Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

ofumalow 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.

the sphynx "A Touch of Class" strikes me as a poor Neil Simon wannabe, partially redeemed by the acting and chemistry of stars Glenda Jackson and George Segal and by a tolerably realistic ending. Most of the plot is as unrealistic and predictable as a lame TV sitcom and no funnier. Neither Steve nor Vicki is shown with any of their children, other than a few moments in the initial meet-cute scene: basically the kids are used entirely as excuses for unfunny babysitter complications. Nor is Steve shown as having any relationship with his wife that might make him hesitate to leave her for someone he adored. Their dogs get far more screen time than their families, presumably on the theory that canines are funnier than people. This is unforgivably lazy screen writing. See it for the performances, or skip it altogether. How this got nominated for Best Picture I'll never understand.

waltcosmos 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.

jsterry-1 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.