User reviews

Bittersweet comedy helped immeasurably by the chemistry of the stars and the skill of their performances. Glenda is brash and delicate in equal measure, George bombastic but good natured. While it shows the pitfalls of infidelity it doesn't judge its characters for their choices and actually presents all the relationships, including Glenda's gay assistant's, evenhandedly rather surprising for the 70's. As far as her receiving an Oscar for this performance, she's sprightly and more relaxed than she usually was on screen but I doubt that even she expected to grab the prize for what is a customary solid job but hardly extraordinary.

A Touch of Class is directed by Melvin Frank who also co-writes the screenplay with Jack Rose. It stars Glenda Jackson, George Segal, Paul Sorvino, Hildegarde Neil and Mary Barclay. Music is by John Cameron and cinematography by Austin Dempster.

Two great lead performances and a sharp script propel this delightful sex comedy forward. Plot is no great shakes but it matters not in truth, divorced English woman meets American married man, an attraction is there and they agree to go away for a brief holiday to indulge in some stress relieving sex. Upon arrival at the Spanish resort, a number of things get in the way of the couple actually copulating. Once achieved, things start to go a bit sour, and the bickering and withering sarcasm starts. But hold on, there's more twists to come, right up to the bittersweet finale.

Genuine laughs are dotted throughout, Jackson's waspish tongue an utter delight, and the pic never teeters over the edge into sentimental hog- wash. It's obviously a product of its time, though the extra-marital affair theme is daringly mounted for the era. A lovely film, funny, poignant and literate. Score! 8/10

You've got to view this as a reflection of the Sexual Revolution in its full 70s "swinging" mode, where infidelity within an unhappy marriage was viewed as less simply immoral than now. As such it's a charming time capsule with very good casting. I thought this movie was terrific (albeit imperfect) at the time, when I saw it as a teenager. Of course it seemed very sophisticated to me then--and it made me infatuated with George Segal, who seemed so goofy and charming and attractive. A perfect post-Bobby Sherman interest for a curious 12- year-old.

As for Jackson's Best Actress win--well, there really weren't a lot of good roles for women at the time. This is a particular instance (like Louise Fletcher's very-supporting Best Actress win for "Cuckoo's Nest") that proves how dismal the competition was in that era. Of course there were fine actress performances in films during the 70s, albeit ones too small or too foreign or too art-house-y to be noticed by the Academy. But really, the whole era just sucked in terms of substantial women's leading roles.

The film's own dated sexism is apparent in its obliviousness toward divorcée Jackson's drop- everything-whenever-called neglect of her children (guess she has nothing better to do!) whereas much attention is given to Segal's neglect of his wife and children (he's a guy, so of course he's got better things to do!). As if her commitments aren't important, while his naturally are.

"A Touch of Class" seemed overrated at the time (this movie got multiple Oscar nominations in the same year as "Mean Streets"?!?), and it hasn't aged brilliantly. Nonetheless, it's an excellent example of a romantic comedy reflecting a very different moral complexity than movies allow nowadays.

Glenda Jackson and George Segal are the big plus of this romantic sex-comedy that starts of in a really funny way and promising to be absolutely hilarious but then, as the movie turns rather melancholic or sad or `serious', loses a lot of its power and becomes even a bit improbable.

The two actors – today we don't actually know either of them any more – seem to have no problem with the fact that the screenplay contains a lot of long, argumentative dialogue and they even manage to enhance the sharpness and wit of these dialogues by their acting. The quarrels between this odd couple are absolute highlights in the history of the comedy of sexes, those before their `relationship' as well as those in the hotel in Málaga, where the relationship almost ends.

As soon as the two come back to London, I got the feeling that the director rushes the story. The film could have been longer without becoming boring, indeed it should have taken its time to describe the developing love more accurately. In fact, characters introduced are not dealt with any longer (Vicky's gay colleague was absolute unnecessary), both of the two have children but they don't turn up any more. And then, quite suddenly, the movie is over.

It's really a pity. With these two fantastic actors, this comedy could have been a hit.

I saw this movie when I was twenty-three years old. Paul Sorvino's line or question never really made any sense to me. He asked Steve (George Segal) if he loved her (Vicky, Glenda Jackson) enough to give her up. What kind of a nonsensical question is that? Vicky had nothing to lose with Steve choosing her. She would only lose if he DIDN'T choose her. So what does she get when Steve blows her off? Exactly what she already had. Suppose however that Sorvino had asked Vicky that question. THEN it would have made sense. Because Vicky would have been making a choice between having NOTHING or having Steve at the price of destroying a happy marriage. Vicky would have actually SACRIFICED something, her own "happiness" for Steve. But Steve wouldn't have the same sacrifice presented to him. His choice was simply, THIS woman, whom you love, or THAT woman, whom you also love. BFD!

2 years later, I found myself in such a situation (from the Vicky perspective), in circumstances so unique, I might as well have been in another galaxy. And I made the wrong choice. I destroyed a relationship and as for myself, I wound up with nothing anyway.

Romantic comedy about a pair of clandestine lovers in a London-Spain tryst.

The story goes that the lead role of Steve was originally offered to Cary Grant, with a promise by Melvin Frank to rewrite the script to play up the age difference between Steve and Vickie. However, Grant opted to remain in retirement from filmmaking, and he turned the role down. He did remain connected to the film, however, as it was produced by Fabergé's Brut Productions, and Grant was on the board of directors for Fabergé.

The film is funny, though not in a laugh-out-loud sort of way. More because of the uncomfortable situations. It also puts the audience in an unusual spot, because who are we to root for? The lead character is kind of a cad, and do we really want to encourage infidelity? The winning of the Best Actress Oscar is perhaps the biggest surprise. It was a surprise in its own time, but seems even more so today. The performance, while not bad, is hardly one that stands out, and the film itself has not gone on to be as iconic as some of its competitors (including "The Exorcist").

At times screamingly funny, at least during the first hour, "A Touch of Class" boasts two fine comedic actors in top form and a script that manages to hit more highs than lows. After a catchy title tune, George Segal and Glenda Jackson meet a few times by chance before on-the-prowl Segal, who boasts of never cheating on his wife in the same city, moves in for the pounce. However, the divorced Jackson, who needs some good uninvolved sex, agrees to a tryst if they can manage something better than a "quickie" in a one-star hotel with dirty sheets. From this point the screwball comedy antics pile on. A returning wife and in-laws complicate the arrangements for a week in Spain, and an unwelcome friend shows up for the same flight to Malaga. The laugh meter rises with a faulty clutch, a spastic back, and a sexual performance rating that is on par with a Christmas card from the butcher.

The comedy is in high form as the couple spar and parry towards consummating their relationship. Unfortunately, love enters the equation, and the unwelcome friend slows the merriment further with a serious turn about guilt. Although the pace picks up again when the couple returns to London, the damage has been done, and "A Touch of Class" fails to return to the hilarity of the first hour. Segal and Jackson are certainly not to blame for the sluggish mid section, and both performers deliver fine comedic performances that never go over the top for a laugh and retain a depth of character when the mood turns serious. The film belongs to the two stars, and they play well together. However, the supporting players in general fail to register with the exception of Eve Karpf as the slyly knowing Miss Ramos at Iberia Airlines.

Symptomatic of the movie's slowdown is a scene where Jackson and Segal watch "Brief Encounter" on the television in their love nest. The Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard classic is a heavy "weepie" drama, and both characters wring the handkerchiefs while they watch the film. Although the temptation to insert shots from another film about marital infidelity was obviously too strong to resist, the scene further dampens the film and pushes the characters into a soul-searching phase that leads to the inevitable fadeout. Perhaps if the lovers had watched "A Night at the Opera" or "Bringing Up Baby," viewers would have left the theater laughing instead of sullen like the weather in the final scene.

I saw this movie in 1976 and loved it. It was the first time I saw a movie where a woman had an affair with a married man that made me sympathize with the woman. At the same time I also felt sorry for the man, but not as much because he lied to her about his marriage making her think he wasn't happy with his wife and that their marriage was a sham. I've tried several times to rent this movie but have not been able to find it. I've tried all the main rental places such as Hastings, Hollywood Video and several smaller mom and pop type video rental places, but all to no avail The movie is good because it shows all the pitfalls of getting involved with someone who is married and yet has a tenderness about it that makes you understand why it happens. It is good for young girls to see because they can see how a man can take advantage of a gullible young woman by saying the right things. At the same time, it is interesting that the lead female role play by Glenda Jackson is anything but gullible in every other way. She is a strong woman with a strong personality who speaks up for herself but falls into the all too often belief that her love can make all the difference and that their love is so unique and wonderful that it cannot possibly fail and that he will leave his wife for her because he cannot live without her. Unfortunately, real life is not like fantasy and the practical takes over when the sun rises on the often cold reality of the pain and financial strain that breaking off a relationship can bring. Also, this man like many others didn't want to leave his marriage he just wanted to have an affair to fill whatever voids were there real or imagined. Still, I liked this movie and have often thought about it over the years. For me this is the true test of how effectively a story touches me.

A love story with a built-in dead end: they're crazy about each other, but he's already married. Attempt to recapture the sophisticated romantic-comedies of yesteryear is put to the test under a heavy-handed direction which doesn't know what it's going for, laughs or pathos (the former occasionally bumping clumsily into the latter). There's nothing wrong with a good mix of laughs and tears, but this scenario is cluttered up with too many dolts (like Paul Sorvino's "best friend" character, who is tiresome the minute we meet him) and too many montages which set no certain mood. Oscar-winner Glenda Jackson is warmly sarcastic throughout--and she's delightful working with George Segal--but their characters lost my interest after an hour or so. There's too much bickering over nothing, too much intensity melting away into love-starved giggles. The picture is a situation comedy but there are only occasional laughs, all early on. ** from ****

A Touch of Class starts off being about a married cad's misadventures in attempting to hook up with a divorced woman who's up for the no-strings-attached sex. It makes the movie's title somewhat ironic, doesn't it?

More than likely, "A Touch of Class" refers to double-Oscar winner Glenda Jackson (Women in Love and this movie), who's just about one of the classiest actresses I've seen. Beautiful, regal, and armed with acerbic British wit, she's the perfect foil to the brash and American George Segal, who incidentally looks just about the same 30 years ago as he does now in Just Shoot Me, except with a better body.

A Touch of Class demonstrates how opposites attract - something I've very familiar with. It's a romantic comedy but its comedic element peaks halfway through the movie with a scene in which the two leads engage in an all-out battle that culminates in a clothes fight and a sex fumble. After that, it's primarily about the two trying to make their love affair work despite Segal's marriage. A successful romantic movie draws us into its convolutions by making us care for its characters and what become of them, which A Touch of Class achieves by giving us the realistic trials and tribulations of an extramarital couple.

Glenda Jackson won the Academy Award for her performance here, and whilst not brilliant, she plays her character very well and she has good chemistry with George Segal. The dialogue is at times sharp and witty, yet the film's screenplay is not all that great because the content is stretched a little thin to bear the stretch of feature length. Also, the supporting characters are mostly silly stereotypes that hang around the set but add little to the story. Some of the jokes are also repetitive and predictable. However, it is an interesting enough film to watch, despite the premise being unoriginal, because of the two lead characters being well-mannered, refined types - quite different to the average couple in this type of film.

I cannot believe that Glenda Jackson won an academy award for her performance in this movie. I think maybe this movie could be the poster child for how shallow the Academy Awards can be when they go to the most popular movie actor and not to the most artistic and imaginative acting.

This movie is horribly dated at this point in the 21st century. After watching the film I felt the entire story had been mostly spoon fed to the viewer and there was no effort to create empathy for the character played by Glenda Jackson and George Segal.

At movies end my first reaction was 'thank goodness it's over!!'

I remember seeing this film in London in the seventies and loved it. I remember it as a hysterically funny film and as far as I am concerned George Segal can do no wrong. However, having hired it from Love Film I was surprised to find that it wasn't as funny as I thought it was. Also the morality of the man juggling a lover whilst he loved his wife didn't fit with the mores of today. There were obvious holes in it which now struck home for instance, they didn't need to reserve aeroplane tickets, the fat friend could get in the way by sitting with George in the plane and Glenda's children seemed to have vanished when she was cooking dinners in the flat they used for their trysts. Additionally, dialogue such as ' Great! My only chance to get raped and you can't get your trousers off' struck an odd note in the 21st Century. Glenda received an Oscar for her performance which I found odd. She was typically Glenda and I saw some of the tart facial expressions and comments used in Women In Love another of my favourite films( I think she got an Oscar for that too). As I once stayed at the Churchill hotel where they were at the beginning and had an American boyfriend in the seventies who didn't understand English sarcasm I suppose time has moved on. It all related to my life in the seventies - not now though and my husband disapproved totally that it was thought perfectly acceptable for the George Segal character to have a so called 'bit on the side'. Shame!

When "A Touch of Class" was released in 1973, it was a big hit and generally well received by most critics. The consensus was that the film was "realistic" and "a film made for adults" (the last quote is paraphrasing from Judith Crist's review in New York magazine). The film isn't realistic or very adult. At best it's occasionally amusing and cute. It's a rom-com with an oh-so-hip downbeat ending that was de rigueur for films of the time. Segal and Jackson meet cute several times in London and almost instantaneously end up agreeing to take a vacation together in Spain. They bicker and argue but also fall in love. They return to London and attempt to (completely unrealistically told in dumb sitcom style) continue their affair but it's all too difficult for them both and in the end, they part. It's incredible to me that anyone seeing this film at the time would consider this a realistic film. Many of the situations are unbelievable even if you grant the film the conceit that these were "different" times (the sexual revolution post 60s in full swing). For example, Segal's wife comes across as cold but for reasons that are never made clear, he feels devoted to her. His wife is so cold, that it makes the film's ending even more ridiculous. We're going to believe that he'd give up on Jackson's hot fired sexy character for that wife? No way.

Which brings us to the sole reason to watch "A Touch of Class" and that's Glenda Jackson. She's astonishing. I would argue that she DID deserve the Oscar for Best Actress that year because only an actress of her caliber and talent could elevate such bad material. She's sexy, fiery, intelligent, warm and completely likeable. The fact that Segal's character would fall head over heels in love with her is the only believable part of the film. Jackson makes the film worth watching. She's is an amazing actress and did some of her finest work in comedy. She is even better five years later in the comedy "House Calls" with Walter Matthau. She's so good in "A Touch of Class" that I wished the material was equal to her talents. Sadly, it's not.

Sometimes funny, sometimes forced comedy. Segal's hugely entertaining performance helps this very minor film, and it is the real reason for you to see it. He seems to be having a great time, even after the script has run out of ideas.

The on-screen chemistry between Glenda Jackson and George Segal is magical. This is the kind of affair everyone fantasizes about. The way the story unfolds and flows is quick and reveals all the interesting aspects of these two people who are accidentally thrown together. There is a very physical lovers' quarrel that will have the viewer laughing convulsively. There are also tears. The "Voice of Reason" in the movie is the character we both love and hate. I lost count at 31,the number of times I have watched this movie. After all these years, it is still one of the great love stories.

1973 is fifty years ago and I wondered as I watched it if time had been kind to it. Glenda Jackson has scenes of sardonic humour and George Segal used a lot of humour as well, but that said I thought the script was thin on content and that the relationship between them as characters was not very probable. Jackson portrays a woman separated from her husband, and Segal plays a semi-devoted husband to his wife played extremely well by Hildegarde Neil. I only wished she had had more scenes as after a while I found the subject matter needed another strong role. No spoiler as to the end but it seemed to me pretty obvious from the start. A good film to watch if you like the two lead actors, and in their way they do not disappoint. The film has in my opinion a very bland musical soundtrack and I did not find the direction up to the standard of the actors.

A very witty, funny movie about an affair between a spoiled, married American business man (George Segal) living in London and a somewhat caustic British fashion "stealer" (Glenda Jackson).

Whether they're fighting (some of the funniest verbal fight scenes ever!) or dealing with the reality of an affair (with some very poignant moments), the chemistry between Segal and Jackson works and the script is exceptional. Jackson's performance is particularly terrific; also notable is Paul Sorvino's performance as an irritating-but-wise friend.

IMPORTANT - If at all possible, watch the uncut, uncensored, uninterrupted version of this movie (i.e., don't watch it on broadcast television for the first time).

I remember seeing this years ago, but when I sat down to watch it, I honestly couldn't remember a thing about it. After sitting through it again, I see why. It isn't all that memorable. Glenda Jackson excels in her one-note feminist character, but George Segal seems to be running, literally, all through the movie. And his schtick gets tiresome rather quickly.

The plot summary listed on this website for this movie does the movie a great discredit. This is a charming comedy of mores that couldn't get made today because of our changing ideas of what is and is not "moral." The script sparkles with great lines and the emotional life of the film is complex. In today's world of "black and white morality" this movie will be misunderstood. It's not about philandering or cheating. It's about unexpected love and the complications of that. Today's audience won't get it, but for the generation for whom this film was made, it still touches the heart. The great music score features two terrific Sammy Cahn/George Barrie songs. One of my favorites to watch again and again.

This could have been a great movie, but someone screwed up, or copped out, somewhere along the way. If only Glenda Jackson's character, Vicki Allessio, and George Segal's Steve Blackburn had retained throughout the movie the personas they project brilliantly in the first half – she, cool-headed, clear-sighted, acid-tongued, and so clearly leading the way; he, opportunistic, not as sharp as he thinks he is, and desperately trying to seize control of the relationship – this might have been a noteworthy feminist statement.

But in the second half, he becomes just another cheating husband, she just the other woman; and the film becomes ever more formulaic, with simply the charisma of the principals and a few good gags to enliven proceedings, before the inevitable down-beat ending. Indeed, all the way through, apart from Jackson's and Segal's characters, the film relies on stock steretypes - eg camp fashion trade gays, bungling Spanish hotel porters, golden-hearted tarts - for its humour. But there is at least one great line, when Vicki during some clumsy love-making says to Steve in her cut-glass voice, "Why don't you just roll on top and hope for the best!"

It's hard to imagine how this film got such a strong reception on its first release. Viewed several decades later, it's trite, formulaic, frustrating, and downright dumb.

The strongest redeeming factor is Glenda Jackson: sharp as always, and fun to watch even in this mess. (Unfortunately, her talents are offset by the smirking anti-charismatic presence of George Segal.) Another plus: the lovely locations, especially in London, which make the film at first seem like one of those effervescent European sex comedies... rather than the cliché-ridden Hollywood farce that it is.

On top of everything else, the plot is basically a needless reworking of Melvin Frank's far better 1960 film, The Facts of Life. The older film must have been far more adventuresome in its time. It's also blessed with the wonderful pairing of Bob Hope and Lucille Ball. And it actually manages to be about something.

A Touch of Class is pretty much the bottom of the barrel for Melvin Frank fans. My advice: check out The Facts of Life, or The Court Jester, and give this creaky curio a miss.