source: Lovin' Molly

Lovin' Molly

This movie doesn't have the action and gun-toting violence (thank goodness) of modern-day movies, and I found the story compelling and the actors believable. It introduces us to an early and charming Blythe Danner; Anthony Perkins is stilted and unapproachable - as the character called for, and Beau Bridges is someone you just want to hug. It was interesting to see how the producer/director made the movie span about 30 years - both in the actors, and in the setting. The scenery was beautiful to me - but then I'm from Texas, so I know how beautiful Central Texas is. Produced before ratings, I would give this a GP because it deals with a beautiful lady and her love of two different men.

Molly was probably a likable character, and I got the impression Blythe Danner was giving a good performance. But somehow this movie never registered with me. I did like the old-time music (Ralph Stanley wouldn't want me to call it bluegrass) and the big-band music used in one scene in the 1940s. My biggest problem was that I could never remember which of the male characters were which (and apparently Molly had the same problem seeing as how she couldn't make up her mind which one to like), and even though I like Beau Bridges, I never saw any of the men as resembling him until the 1960s. This was probably a good movie to those who like novels such as 'Wuthering Heights'.

Maybe it's not such a bad movie if you haven't read the book. But after reading the book which has something muggy, something atmospheric around watching the movie is a boring and tedious business. Even the characters are miscast. How can you believe Anthony Perkins is Gid? Besides they should have made ONE story for the movie out of the three perspectives in the book. Following the book this closely for the movie was a mistake. Another thing is that the characters don't change age. They don't get visibly older. If you think that a movie like Chinatown was made around the same time you see what I mean with lack of quality. Lovin' Molly is too much a book filming in which they tried to stay faithful to the book. Anyway, maybe somebody who never read the book can enjoy it.

It's seems clear that Sidney Lumet was unfamiliar with the setting, the characters, the story...I mean, Gid is a cowboy wearing OVERALLS--Gid's NOT a farmer! He was afraid of Texas, and moved back east to New Jersey to shoot the remainder of the film--no wonder the film looks like a TV movie. It should have been directed by someone else, someone who understood the place, and written by a screenwriter who understood the characters and story, like McMurtry himself, perhaps??? Maybe someday it will be re-done, and done justly. It's a moving and complex story, one that deserves to be told in the affecting way it's written. Eastwood as director? It spans a 45-year period, and though challenging, with the appropriate writer and director and actors would make for a timeless, memorable film.