Silver Screen in a Red Envelope: A Diary of Time Wasted

Everybody loves this movie. I found it a little slow the second time around, but the language and themes were all very refreshing. The script was obviously written back in the era when it was acceptable to be witty, even if it didn't sound completely natural. Think anything by Neil Simon. Personally, I like a little unnatural dialogue, as long as it's unnatural for a good reason. It's dialogue that sounds stilted for no apparent reason that bothers me, and this movie didn't have much of that, so I approve. I could see this movie being quite risque back in the day. As a matter of fact, my mother refuses to watch it, stating that if it she hadn't seen it in 1969 when it came out, she probably had a darn good reason. And she did. Speaking moralistically, this movie is quite troubling, although no standards of decency (with the exception of some truly alarming mini-skirts) seem much crossed. The swearing is at a minimum, extra- and pre-marital sex is alluded to only, ...

I'm not sure how I feel about this movie. I haven't spent much time analyzing camera work for adventure films, but I just felt that we strained our necks in so many directions just to catch glimpses of potentially naked bodies. I understand that directors have to keep the male audience members interested, but it felt heavy-handed, as if a disproportionate amount of time and effort were being put into an aspect of the film which didn't warrant the attention. I'm making a false assumption. I assume that when a film is made, the ultimate goal is art. I forget that, especially in the case of these action/adventures entertainment is the primary objective, rather than lasting art. In more simplistic terms, I'm analyzing magazine ads as if they were Da Vinci. I liked the soundtrack, and the plot held together well enough, except the background stuff (once again, it seemed disproportionately complex). The acting was adequate for basic suspension of disbelief, and Mel Gi...