Absolutely amazing

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

"A Little Romance" has become one of my favorite movies of all time. It's both innocent yet sophisticated, well-paced, impeccably cast, and has a beautiful, bittersweet finale. Best of all, it shows us the sweeping, guileless way kids first experience love before puberty and thoughts of sex get in the way. "A Little Romance" tells the story of such a love between two 13-year-olds: French boy Daniel, (Thelonius Bernard), an impish, quick-witted movie lover; and Lauren (Diane Lane), a prim, well-read American. They meet cute when Daniel tells Lauren to "call me Bogey", and then has to explain to non-movie buff Lauren about the famous romance between Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. But they do have plenty else in common: they both have genius IQs, read philosophy for fun, and love math. It doesn't take them long to realize that they've found in each other a kindred spirit. One day, they have a chance encounter with the charismatic Julius (Laurence Olivier), an elderly, carefree dandy who enchants them with stories, poetry. and of an old Italian legend: if two lovers kiss under Venice's Bridge of Sighs at sunset when the church bells toll, their love will last forever. When Lauren discovers that her family is moving back to America, she becomes determined to run away to Venice with Daniel to make the legend come true and seal their fate of eternal love. Despite being terribly fanciful, "A Little Romance" touches on so many levels that people of all ages can relate to: the innocent joy of young love, the willingness to do anything to make that love last, and questions about destiny and eternity. Yet it never becomes too heady and you're just swept away in this lush tale. Diane Lane, a mere 13 in her film debut, already showed her trademark talent, poise, and beauty. Thelonius Bernard never acted before or since "A Little Romance", but he's incredibly charming as a young rogue. Laurence Olivier is predictably good as Julius, a smooth talker who isn't all he says, but at the same time isn't as bad as he seems. This is a superbly made cult classic directed by George Roy Hill (notice the shameless self promotion, as the movies Daniel watches include "The Sting" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"), and the perfect film to watch with your own true love.

Few films command the lasting affection of A Little Romance. An indictment of the cinematic cynicism of the 1970s, here is a wonderful, often magical film awash in sentiment, but never sentimental. In spite of its title and even the story itself, its genre is somewhat ambiguous. It is, rather, an evocative survey of several: romance, melodrama, mystery, comedy, and above all, fantasy. Set in Paris, it's the story of two children (Diane Lane and Thelonious Bernard) who meet by accident at Versailles amidst the confusion and hubbub of a film shoot. One is the prodigious, mathematically savvy young son of a cab driver, while the other is the equally facile daughter of a wealthy, vivacious, and spoiled American woman (Sally Kellerman) and her new husband, an ironically compassionate corporate executive (Arthur Hill). The two kids "click", but their burgeoning love is soon compromised by a kind, well meaning, if incompetent petty thief. (Laurence Olivier) If there is a single theme upon which its endearing appeal continues to thrive, nearly thirty years after its release, it's innocence: the innocence of children, the innocence of adults who behave like children, and the surprising innocence -- naiveté, really -- of a society that would still, in the end, respect it. It's about fate, too, and how it favors and rewards innocence uncorrupted, even if it is only in the movies that such an emotional Shangrila is possible. That the filmmakers send up, with comical gentility, the film industry itself as a source of such corruption is certainly testimony to that.The legendary, fairy-tale quality that informs A Little Romance was no accident. Removed from the splendid châteaux and opulent gardens of Versailles, or the gentle slopes of rural Italy, or the pristinely elegant, aquatic antiquity of Venice, A Little Romance would have been shorn of its resonance. Director George Hill was nothing if not savvy, exploiting as he did the rich geographical and architectural environments as characters in their own right. Had this story been set in New York, for example, along with a more indulgent, self-conscious script populated exclusively with adults, it would have ended up emulating the gooey sentimentality of Love Story. The 13 year old Diane Lane's radiant debut was complimented by the no less engaging Thelonious Bernard, who has long since disappeared from film, and from public view altogether for that matter. (Word has it he is now a dentist in Nantes, famous for its opera company). Of course, neither of them had to move too far out of their own gifted skins to portray the prodigies they do here. Their abundant intelligence and wit take no time at all to succumb, in this story of real and not merely puppy love, to adolescent longings. In fact, Ms. Lane and Mr. Bernard are so convincing as to lead to speculation about their relationship off screen. That's probably unfair, though; the odds are that they, like their characters, were just two brainy, fabulous kids and consummate professionals who had mastered the craft of acting and grasped, with unerring precision, the subtext of the Allan Burns' superbly crafted screenplay.The wonderful Arthur Hill, who died just today (and whose passing inspired me to write this), exudes firm but caring authority in his role as Ms. Lane's father and the beleaguered husband of the philandering Sally Kellerman, seen here in one of her edgier, bitchier performances. Both Hill and Kellerman's thoughtful readings, deftly defined, provided the perfect counterpoint to the developing feelings explored by Ms. Lane and Mr. Bernard. But rather than glibly extolling, like two proud parents, the innocence of those feelings, both actors expose instead what spoiled cynicism and lack of faith can do to corrupt them. The miracle of this movie, its heart, if you will, is Mr. Olivier. His performance is pure confection, as delicious as the French pastry he fawns over in a café early on in the film, yet no less detailed and picaresque than the Doge Palace in Venice where he ends up. As he confessed in his autobiography, acting was, for Mr. Olivier, an artificial construct; he was no fan of the method or realism. He preferred to invent a character from the outside, like a painting, rather than cultivating it from the inside whilst tipping his hat to every possible motivation. Whatever attendant techniques he engaged to create his Julius, no matter. It is in the end a most remarkable bit of thespian virtuosity, a performance of enormous buoyancy at once playful and passionate, vulnerable and astute. Mr. Olivier is the angel of this fantasy, while Ms Lane and Mr. Bernard are the cherubs under his wing, making a perfect match and underlying metaphor for the old world paintings and frescoes to which the viewer's gaze is often drawn. The final scene -- the penultimate "adieu" you might say -- remains in memory long after the last celluloid flicker for the unmistakable authenticity of its poignant denouement. Smart turns by an eminently sober Broderick Crawford as himself, Graham Fletcher-Cooke as Daniel's randy young friend, and Jacques Maury as a deadpan, unintentionally hilarious police inspector round out one of the most charming G-rated films of the 20th century. -John Bell Young

A period of fifteen years separates two little-known films directed by George Roy Hill that deal with somewhat similar themes but with very different results. Each movie concerns the trials and tribulations of two teenagers, marital infidelity involving one of their parents and the influence of a highly eccentric adult on the lives of the children."The World of Henry Orient" (1964) shows Hill at his best. The young teenage girls are spunky, fun and interesting. The unfaithful mother of one of them is cold, calculating and a thoroughly disagreeable type. And the eccentric adult (in a wildly over the top performance by Peter Sellers as a wacky concert pianist) adds to the comic potential of the plot by trying his best to distance himself from the playfully stalking "groupie" girls. The film is a unique comedy, and thoroughly enjoyable to watch. Even in its most serious moments, it doesn't drag or take itself too seriously."A Little Romance" (1979) reveals Hill in a lesser light. Here the teenagers are presented as Romeo and Juliet wannabees----and while Diane Lane shines in her first film role-----her unpleasant French "Romeo" does much more than his share of excessive pouting and posturing. Lane's unfaithful mother is as unlikable as her predecessor in the earlier film. But here the eccentric adult (in another over the top performance---this time by an aged and hammy Laurence Olivier as a sort of Friar Laurence to the teenage Romeo and Juliet characters) makes the story much too maudlin and treacly by deeply involving himself in the young lovers' plight. Instead of looking for the comic potential of this story, Hill tries to make it a pure romance. The problem is that the teenagers are just unformed clay and not up to the romantic situation Hill places them in. The film takes itself very seriously, and accordingly seems out of balance at times.By 1979, Hill was apparently becoming inattentive to details and pacing. There are characters introduced into the story that add little to it (except for the wasted time they consume on the screen). And how can we explain a French movie house screening an American film with dubbed French spoken accompanied by English subtitles? Wouldn't it have made more sense for the English-speaking audience watching "A Little Romance" to see the American film with English spoken and French subtitles? Bottom line on "A Little Romance." See it to appreciate a very young Diane Lane at the beginning of her highly successful film career in a role that demonstrates why things turned out as they did for her. As for Hill, he did much better work in comedy than romance.

There are no words to express the real beauty of this movie, nor the depth of its import. There are those who have lived in such innocence and courage as the children in this movie, but in this new millennium such would be as rare as purity itself. After 106 minutes of near flawless value, it makes one wonder what has happened to wonder and gentleness; it seems they have journeyed far away, taking with them respect and graciousness. Such a treasure as this film makes one long for a time of civility and trust. Diane Lane had an auspicious beginning here, though too many of her later films lacked the substance of this one. Sally Kellerman does what she does best, and Arthur Hill seems the father of whom all daughters dream. By all means, rent this film and share the adventure!