Vecinos y amantes

What I liked in this movie was the way the screenplay, as well as the director, gets close to what happens in real life. I mean, the doubts that assault many people when they think they have already got what society makes us consider as the right stuff: a job, a wife, sons. People in this situation one day realize that their life is empty in many senses, and they search for understanding in someone else outside their home inner circle. Only one thing annoyed me: the ending leaves the character played by Douglas in a very comfortable situation, considering he's the real motor of all the thing; besides, Maggie's (Kim Novak) husband (John Bryant) disappears from action in a very important, in my opinion, moment. Leaving apart these last things I consider as faults, the whole movie deserves to be watched; I think it's profitable and can make all of us take a minute or two for a meditation.

If viewed from the morality of the period, this is actually quite a good movie. It attempted to tell a story about and comment on American family life, particularly on repressed desires and wedded relationships in the suburbs just before the "swinging 60's" exploded. Hearing Walter Matthau sum up his marital role as merely being considered "furniture in his own home" speaks volumes about what this film is about. Kim Novak is the sexy wife and mother to one family. Living down the manicured street is Kirk Douglas, the virile husband and dad in another - both living their lives against the backdrop of 1950's-60's morality. You do the math...

Is it worthy of awards? No. Is the conflict entertaining? You bet! Definitely worth a look to those who like films from this era.

In an earlier commentary I said that the only good things in this film were Barbara Rush and the final scene. Besides, Leonard Martin gives it only **1/2. Well, Leonard Maltin and I were wrong. I have just seen it once more and now I think it is a honest and real look at the dissatisfaction and crisis of the conjugal life in the middle class. The characters and scenes between Maggie and her husband are underwritten, Kirk Douglas overacts as usual, but:

Very intelligent the relation between Altar and Larry, being the first a counterpoint of the second. At last, Altar "did it" but he is alone and envies the conjugal life of his friend ("Don't throw everything away").

Very real and moving the crisis between Eve and Larry. What a good and wasted actress was Barbara Rush!, her character almost steals the show.

Other good moments: Larry stress and lack of control in the party at his home, his wife smiling and saying: "I want you sober", the fight between Larry and Felix under the rain, the cross cutting between Maggie in the kitchen as a housewife and herself putting her earrings in the motel "after the sin", etc., etc.

A great idea is the parallel between the building of the house and the love story, the beautiful visit at the house with the tape measure and the moving farewell in the already finished house.

Last but not the least, the visuals: The elegant use of the widescreen and the long takes, the smooth camera movements and tracking shots (for instance, the first scene in the Larry's kitchen or in the "tape measure" scene or at the very beginning of the film). The beautiful cinematography and color, always a pink or red spot in the frame (the Larry's jacket, a cushion in the Altar's apartment, the Maggie's dress, a fruit dish in the kitchen), etc.

Well, as you can see one can't trust his first impressions. I like this film

I saw this movie when it first came out in 1960. I loved it then, and I still find it appealing 4 decades later. I was a teenager in the 50's and Kim Novak was the epitome of beauty and sexuality for that era, and she is at her peak in this role. There is so much to say about this movie; Kirt Douglas strong masculine performance, with Novak complimenting him with her subdued, almost melancholy performance. The storyline is simple, Kirt and Kim are both married, but not to each other. Kim is love starved, her husband he a cold individual, who is more interest in open the mail, than opening her blouse, he spurns her attempts at romance at every turn. I can't imagine that happening with a woman like her. I don't know if the director was aware of it at the time, but her husband today would be view as a repressed homosexual,but in the 50's any hint of that was taboo. Kirt has a nice enough wife and 2 children and seems to be somewhat content, but apparently under the surface smothers a restlessness, that I don't think he was even aware of existed. When he sees Kim at a school bus stop where they both drop off their child, he is smitten. He pursues her, she resists in the beginning, but when her husband continues to ignore her, she gives in. The results are a passionate affair resulting in 2 destroyed marriages and the separation from each other. There are a few subplots that keep the story moving but it is Kim and Kirt who set the screen on fire

Richard Quine seems here very different.This is not exactly an entertaining movie but rather a middle-class group study focusing on Novak and Douglas ' characters.Absolutely unmelodramatic,with no spectacular scenes -except for two fightings- .Novak's memory of her affair with a trucker could have been treated as a flashback;but she simply tells it to her new lover Douglas,and the camera shows her mouth in close shot.Except during the party,the characters brush against each other more than they really meet.

Actually it's closer to European ,particularly Italian cinema of the same era:Antonioni comes to mind,'l'avventura"(1959)and chiefly "la notte"(1960).Delicacy,painful frames of mind,wistful looks,in a muffled atmosphere,with more whispers than cries:Quine proves that a scandalous topic such as adultery can be handled gracefully.Unlike further works as "the world of Suzy Wong"(1960) or "sex and the single girl"(1964),this is true psychological drama.