Avis des utilisateurs

Brooks Wilson (George Segal) is a commercial artist married to Selma (Eva Marie Saint) with two young daughters. His girlfriend Grace wants more. He's desperate to get a new account. His life unravels during a party with his business associates and wives.

For most of this movie, it has a life in the day feel. It's big personal issues in small everyday world. It's a slow simmer until the last ten minutes when all hell breaks loose. Segal is simple in his performance but the character is not appealing. He's not fun. He's not outwardly evil. He's just amoral. This is not a big laughs comedy but it does have a few smirks. It's not for everyone.

In the wake of Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice came a string of similar sex comedy/dramas including Loving. George Segal was on a role in the late 60's/early 70's, but this is one of his lesser known efforts from the period. And seeing how few votes this movie has gotten here on IMDb, it's still quite unknown despite being available on DVD since 2003.

The film has a typical plot of it's time: successful man throwing away his perfect life with wife and kids with his unfaithfulness. Eva Marie Saint who plays his wife is far more attractive than the woman he's seeing on the side, so it was hard for me to feel any sympathy at all for this guy. A young Sherry Lansing (the future Paramount producer) shows up in a small but memorable role, looking like the twin sister of Raquel Welch. She should of played the "other woman" instead, we would of understood why he was cheating on his wife a whole lot more. Not only did Lansing's career end not long after Loving, but the actress who played the other woman, Janice Young, vanished completely after Loving, as did the other major actress in the movie, Nancie Phillips. Neither of their IMDb listings list them as being deceased, so i'm definitely curious as to their whereabouts.

One major reason why this movie deserves more attention is that it now possesses more historical importance than ever before. As noted in the trivia section, there's a scene that takes place at a construction site, and that scene was shot on location at none other than the World Trade Center construction site, of all places.

A bleak and chaotic film about a mess of a man making a mess of his life, and the film is also appropriately messy. It's possible to find some comedy in Loving, too, depending on your sense of humor. What's unlikely to be found here is much by way of love or genuine loving, with the title sounding very sunny for something that's ultimately so cynical.

It fits in with the era well, and while it's not as good as the best late '60s/early '70s movies that deal with disastrous people and the ways in which they wreck their lives, it probably deserves a little more attention than what it gets. It's hard to recommend as something that could possibly be enjoyed, but there's a decent amount to appreciate. I was also thankful it only made me feel discomfort for about 90 minutes, instead of 2+ hours.

I caught this film on late night cable (maybe even the 'romance' movie channel) and it left a deep impression. There is a gap between this type of melodrama in European cinema at the time and the 'revolution' that was happening in American cinema, particularly the suspension of moral judgment outside of epiphany. The main character is having a typical middle age, middle class crisis and we are allowed to see it unfold unencumbered by a personal transformation, a complete crash. This type of screen writing is having a revival in shows like 6 feet under on HBO. I would recommend it to anyone interested in that dark, muddy 1970's American cinema that seems to put the middle class of the 1960's to rest but doesn't become another 'desert road trip' film.

Brooks Wilson (Segal) must choose between his wife (Eva Marie Saint) and his mistress ( Janis Young). Some other recognizeables in here too. Sterling Hayden, who was in so many westerns. here, he's an eccentric, religious rich guy who might help Wilson, if he doesn't goof it up. Doorbells are always buzzing, phones are ringing, since he works out of his house. he's gambling everything on getting the big account from one client (Hayden). VERY 1970's music during the opening credits. sounds like an episode of columbo. and so much anguish, as he is so self destructive. he really enjoys making a scene at every house party, gathering, even when the guys are having a drink after work. he seems to want to stir things up, start a fight, make a play for someone's wife or girlfriend. and this was just a couple years after Segal's oscar nominated role in Virginia Woolf! it's pretty good. a "week in the life of an artist" story. Keenan Wynn was in so many supporting roles. David Doyle (Bosley !) and Roy Sheider ( Jaws and 2010, the follow up to 2001...Space..) Young didn't do a lot in hollywood. only nine roles, and six of those were television. directed by Irvin Kershner. his laterfilms were very action oriented -- star wars and james bond. this one is pretty good... a look at the 1970s.

George Segal (not as scruffy as he typically had been at the start of the decade) plays a troubled husband and father suffering through career uncertainty who cheats on his wife (Eva Marie Saint, cast yet again as a doormat-spouse). Segal is an affable screen presence, but we never learn much about what makes him tick, what causes him to hurt the ones he loves. Talented director Irvin Kershner hit a few snags in his career; here, the semi-improvisational ground he's treading desperately needs a center, or a leading character we can attach some emotions to. The dramatic finale is well-realized, and Segal's comeuppance is provocative and thoughtful--at least something is HAPPENING; overall, it's a cynical slice of the marriage blahs, one that probably played a lot fresher in 1970 than it does today. ** from ****

LOVING is a film for the patient movie buff. It is not a film for those who want to see murders or car crashes every five minutes. It is a maturely-told, sensitively-acted, -written and -directed film about a commercial artist's marital (and extra-marital) entanglements. It relies on character rather than plot to convey its points.

All the actors are spotless in their portrayals, especially George Segal and Eva Marie Saint as the artist and his harried wife. It is a film that slowly builds interest in the characters which is amply rewarded for the audience by the film's conclusion. LOVING is a film that will leave you silent at the end, and thinking about it for days afterward.

In the great Jean Renoir classic "Rules of the Game", a character played by the director himself comments that "everybody has his own good reasons." This rightly has been taken to be the great humanist director's basic philosophy of life. Seeing, over and over again, this understanding, non-judgmental attitude by a narrative artist toward his characters' weaknesses is what makes art film audiences love Renoir's work and consider him one of the greatest filmmakers of the 20th century. Irvin Kershner's "Loving" is one of the rare Hollywood films worthy of being called Renoirian, and it is for just this reason. Even though "Loving" is filled with highly-flawed characters making seemingly disastrous choices about their lives, its genius is how it puts the audience in a position where it cannot (or at least cannot with any decency) judge them. This may be more than many audience members can handle, being so used to films with heroes and villains about whom they are allowed to feel smugly superior. The legendary "New Yorker" critic Pauline Kael, in her rave review of the film, wrote that it "looks at the failures of middle-class life without despising the people; it understands that they already despise themselves" and that there's "a decency in the way that Kershner is fair to everyone." We could use a few more films like "Loving" out there in the American film cannon. If you every get a chance to see this film, don't hesitate to do so!

George Segal is an illustrator(how quaint) with a cute wife (Eve Marie Saint) and 2 kids. His business is failing and he needs a big score with a Truck company to save his family home. However he is distracted by an "affair" with a women that is never explained, just flashbacks to a bedroom. His wife knows he is flawed in many ways, tries to love him but also lets him know if he leaves she will know what to do. He balances them all until he goes to a big Westport "party" with a bunch of white people with drinks in hand, and he "leaves" with a drunk lady(wh ends up a big Hollywood producter) where they inadvertantly have "sex" on camera with the whole "party' watching for laughs. It just ends. The amazing thing to me is that this was on regular TV, and there were 4 instances of female nudity (short but clear) in 2 hours and he at worst is seen in long boxers. Man we were so screwed up then. Not a good movie but being 14 when it came out I remember the scenes, cars, music, gadgets..

I was surprisingly impressed by this film. It's a very 60's film about the self destruction of a 60's illustrator whose is going through some kind of middle-age crazy. As others have said, it takes a lot of patience to get through to the final, awesome scene. Very touchy-feeley, but you never get a definite answer about George Segal's feelings and thoughts. His mistress is not that enthralling and neither is the neighbor-hood wife that he succumbs to. Sherry Lansing, in a small part is extremely beautiful. All the acting is good especially George Segal and Eva Marie Saint. You could almost get woozy from all the alcohol consumed and the cigarette smoke. Lots of early appearances from up and coming actors such as Roy Schneider and Sterling Hayden. Anyway, this all leads up to a party that is totally humiliating and cringe-worthy. I kind of remember parties like these! It all ends abruptly and on a down note. If you like introspective, depressing movies with a large dose of humiliation, this is for you.

I know that movies about alcoholics aren't implicitly bad. I know that movies about people obviously headed for ruin aren't implicitly bad. I know that movies from the seventies aren't necessarily bad. But up until the last scene, I found the movie irritating. I'm sure that that is probably some of what the director wanted: we're supposed to be irritated by the stupid things the characters do, we're supposed to be irritated by all the same things that get under the skin of Brooks Wilson. Somehow though, the irritation wasn't translated for me. It was dumped directly into my veins without any intermediary.

I think that it's mostly because it's a seventies movie and I find so much of seventies movies tiresome. As soon as I started watching it, I found myself gritting my teeth as I saw the city streets and all the late sixties and early seventies cars and clothing. I know that the movie has value and it was probably a very interesting film when it was released. And I think that the ending makes it worth it, but only just.

If you can see past the seventies style or don't have the negative reaction that I do, you will find it much more enjoyable. If you don't like seventies movies, you probably won't like this one either.

I have always loved "Loving. That's partly because during the 1970's I was an aspiring commercial artist in Sydney, Australia. My heroes were the great illustrators, mainly American: Norman Rockwell, Tom Lovell, Robert McGuiness, Bob Peak, Mitchell Hooks, dozens of them. I kept scrapbooks of their work - it wasn't safe to leave a magazine near me in those days.

"Loving" gave an insight into their world - sort of.

Brooks Wilson is a struggling illustrator in New York who is about to land a big account (the type that would have gone into my scrapbooks). However Brooks isn't happy. He is married to Selma (Eve Marie Saint) who loves him, and has two precocious daughters, but he is having an affair on the side. Brooks is bitter about many things and lets everyone down - it's hard to feel sorry for him.

Like many illustrators, Brooks feels his work is just to pay the bills and isn't that worthwhile. In a telling scene, Brook's crosses a busy street in New York to look at some enigmatic paintings hanging in the window of an art gallery - real art.

The film is based on a novel by J. M. Ryan, the pen name of John McDermott. McDermott was an accomplished illustrator especially of action scenes. He also hated the changes the filmmakers made to the story.

McDermott's illustrations were used as props in the movie and can be seen in the agent's office, and when the assistant visits Brooks at home. All the detail of Brooks' art life is authentic, especially his working methods. In one fascinating sequence, Selma puts down her knitting to pose as a Southern belle for reference for sketches Brooks needs to have ready in the morning.

George Segal's persona as a nice guy who somewhere along the way got cynical is in full flower here. The film was made at a time when faith in institutions was under pressure. "Loving" captures a disillusioned, hedonistic vibe with middle-aged guys running around with their new cookies.

Keenan Wynn plays Brook's harassed agent, while Sterling Hayden as the demanding client, Lepridon, almost seems to be channelling Captain Ahab, and Roy Scheider has a small role as an ad rep.

"Loving" is a bit close to the bone to be a comedy, but it's better than its obscurity would indicate. And if you feel nostalgic for those magnificent, hand-drawn illustrations of yesteryear, then it's a film to appreciate on a number of levels.

Even George Segal himself acknowledged that he had a bland screen presence (Halliwell's Film Guide-1995). Most people wouldn't list him as one of their favorite actors. However, he was definitely okay for this film. Segal's character in this movie is quasi-tragic, a talented commercial artist and a family man, married to adequately attractive Eva Marie Saint and with two cute, wise-cracking daughters. Why he seems to want (or needs) to throw this away for drinking and women makes for somewhat compelling viewing, and leads to a great climax at a party for a lot of sophisticated art types on a very cold winter's night, in which first a lot of drinking and then temptation lead to one of the better conclusions you're likely to see.

People from Pauline Kael to Bret Easton Ellis call the 1970s a golden age of film. Don't need to list them, but see for yourself.

Starting the 70s canon is this neglected gem. Kael calls it, "A beautifully sustained piece of moviemaking by Irvin Kershner." Heading the master class that includes Sterling Hayden, Keenan Wynn and Roy Scheider are George Segal and Eva-Marie Saint. Segal is self-conflicted middle-aged crazy over career and love, and Saint is his wife who knows exactly what's going on with them both.

Before I saw this I read Kael's comment that it's a European film with American production values. And it is. It's a familiar story, but it's told through "stunning" performances and the director's empathy with the characters and, since we may find ourselves in their place, with us. Director Kershner's respect for people is what another reviewer calls, "Renoirish".

Yes, it's true, some great films need patience. Alas, thanks to today's attention spans, this 8+ gets unjustly lowballed. Give this one a chance.

I really enjoyed this drama, even though my opinion may stand separately from many others'. Eva Marie Saint is an incredible talent from the last century, having made many memorable films among the starriest of men. I loved North by Northwest, which is how I originally came to know of her, and am still enamored by her beauty and grace.

This movie features her as Selma (Sel), the wife of Brooks, a dolt played by George Segal. As a commercial artist, he is living the daily grind of life, trying specifically to secure an account that tends to keep slipping from his grasp. His personal life with Sel is the all-american 'dream': two beautiful little girls, the family cat (baby Lionel!), and the prospect of moving to a larger home soon. He doesn't see these formidable blessings, and in fact is involved with a young woman, Grace, whom we see from the starting scene.

Sel makes every valiant effort to be the Wife of the Year, always prepared, organized, and on top of her Mom game. After her long days, she is interrupted at bedtime by his sudden need for her to pose as a model/form, to listen to Brooks drone on about the Lepridon account, and she constantly avails herself for his 'needs', even though he stupidly rejects her as he pines for Grace.

Sadly, he has no backbone to actually talk about his feelings, and Grace starts to shut him out, since he won't keep his promise to inform Sel that he is in love with Grace (allegedly). This serves as the context for more bad behavior from Brooks, including over-consumption of alcohol and indulgences with random women. He finally gets the outcomes we, the audience, are excited to witness!

What I loved: This movie features life in the early 70s in NYC, a rich addition to the actual cast. Women are realizing their independence, while still hanging on to societal expectations of propriety. The struggle is real for Selma, who makes a valiant effort to stay true to herself - a woman of respect and honesty. Their family life is realistic, imperfect, and relatable, until Brooks pushes boundaries beyond their capacity.

What I did not love: The main dislikes for me were the absurd behaviors at times; I didn't understand how Brooks was such a sought-after catch of a man, and the Nelly character was absolutely ridiculous as a drunken sexpot in the playhouse scene. Her eccentric facial expressions were incredulous; however, if I had been on the set, I would have fallen over laughing, so I hope the cast had fun during that portion of shooting.

If you are at all mesmerized by art or the talents of an artist, I was captivated by the scene where Brooks is painting the image from the shot he took from Selma's pose. The entire process was fascinating and a treat for me (a mere fan of art) to see.

George Segal is absolutely loathsome to me, which means he did well and accomplished his mission as an actor. Also, it was interesting to see closed-circuit tv spying in a movie this old.

Funny moments to watch: pay attention as Selma does her 60's dance moves at the party! Also, the sad/depressed divorcee selling her home is the real-life mom of Michael Douglas (wife of Kirk Douglas).

Who needs blood and guts when you can watch more interesting destructive behavior? George Segal embodies studied amorality perfectly. There is no God, no religion, no moral sensibility, only what I do and what I can get away with. But it's not just George. All the men in the film are just in it for themselves, down to the kvetching neighbor complaining about George's crab-grass. We are a long way from Puritan New England in this cold portrayal of suburban hustle set in Westport, CT. Some of the women, especially Eve Marie-Saint, still think the old rules - middle-class conventions - still have meaning, value, and valor, but not the men and certainly not two of the women (Mistress and Fling for discussion purposes herein). We get no inner life of George, he just communicates his superiority as an artist, his ability to hustle accounts (in a bizarre cameo by Sterling Hayden, who plays an embodiment of Lincoln), and his ability to have a wife, a mistress, and whatever Fling stirs him at the moment, which becomes the essential plot device of this otherwise aimless movie, aimless if you don't see the trainwreck coming at breakneck speed, despite the movie's studied languor. We would have no movie, however, if only George was amoral - and you know George is amoral, that the part was a cakewalk for him, because that is who he is. Yuk! I will certainly research any movie that stars George Segal before deciding how much degradation and loss of tradition I want to experience.

Of course, to him and his ilk, there is no other reality. Life is to be lived through their gimlet eyes, and my job is to identify these types early, and thence to avoid them. I am not even going to look up the name of the "party-host husband" who casually schtupes a drunken guest (that would be Fling #2 for George, but he doesn't get to her) while his wife vainly tries to keep the party upscale, only to have her husband tee up live-pornography for his guests. As my secretary says, you can't make this stuff up, and this movie perfectly illustrates what happens when you believe in nothing other than the primacy of your own sexual prowess.

Thoroughly distasteful but an essential watch for those who need to understand why we have a new religion in this land, one whose commandments consist of micro-aggression "Shalt-nots," identity politics, and a belief that government must make laws enforcing all this BS, and must take care of us from cradle-to-grave. For those rejecting the traditions of our ancestors, it is George jungle out there unless we abide by our new religion. It's an easy choice for me (the ol' time religion), but not for most, with their obsession with "truth," and hence our new religion. In this religion, all that matters is your posturing, and your obeisances to the identity politic gods (and police), even if the world is falling down around you. I'll take the old-time religion always.

Performances are excellent throughout. The children - the poor children: their suffering isn't shown, but it is forboded - are superb. The hard-bitten Mistress, angling for George to divorce, is perfect in her callous disregard for other's feelings. And the two Flings are the cynical embodiment of George - they are also just in it for the momentary pleasure George is living for. In fact, the only moral judgment ever passed in this movie is when Fling #1 (Fling #2 having passed out upstairs where the host gets her) accuses George of being middle-class for wanting his pants back before going back into the house to get food and drink for their outside tryst. Double yuk.

But powerful. After traditional religion but before our new Neo-Victorian secular religion enforced by the state (and its high priests), this movie is a must-see for American cultural history.