Luv, est-ce l'amour?

Back in 1967 when Luv came out in theaters I went to see it and it is one of the very few times I just could not get into the film and walked out before it was over. 45 years later I watched it and did sit through it finally seeing how it ended and my opinion was raised slightly, but not enough to raise it to make it a classic. It's not one of Jack Lemmon's better films.

But it certainly is one of the weirdest I've seen, not funny but just plain weird. Lemmon plays an ultimate neurotic in this one who we meet as he is trying to jump off the Manhattan Bridge. Back in 1967 the walkway was still open for foot traffic. Just as he's about to take a swan dive into the East River along comes an old college friend Peter Falk who is a junk dealer and prowls the streets at night looking for items that thoughtless people might have thrown away.

Falk is unhappily married himself to a neurotic played by Elaine May who won't divorce him. What to do, but put these two neurotics together and see what happens. He saves Lemmon and takes him home and let's nature take its course. In the meantime Falk can pursue the fitness instructor of his dreams Nina Wayne.

Luv was a big hit on Broadway running 901 performances for three years and starred Alan Arkin, Eli Wallach, and Anne Jackson in the Lemmon, Falk, and May roles. On stage it is only a three character play and maybe they should have paid author Murray Schisgal to expand the play for the screen which Columbia Pictures didn't. It must have got a lot of laughs on stage to have had a three year run. But my laughs were few and far between.

Harry Berlin (the one and only Jack Lemmon) is taken home by his college pal, Milt (the inimitable Peter Falk) to meet his wife (comedienne Elaine May, who was too rarely seen). But what are Milt's ulterior motives? In New York everything is on quid pro quo basis.

I love wackiness. I love the bizarre. I love movies that are weird with characters who are off the wall (in a nice way) and who spout lines that are so deliciously odd they might've been beamed in from outer space. So why don't I love "Luv"?

Lemmon's character grows so increasingly peculiar and unpleasant one wonders how he ever got voted "Most Likely to Succeed." With the internal dating it would've been in the late 1940s to 1950. After World War II, with serious-minded young draftees returning from having their lives disrupted by Hitler? He'd have just missed the war but I can't see him achieving anything.

In the years before I graduated high school a fellow at my prospective University ran as student body president with a bag over his head. Calling himself "The Unknown Candidate" his sole platform was abolishing student government as a sham. He won in a landslide. That was in the bizarro 1970s. I can't envision a man with this many hagups (many seemingly related to his childhood) being thought likely to succeed by anyone. He should have a net thrown over him. Affectations that work on the stage often are dumped for movies as being downright dumb. Why not this time?

I never saw the play, but apparently Alan Arkin was Harry. They should've used him. He might've brought insights Lemmon missed. And it maybe feel some sort of early "In-Laws" vibe between Arkin and Falk. Alas.

Peter Falk, on the other hand, is great. Weird, yes, but with the sort of weirdness we've come to expect from his characters. He's the best thing in the picture.

Frankly, all the characters are too unpleasant (as in the Monty-Pythonesque one-upsmanship they pull about who had it harder growing up: how did such unstable people get into college at all in the post World War II era)?

Then there are the shots of New York. I'm a country boy, born and bred. New York means nothing to me. If I hadn't had friends I trust who had been there I might not even believe in the place. The shots of Niagara Falls are impressive, though.

I'd be lying if I said "Luv" didn't have good ideas and some really great lines. I laughed a few times. But--!

I love black olives. I know a guy who can't stand them. It's a matter of taste. And I find "Luv" distasteful.

I noticed that many reviewers loved "Luv" and many were left cold by it. Place me in the latter group. It's a shame, as the film had several ingredients that SHOULD have made for an excellent film...such as it starring Jack Lemmon, Eileen May and Peter Falk. Yet despite this, it just left me frustrated and wondering how the story could be this dull and unappealing.

The story is in many ways surreal and strange. It begins with Harry (Lemmon) on a bridge...about to jump to his death. However, an old friend (Falk) sees him and instead of getting hysterical, the friend brings him home and introduces him to his wife (May). Why introduce him to the wife? Well, the husband has a mistress he wants to marry....and he wants to set up his wife with a new husband! Unfortunately, ultimately, these new arrangements don't work out at all...and the original husband and wife wish they hadn't divorced in the first place.

The dialog is strange...but not funny strange...just strange. The characters also act oddly...but again...not in a funny way. The story is just odd but in an unsatisfying way....and also, sadly, among the worst performances by Jack Lemmon, an otherwise brilliant actor.

Disasterous film version of the Murray Schisgal Broadway hit from the word go. Too dark and moody of an approach by director Donner and an obvious distaste in the material from leads Lemmon, Falk and May, who do their best, but in the end it comes down to the fact that they are badly miscast. Luv became one of those Hollywood oddities - the picture that gets produced despite the fact that everyone agrees it is certain to bomb. It did.

Although I haven't seen this film in years, it remains one of my favorites. It was goofy, quirky and an odd-ball film. Jack Lemmon wearing a paper scrub hat and hollering at the TV doctors is priceless. Peter Falk's running gag of selling things is truly a genius at work. I would love to see it again, if I can ever find it!