Blutspur

"Bloodline", based on a novel by "I Dream of Jeannie" creator Sidney Sheldon, probably qualifies as one of Audrey Hepburn's lesser movies. Hepburn plays the heir to a pharmaceutical company who becomes a marked woman following her decisions about the company's future. I didn't find it a terrible movie, but Hepburn obviously starred in much better films (much of the movie seems like a rehash of her earlier movie "Charade"). She and co-star Ben Gazzara later co-starred in Peter Bogdanovich's bizarre "They All Laughed".

Director Terence Young is probably best known for "Dr. No" and "From Russia with Love". He didn't hit the bottom with this flick, but I doubt that anyone would want to stress it in their resumes. Usually I would say that there would be an incentive to remake it to try and do it right, but I actually don't like the idea of remaking an Audrey Hepburn movie. Since everyone is bound to have a few bad spots on his/her resume, we can leave it at that. "Bloodline" is still a pretty enjoyable movie, if not a masterpiece.

Also starring James Mason, Claudia Mori, Irene Papas, Michelle Phillips, Maurice Ronet, Romy Schneider, Omar Sharif, Beatrice Straight, Gert Frobe, Marcel Bozzuffi, Pinkas Braun, Ivan Desny, Vadim Glowna, Walter Kohut and Wolfgang Preiss.

One wonders what it is that attracts stars to a particular project. A well-written script certainly or the chance to work with a great director. At the risk of appearing cynical one can think of no earthly reason why any of these excellent actors would agree to do a film based upon a novel(I use the term loosely) by Sidney Sheldon and directed by the staggeringly undistinguished Terence Young except THE MONEY. The starry cast list would no doubt encourage bums on seats but anyone who bought a ticket to see one of their favourites in this rubbish must have felt more than somewhat deflated. Anything at all worth remembering? Romy Schneider's line whilst unbuttoning the shirt of Maurice Ronet: 'A woman's work is never done' and Omar Sharif's seldom seen comedic side. Having endured this tripe I call to mind a quote of Dolly Parton: 'It takes a lot of money to make something look this cheap'.

When "Bloodline" was released in 1979, a major magazine review pointed out that in the course of the story, ostensibly for failure to pay a gambling debt, a character's knees are nailed to the floor. The critic then went on to say, `This is what Paramount Pictures is going to have to do to get audiences to sit through this picture.' There aren't enough negative things to say about this abomination of a movie. The meandering, incoherent story is hampered at every turn by ludicrously bad production values. The direction, the inept blocking of the scenes, the lighting, the sets – in every case conspires to make the results look cheap and hollow. The movie is really a miracle of dreadfulness. The following is one of thousand small crimes against cinema throughout the picture: There is an explosion in the street. This is conveyed by a flash of light on the actors in the scene and a sound effect. The next shot, meant to be the view of the street from the window, is a still photograph beneath which someone is apparently waving a lit piece of paper. Just before the cut from this scene, the photograph actually starts to buckle from the heat of the flame. And the filmmakers left this in the film! The real crime against cinema is the fact that the name of Audrey Hepburn is associated with this repugnant film, a monstrosity so putrid, one wishes every single copy of it would magically disappear.

It was said that midway through shooting "Bloodline" Audrey Hepburn finally realized what a horrible and degrading movie this was going to be and desperately wanted to get out of it, but she was under contract and had no choice.

When you see this movie you will realize exactly why she felt so bad about making it. The absolute only reason to watch "Bloodline" is to see how Audrey Hepburn aged like fine wine.

Very disappointing.

Nobody expects film based on Sidney Sheldon's book to be come art-house masterpiece but at least it could be made into enjoyable crime movie like Death on Nile. Well it was not. Despite the rather famous director (Young is not Fellini of course but most his previous films were enjoyable eye-feasts; would that be a spy adventure (2 Bond movies), eurowestern (Red Sun) or costume drama (Mayerling)) and all-star cast the film is very weak.

The plot is inconsistent and empty the idea to equip the Agatha Christy-like crime puzzle with subplots from other genres may seem not bad idea but it doesn't work at all

Subplot 1- (WWII -Jewish Tragedy with absolutely aimless trip to Poland) and Subplot 2 (French one - Schneider/Ronet story ) seem to be taken from the absolutely different film as well as the type-cast Shariff's line

Actually this all-star cast is the only reason to watch it, but its is painful to watch so much talent wasted. If Hupbern, Gazarra and Mason are at least is doing something during the boringly unveiling plot, the others are just fitting the empty space. especially annoying to see superb dramatic actresses like Papas and Schneider wasting their talent in this turkey.