TeenzTen An action-packed slog

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

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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.

med_1978 I bought this on DVD for my brother who is a big Michelle Pfeiffer fan. I decided to watch it myself earlier this week.It is a reasonably entertaining piece containing two completely separate story lines. The section with Michelle Pfeiffer was by far the more interesting of the two. She plays a rising Hollywood actress who has had many short unfulfilling relationships. She literally bumps into Brian Kerwin (A regular married guy with Kids)after driving her car into the back of his. After being initially hostile to one another he offers to drive her home as she no longer feels comfortable to drive. Romance develops eventually leading to tragedy when his wife finds out. What happens at the end I was not prepared for but the slow pacing and routine TV direction takes any drama out of the plot.The other section involves an old Studio boss played by Darren McGavin. This section actually has the better cast with Kenneth McMillan, Lois Chiles, Steven Bauer & Stella Stevens. They all want something from the studio boss but in the end when he is asked to resign, they all realize their careers will now be going nowhere. It passes the time but is not all that interesting and I am glad this was not bought for me. I am not a Michelle Pffeifer fan but she was admittedly the only actor worth watching in this film and even in 1983 she was a decent actress. Overall though unless you are a fan of hers avoid this as it is very routine.

Hitchcoc While it has a a very good cast (Michelle Pfeiffer and Hector Elizondo, especially), it just doesn't seem to go anywhere. The center is the young actress who is jealous of her high school friends who are married. She never had that chance. She finds herself in a doomed relationship, but is at the beck and call of the studio. There is a lot of driving around in some pretty fancy classic cars. There is some interesting inside cinema from the period. The story is an old one and doesn't offer much that is new. There is a great deal of pain inflicted. The subplot is a group of vulturous has beens who are trying to recoup their careers through the big producer (Darren McGavin). A fly hits the ointment. Unfortunately, it's a big fly and it pretty much decimates this subplot. Without ruining anything, everything is heading for a tragedy. Pfeiffer's acting is very good. She was certainly heading for stardom. But low budget and empty script can only combine to detract from performance. Not a very substantial effort.

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.