a modern take on Medea. It is, of course, so much more but the screenplay reverses the original ratio making Natica four fifths of the story which was probably wise as most film-goers/television watchers, unlike myself CAN get enough of Hollywoodiana. As an example of O'Hara's writing it is invaluable.

whpratt1 Missed this TV film and recently obtained the DVD for One Buck and thought it was a very well produced and directed film. The film portrays the 1930's and you will see all the antique cars, fashions and old furniture. There is an older film producer and his wife who have been around Hollywood for a long time and his wife Goes One Way in the marriage and he goes The Other Way. If the husband likes a young innocent gal looking for stardom, he eventually puts her on a casting couch and nature takes it's course. Michelle Pfeiffer,(Natica Jackson),"What Lies Beneath",2000, is a big Hollywood star who has had many men, but finds herself falling in love with a man who has a wife and several children. There is plenty of romance, drama and typical Hollywood problems in the 1930's.

krazy_n_wild_horses I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good. I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand. The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief. I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud.

tobybarlowny I thought there was an interesting intersection of themes in this short piece. I think the art direction and the pacing is quite nice. I think it's actually one of Michelle Pfeiffer's more interesting works as an actress. The piece was engaging enough that I went and tracked down the John O'Hara short story it was based on, which is quite lovely. The filmmakers managed to convey the same feeling of distance the story possessed, which is rare for an adaptation. I actually just read an old Paris Review that interviewed Budd Schulberg, who worked on this as well, he was quite a character. So I suppose I'm simply pleased this little piece exists. I would recommend it for many reasons and I'm quite surprised that it has garnered such negativity from other reviewers.