Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

nightscreamspub-81-600514 The movie Days of Wine and Roses is and always will be a classic. Beautiful movie. But the person who reviewed the movie is nuttier than a jar of Planters, and more crackers than Ritz. The Lost Weekend which earned Ray Milland an academy award is a brilliant movie and by NO MEANS does it have a happy ending. The man was about to kill himself. If his girlfriend hadn't come back he would have blown his brains out. A great realistic portrayal of alcoholism. Fantastic. Otherwise good review.

sharky_55 Days of Wine and Roses is one of those films where we know what is going to happen to the characters, but we still cannot bear to watch it happen. You want to shout out to them not to take a drink, not to succumb to the pressure. But as they do and inevitably fall back into alcoholism, even as we are angry, we also sympathise. It is a hard film to watch because there are no easy answers and the characters cannot be honest to themselves. Lemmon is of course great, as always. He splutters out his lines as though he is not sure personal relations is really all that he signed up for. There's a brilliantly awkward meet-the-father scene where he is made to actually think of the motives of his line of work for perhaps the first time and he can barely justify it, stuttering and buying time. There's the drunken stupor in which he dances merrily and reveals hidden bottles like a magic act, and then infamously destroys the greenhouse plants later when his stash is gone. If you are sipping a non-alcoholic, of course it seems like overacting. And of course we must be indebted to Lemmon for steadfastly believing in the true ending and preserving its integrity by refusing to reshoot. And the stunning Lee Remick is radiant, and then heartbreaking. Her first drink, a Brandy Alexander, is still with the nerve and complexion of a teenager, who cannot believe how good it actually tastes. And then slowly they both fall into the threesome. After a sober period of two months, they fall off the wagon and as Kirsten pours the drink, she is positively shaking with anticipation, and we know that it has taken over their lives. The alcoholic Kirsten does not look much different from normal apart from a few make-up tricks, but Remick sells it because there is so much pain in her words. Even as she tries to hide it we know she is on edge after only 2 days - the jerks of the head, the stuttering, the teary inability to admit the storm that would stir up if they got back together. "Take care of yourself," Joe tells her as she leaves. The heartbreaking thing is, we know she won't.

tomgillespie2002 The 1960's saw a change in American cinema. Producers seemed to be moving away from the conventional approach of ham-fisted delivery and super fast-talking, and going for something altogether more realistic. The Hays Code was losing power with the influx of foreign films that weren't bound by any strict ruling, and audiences were obviously striving for something more challenging and confrontational. Blake Edward's Days of Wine and Roses, a powerful portrayal of a marriage crumbling beneath alcoholism, is a clear example of this. Alcoholism had been depicted before of course, but never in such a downright distressing manner. Billy Wilder's The Lost Weekend followed writer Don Birnam (played by Ray Milland) as alcohol destroyed his very soul. But that was back in 1945, when the Hays Code was at the height of its power, so it would always be restrained. It is undoubtedly an excellent film, but Days of Wine and Roses gets under the skin of the 'disease', and although it is ultimately a poorer film in comparison to The Lost Weekend, it is certainly more profound and powerful.Public relations man Joe Clay (Jack Lemmon) meets and falls in love with teetotal secretary Kirsten (Lee Remick), and after a whirlwind romance, the couple quickly marry. Skip forward a year, and Joe has turned into a full-blown alcoholic, frequently returning home late from work and behaving erratically. When his drinking starts to effect his job, Joe is demoted, causing a strain on home life. The couple slump into addiction, sharing the joys and struggles of succumbing entirely to the bottle. After Joe loses his job, they quit drinking, identifying it as the reason their marriage is struggling and potentially losing custody of their daughter. But unbeknownst to them, they are locked in a three-way marriage, and a drink is always around the corner.Based on screenwriter J.P. Miller's own teleplay, Days of Wine and Roses is shot in stark yet beautiful black-and-white, pulling no punches and avoiding romantic sentimentality. Jack Lemmon is superb as Joe, a man who confronts his problem yet also sees it as the glue that binds his marriage together. It is the only thing they can share equal joy with, yet for their marriage to work, they simply must get sober. But Kirsten (an equally superb performance from Remick) refuses to let go, lost in her addiction so much she is willing to lose her husband and daughter to it. The film is depressing yet emotional, complex yet simple, clinically done by Edwards, who engages with unfussy and suitably minimalistic direction. Although it does to get a little bit too stagey sometimes, it is a joy to behold, leaving you an ironically sober feeling.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

zetes A very uneven film about the horrors of alcoholism. The problem seems to be Blake Edwards' and Jack Lemmon's penchant for comedy. The story, at its base, is pure tragedy, but it's like Edwards doesn't want it to be too dark, so he cast a clown in the lead. Lemmon sparkles during the scenes where he's supposed to be charming, but he's not very convincing during the more dramatic sequences. Oh, and he can't do a drunk act worth a damn. I guess that's the film's biggest problem, really. No one in the classic era could play a convincing drunk. They always seem to overact terribly, and Lemmon in particular is bad at it. His co-star, Lee Remick, isn't quite as bad, but during her big drunk scene she comes off as not that good, either. In fact, she's pretty bad at it, but does seem fairly excellent in comparison with Lemmon. Remick is actually very good in the non-drunk scenes. The biggest flop of the film is the big, dramatic sequence where, after having been dry for a while at Remick's father's farm, Lemmon sneaks in a couple of bottles which they share. Cut to Lemmon jumping up and down on the bed with the two of them giggling like school children. That's the film's idea of alcoholics: they get goofy like kids and then throw tantrums like kids when they finish up their booze. Jesus, Lemmon's scene in the greenhouse, where he's tearing it to shreds trying to find a bottle he hid and freaking out, it's just embarrassing. Contrast that with the film's final sequence. You can see just how good the film could have been if it didn't go so over-the-top. The ending of the movie is heartbreaking.