BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

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

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

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.

Byrdz OK. We have Jack Nicholson. We have Warren Beatty. We have Mike Nichols. We have an idea for a slapstick comedy set in early Hollywood with terrific costumes and olde-timey-cars. So what do we do ?We make a total MESS of the whole thing. We have the characters run around like a chicken with their heads cut off (I forgot to mention that we have a little yellow chick that grows into a tiny white hen to indicate the passage of time) (argh) They all run around yelling at each other and swearing practically non-stop. Watching this film on network television was close to watching a silent movie .. come to think of it, that mighty have been better. As for being in Hollywood ... they ignored that fact totally ! Why ?Outstanding performance was by a young Stockard Channing. She outshone two experienced actors despite what she was made to say and do. She at least seemed more real and not just "gimme my paycheck and let me go home. I seem to be watching a bunch of duds. Hope my luck improves. Need to re-watch some I know are good, I guess.

eric262003 It seems ironic that three doomed projects that Mike Nichols directed starred Jack Nicholson ("The Fortune", "Heartburn" and What Planet Are You From?"). Nicholson along with Meryl Streep was in "Heartburn" and Warren Beatty and in "The Fortune" which marked the debut of Stockard Channing of "Grease" fame.I have a problem of watching stupid people commit some of the dumbest things. It makes me cringe to see such talented performers like Beatty, Nicholson and Channing would lower their standards to playing these characters. Even awful films like "Ishtar" directed by Nichols and starring Beatty has more things going for over the abominable "The Fortune". This movie takes its place in the annals of other 1970's stinkers like "The Frisco Kid" that starred an odd pairing of Gene Wilder and Harrison Ford and was directed by Robert Aldrich (both were period pieces with "The Frisco Kid" set in 1850's while "The Fortune" was set in the roaring 1920's).Due to the restriction of the Mann Act, it was against the law that a man to transport a woman across state lines for purposes that were deem immoral, which was at the time having sex outside of wedlock. To avoid such penalization, the cautious Nicky (Warren Beatty), who's struggling from divorcing his wife, manipulates his friend Oscar (Jack Nicholson) to marry Frederica (Stockard Channing), who's about to become extremely wealthy. She was oblivious when her husband arrived at the wedding ceremony drunk orchestrated by Nicky. The three travel by berths from the East to Los Angeles and settle in a stucco house that is owned by a workaholic Mrs. Gould (Florence Stanley).Oscar wants to go over some nuptial agreements to this marriage and property matters (which also means intercourse to prevent this marriage from being null and void). Nicky is harried at his friend's neediness and idiocy to the person he falsely claims he loves.Once Freddie knows that she's being conned by the two men who are after her fortune, she starts becoming vocal about donating the fortune she's about to receive. This means that the boys must do something drastic before she does such a task. The antics are awkward and lacks in anything logical even for a screwball comedy. There's no wit or reasonable approach to their schemes to the point where you don't really care for the characters.It's a complex procedure as to find the right ingredient for a comedy to work, but it's even more complex into unravel how a comedy can flop. I mean the script was written by Carole Eastman who in past wrote several films in which Nicholson starred in like "The Shooting" and "Five Easy Pieces". You have a very capable director Mike Nichols who has been more successful in adaptations like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and "Angels in America". And we have top quality stars here like Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson and Stockard Channing who have had great success in the movie world. So where did we go wrong? I can play the blame game to just about anyone, but the culprits behind this abomination goes to writer Eastman and director Nichols. Eastman wrote pedestrian dialogue, awful characters, the plot devices are incoherent and she had the chance to edit out these abysmal devices and try to make it work. The horrible comical timing is partly Nichols to blame as well as the thespians. It's not he was a stranger to them (he directed Nicholson in the 1971 classic "Carnal Knowledge"). Beatty does not have much humour implanted in him, but had his moments in "Bulworth" which he directed himself.Sure there may have been some people who found this film funny and you know what? That's fine you are all entitled to your opinions. It's no surprise that the Coen Brothers like it (especially Joel). To each their own I say. If you are curious to see this movie, well do not let me stop you. I just will not consider watching it again, ever.

Neil Doyle STOCKARD CHANNING has her first starring role in this wacky 1920s comedy in the sort of part made for Elaine May who played the same sort of character in "A New Leaf" ('71). Why Nichols didn't put his wife in the central role, I'll never know. She would have been more ideally cast than Channing, although she manages well in the part.But the film really belongs to WARREN BEATTY and JACK NICHOLSON as the hapless fortune hunters whose every scheme goes awry as they try to get rid of the heiress, intending to bilk her for her fortune.Overall, it's reminiscent of the kind of screwball comedy prevalent in the '30s, but it's even more frantic and noisier than those comedies. The threesome really carry the film with the exception of a good role for FLORENCE STANLEY as their nosy landlady. Unfortunately, Channing's character gets on the viewer's nerves more than once with her whining and crying fits.Nicholson has a different take than usual on his role while Beatty is a bit more suave as the brains of the operation. Both of them make fatal mistakes.The black humor is a bit heavy-handed at times and it's an uneven blend of laughs and slapstick. Nichols makes good use of jazz music on the soundtrack, punctuating all the wacky situations with sly humor.Not bad, really, but could have had a tighter script. The performances are certainly not to blame but it's a shame Elaine May wasn't available.

ptb-8 A box office failure upon release, it just seems impossible to believe this genuinely hilarious film did not hit with audiences then and now is not the iconic cast and title it deserves to be. Columbia must have been aghast when it didn't set the box office on fire especially given what major stars Nicholson and Beatty were in '75. It is hard to find this film and if you have the time and luck to find a copy, try and also get THE FRONT and THE CHEAP DETECTIVE two other Columbia films around the same time that were reasonable successes and deserve to be major titles in anyone's home library.In Australia each of these films + HIGH ANXIETY suffered from the intro of colour TV and the cinemas all took a nosedive for 4 years 74-78. Very few films in thie period were big hits and cinemas closed in dozens. Pity as so many great films were made then and this comedy genuinely is one.