Such a frustrating disappointment

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Opera Ghost Page2Another point that nsouthern51 made was that David Fowler 'drowns in isolation.' This in fact a bit of a complex statement and somewhat contradictory from the films point of view. This statement seems to suggest, or hint at, that David is either cutoff from the world or is completely unknown to the world or both. Perhaps, both statements are true. Perhaps, both statements are false. Or perhaps, one is true and the other false, or vise versa.Let's return to the film for a minute. David Fowler has known hundreds and HUNDREDS of women and is always looking for more. How can he be so lonely? If he was in-between women, he had the semilive-in girlfriend Courtney Wade. So he always, or almost always, had someone around him at home. If he was lonely, by knowing hundreds and HUNDREDS of women, he surely had telephone numbers to call and surely one would respond. Or reverse it, they could be calling him. With all thoughs women around, he would have to fight them off with a fly swatter or girl swatter. In the work place, we see that he had several assistants. So how can he be so lonely and cutoff? David Fowler wasn't a hermit like Howard Hughes nor an oddity like Glen Gould. From the film, we see that his work was well-known. He lived in L.A. but has a commission in Houston, Tx. So we see that he wasn't just a local artist, but someone who is well-respected on a national level.(This might be debatable.) From Sue the baby sitter, we learn that he is known in academia circles, 'Lipschitz, Henry Moore, and me.' We also see from the film that he wrote a book. I'm sure the book was meant for a national audience and not just one or two copies made for a private edition nor several hundred printed for a local audience. This again proves or demonstrates that he was well-known or was wanting more name recognition and wasn't trying to cut himself off from the world.In summary, do these contradictory statements mean anything? There might be something more going on at a much, much deeper level.When we get into the actual review, we will have to return to these statements. There is a lot to these statements. Like I said folks, this is one of most complex motion pictures ever filmed. This complexity that I speak of is not the complexity of cameras, film, lights, etc., of a "Lord of The Rings" type epic but of an quiet inner complexity ideas the likes of which this film "The Man Who Loved Women" has no equal. There are things going on in this movie that have never been done before and will never be done again. Ever.O.G.

This review is being extensively rewritten.While rewriting this review, I learned with great sadness that Blake Edwards had passed away. My deepest sympathy and condolences go out to Julie Edwards and to her entire family. The world will certainly miss a truly great director. I would have dearly, dearly loved to have met him while he was alive."The Man Who Loved Women" should be considered one of the world's greatest masterpieces. The film is one of the most brilliant, most deceptive, and one of the world's deepest films ever filmed in Hollywood or anyplace else in the world. The film should have won multiple Oscars for all concerned including Best Picture. And if it were at all possible Blake Edwards should have been awarded a Nobel Prize for the screenplay for its extreme complexity, extreme subtlety, and richness of symbolism. The screenplay is worthy of world class literature status and should be in every class room anthology that students have to read. If they can study Harry Potter in school, they sure should be able to read Blake Edwards extreme masterpiece. It is my intention to prove to you and to the rest of the world that that this film deserves all that I claim and more! And at the end, I would very much like future reviews to indicate how many stars, Oscars, and Nobels that they would award. And yes, you can totally disagree with everything that I will explain.I was reading one of the boards and noted one post that asked, "What is this movie about?" I can honestly say without ego that I'm probably the only person in the world who can understand about 99% of the movie. That is why this movie has had such great fascination for me over the years and why I believe so strongly that Blake Edwards should have been awarded a Nobel for the screenplay. This movie which on the surface app ears so utterly simple is, in fact, quite complex.But first, you must understand the purpose of the film. Along time ago, there was an unauthorized biography of Julie Edwards running around. In the book, Blake Edwards says something to the effect that-and this not a direct quote- that his wife is one of the deepest and most pro found women in the world. This fact is something that I've known for years long before the book came out. Anyway that leaves a problem. A big problem. And that is how to show it or pay tribute to her. I think Blake Edwards found away. In fact, I know he found a way.And now to the review, there are two major motion pictures and one minor motion picture interwoven into each other to form one great masterpiece. The minor motion picture is "The Man Who Loved Women." The other is Irving Stone's "The Agony and The Ecstasy" which based on the life of Michaelangelo. The other I will discuss later. In other words he used a minor motion picture to hide two major motion pictures behind it. And to prove my point, I have to discuss plots to two movies. If you have not seen either, DO NOT PROCEED. We are going to use DF for David Fowler and MA for Michaelangelo. So let's look at these "forced coincidence". These are not my words but come from another source. 1 DF Sculpture,writer. 2 MA Sculpture,writer. 3 DF Sports a beard. 4 MA Sports a beard. 5 DF Trouble with women. 6 MA Trouble with a women. 7 DF Trouble with a block of stone. 8 MA Trouble with a ceiling. 9. DF Goes to Marianna to get help. 10. MA goes to Contesstina to get answers 11. DF tells Nancy "thats my work." A piece of sculpture in the center of the floor. 12. MA Charleton Heston in voice over goes over the life work of Michangelo at beginning of movie. 13. DF Roy tells David Fowler, "I don't completely understand it." (Refering to David's sculptor.) "Something like my wife." 14. MA Michaelangelo complains to Pope Julius II, "why you send these fools to judge my work?" 15. DF Nanc y says over the phone' "Understand your time problem." 16. MA Pope Juliu s II asks, "when will you make an end?" 17. DF David has commission in Houston,TX not LA. 18. MA Michaelangelo has a commission in Rome not in Florence nor Bologna. 19. DF There is a work area at his house and shop. 20 . MA There is a work area at his apartment and Sistine Chapel. 21. DF Mariana comes to nurse maid David back to health at his place not hers. 22 . Contesstina comes to nurse maid Michaelangelo back to health at his place not her place. 23. DF David goes back to sculpting. 24. MA Michaelangelo goes back to painting. 25. DF David complains to Mariana about hyperventilating aka an attack to the lungs. 26. MA Pope Julius II whacks Michaelangelo on the back aka an attack to the lungs.

Here is a picture that, for every conceivable reason, shouldn't work -- but on a purely emotional level, it does. Most viewers could be easily misled (and disappointed) by expecting a light romantic comedy or a wild sex farce. Instead, Blake Edwards and his co-screenwriters offer something entirely different, a picture far more complex, meaningful, and thought-provoking than what we might anticipate."The Man Who Loved Women" tells a sad, sad story about a middle-aged man (Burt Reynolds in one of his finest performances, as David Fowler) who drowns in isolation thanks to a rare ability: he's forced and driven, by instinct, to glimpse the sacredness and inner beauty of almost every woman he encounters. Yes, on some levels, his circumstances lead to a hedonistic paradise. But his feelings also prevent him from ever making a commitment, and isolate him from the joy of knowing one woman exclusively. For that reason, a melancholic canopy hangs over the entire film and takes the front seat to humour. The story begins with David Fowler's death, and every event we witness onscreen is tinged by our knowledge that Fowler's obsession with women will eventually kill him. A slow, heavy, stringed theme song, Mancini's "Little Boys", plays softly throughout the film, and Fowler's words (in voice-over narration) constantly remind us of the deep, incurable loneliness that plagues him.All of this might sound heavy-handed -- and it very well could be, if it weren't for the sexual fantasy and wild Edwards comedy that flesh out the story and provide relief. The melancholia and comedy work together, and Edwards achieves a delicate balance of mood --a bittersweet aura. I've heard one criticism (see Ebert's review) that many of the story's psychological elements are impossible. Though a few scenes might suffer from exaggeration (hundreds and HUNDREDS of women attend David's funeral), one could easily dismiss the story -- as I did, at first --because so many male viewers *lack* Fowler's ability to care for women unconditionally; we want to believe that it's impossible for a contemporary Don Juan to exist. But that simply isn't tenable. My own theory about the film -- (and it's just a theory) -- is that Edwards may have pulled inspiration for Fowler from the late John Derek, another man worshipped and adored by women, who interacted with Edwards during the filming of "10" (1979).Edwards and his co-writers lend a gentle touch to the film by crafting Fowler's character against-the-grain; while we might expect a narcissistic hedonist, he's just the opposite -- a warm, gentle, soul with only the sincerest motives. It's easy to understand why women are attracted to Fowler, from his first appearance onscreen. And, oddly -- male viewers may never begrudge Fowler his affairs, only applaud -- because his narration and his gentle spirit confirm the fact that he really does worship and adore everything about the girls who walk in and out of his life. "I keep thinking," he says sadly, "about all the women I'm never gonna know..."In one of the film's most revealing and effective moments, Edwards allows us to glimpse a woman, at the funeral, who is the complete opposite of a "10" -- fat, homely, depressed -- undesirable. We have the distinct impression that her external appearance didn't matter to Fowler -- that he only looked into her heart and perceived her beauty. It lends credibility to psychologist Marianna's (Julie Andrews) observation: that David did, indeed, love all of the girls, equally and unconditionally.

Blake Edwards in the Sixties was an amazing director, with a strong visual flair. I mean he directed "Breakfast at Tiffany's", "Days of Wine and Roses", and "An Experiment in Terror"! But somewhere in all that Pink Panthering he did in the Seventies he lost that visual flair and became boring. The only film in the last thirty years that showed any of the old panache was "Victor/Victoria". It's like there are two Blake Edwards.That's not to say that this film is terrible - it's just that I think he could have done so much better. It's so dull to look at - despite the presence of his enchanting wife Julie Andrews, and one of Burt Reynolds' best performances. Also of note is a very young Kim Basinger displaying a strong flair for comedy. But Edwards' pacing of the action is so slow and ponderous that the moments of slapstick comedy seem completely incongruous and fall completely flat.Come on Blake - give us some more of that old magic! I know it's still in you.