GamerTab That was an excellent one.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

tiekbane Jack Lemmon has got to be one the worst actors in history. He may be ok in broad comedic roles but as a dramatic actor, he is a total ham. This movie is no exception with his over acting a huge distraction. In the scene in the greenhouse, he literally chews the scenery. The only reality depicted by the film is the downward spiral throughout the course of the film. But the audience never truly understands, therefore cannot empathize, why these people depend on alcohol to such an extent. The film apparently wants us to think the characters have a physical dependence on alcohol when in reality the need for alcohol is a facet of their personality. Only at the end does Kirsten express, in one sentence, a pathological reason as to why she drinks. Jack Klugman, already developing his Dr. Quincy demeanor, is almost as bad, coming off as nearly proselytizing. The film deserves 2 stars for not completely failing at telling a story about an unfilmable subject.

TheLittleSongbird Both Jack Lemmon and Blake Edwards have done some great work in their careers, but it's work that couldn't be any more different to the serious subject of alcoholism that Days of Wine and Roses approaches, whereas both are known for their comedy work. The work for both Lemmon and Edwards however in Days of Wine and Roses is a great example of being successful for doing something different to what they usually do.Edwards very wisely restrains here and he brings to the film and its story a surprising amount of poignancy, for someone who directed the Pink Panther films that is not something that you'd expect from him and it's remarkable here. Lemmon was a very funny and likable actor, and in a role that is unlike anything else he's done he's heart-wrenchingly powerful. Did he deserve his Oscar nomination? Yes, but because of the competition that year(Gregory Peck and especially Peter O'Toole) it wasn't a problem that he didn't win. Lee Remick, also deservedly Oscar-nominated(while perhaps the weakest of the nominees, which is in no way a dump, just comparatively), is beguiling and is also very moving. Their chemistry is altogether riveting. Charles Bickford and especially Jack Klugman give excellent supporting turns.Visually, Days of Wine and Roses is sumptuous and gritty, suiting the subject matter very well. Henry Mancini's music score is stylish and appropriately understated, he also penned the haunting Oscar-winning theme song(a deserved win and one of his best). The script is honest and uncompromising, with some irreverent wit to start with, but mostly very poignant and hard-hitting with plenty to say and exposing it very truthfully. The story is still very powerful and affecting(for back then also pretty progressive), especially the Greenhouse and ending- which was the perfect and only logical way to end the film- scenes, and is as relevant today(with alcohol still very much a problem) as it was then, the message making its point without being preachy or sugar-coated. It also paints a mostly plausible and realistic depiction of alcoholism, with the mood swings and the denial for examples and I did like that it did touch upon Kirsten's addictive personality, but what could have been depicted more was the desperate need for alcohol and the guilt when giving in.To conclude, a heart-rending and surprising film, and one of the better films to depict alcoholism. 9/10 Bethany Cox

SnoopyStyle Joe Clay (Jack Lemmon) is the new public relations man and drinking is just part of the job. He doesn't make a good first impression with secretary Kirsten Arnesen (Lee Remick). He eventually breaks her down and gets her to drinking. They marry and have a daughter named Debbie. Their jobs and their lives suffer under the addiction. After several attempts, he finally get better with Alcoholics Anonymous and Jim Hungerford (Jack Klugman) as his sponsor.My biggest problem with this movie is that I can't imagine why Kirsten relents and goes with Joe. It kind of sticks out and makes no sense. I'm not necessarily saying Lee Remick is too pretty for Jack Lemmon. She really hates him at the beginning and he doesn't do anything special to win her over. I guess this is more of a given in the story rather than something to be dissected. Alcoholism has been done before. This has some interesting moments but I'm not sure it's special or anything original. The acting is good but I expect nothing less from Lemmon.

gudpaljoey-677-715384 For the 1960s, this was a courageous ending to a tragic picture. How many viewers were wishing for Ms Remick to return from the street into the arms of Mr. Lemmon with a vow never to drink again. But rather we see an ending where the husband character knows that the only way to save his own life,and in a sense hers, is to watch her walk across the street from his window. Love is not diminished with the ending, it is enhanced. The picture deals with the alcoholic differently that most movies before it. More realistically, the drinker in older movies is shown as a loner outside society drinking for only one reason to get soused. Here we have two codependents in a marriage,drinking because they find it exhilarating, great sport and an escape from the dismal world they both find themselves in. I did think that the giddy swinging of bottles in the air was way overdone and more should have been made of their compatability as drunks by showing more affection for each other during these scenes. However, he scene of Mr Lemmon tearing up the green house was startling, although his alcholic rages were also taken a little too far.