DKosty123
A lot of not has been made of a very well known cast here. Bud Yorkin who would go on directing and do a lot of television including Sanford and Son does pretty well here controlling a talented cast with a lot of well known stars and characters. Dick Van Dyke is very good in this film and Debbie Reynolds while not as attractive as usual throughout the early parts gets it on later in the movie. The opening sequence of the divorce meetings with the Lawyers more worried about Golf and other cases is spot on. This couple is divorcing more because of a miss understanding than about a relationship problem. Then the Lawyers and the court run away with it. As for the story that the husbands got the shaft in these things in the 1960's- that it totally accurate. The only thing the film does not put enough of a point on is the fact that the mothers almost automatically got the kids custody during this era and courts never cared about their thoughts often.Still it is here, though the reason for that is it is made as a comedy. The sequence where all the children are together from previous marriage inside of as with Tom Bosley (Happy Days) doing the score card is funny. Bosley goes through how each kid arrived there and which marriage each kid is from, who the kids parents are, and who was married to who is amazingly complex. Makes things sound like a Peyton Place with staggering effectiveness. The old "ball and chain" references are still here. I did not recognize a younger Eileen Brennan in the cast until the credits roll. She has the least script here which is a waste of talent. This is a good movie that really does a good job of stereo typing people from the 1960's.The message of trying to stop this madness is a good one but was ignored in the 1960's and beyond until today, Not only are a lot of relationships rocky but we are now adding gay relationships into the mix.
m-leschack
This movie is too absurd for words. I find it really upsetting that Debbie Reynolds and Dick Van Dyke two stars known for their great physical humor and perkiness are totally unable to breathe real life into their parts. It is not humor nor sarcasm nor social commentary, nor drama. There is no understanding of the characters and their motivations.What impressed me as one who handled many divorces is the partly believable scenes in the lawyers' office and the courtroom. Non lawyers will think this is satire of what goes on. In fact it grossly understates what goes on in the court system in a divorce. It is a very messy process that often takes years to unravel. It causes unbelievable harm to the children and both spouses. Both parties are made to feel like criminals. It also largely impoverishes both spouses and prevents them from going on with their lives. The no fault system that now exists does little to heal the pain. There are two scenes which take place in a lawyers office which is called mediation and in the courtroom. What actually goes on is a lot of screaming by the clients about the unfairness and lying that occurs. What is not understood by the lay public is that their anger is extremely painful to the lawyers and judges as well. Lawyers are also traumatized by the bloody duel and deal with it by acting civilly to each other (hopefully). The lawyers' social chit chat is their way to break the tension. It prevents the lawyers from going over the deep end.
Irie212
I'm amazed I made it past the first half hour of this, beyond the scene where Lee Grant plays a prostitute (paid mistress, if you prefer) as if she was Joe Flynn's temperamental, demanding fiancée.The plot is preposterous—an abrupt divorce, contrived for no real reason, railroaded by opportunistic acquaintances and lawyers. What's even more contrived is the legal system, as pointed out in the IMDb review by "trudyr". This movie is one of those where the theme (divorce) suddenly redefines the entire world. Everybody's divorced- - oh, and by the way, the kids are just fine with it. In one scene, a mishmash of men and women—1st husbands, 2nd husbands, ex wives, current wives, and all the combined children— leave a group picnic. It attempts Keystone Cops-style mayhem, and if that isn't funny enough (it isn't), wait for the punch line: they leave one kid behind because nobody is sure who's responsible for it.The sad thing is that the four principals—Van Dyke, Reynolds, Robards, and Simmons—all do fine work. It's the only thing that raises this movie about the level of total disaster
trudyr_1999
This movie is extremely dated and was undoubtedly unrealistic upon release, no matter how hip the filmmakers thought they were being. Husbands impoverished by alimony and child support while their ex-wives live in the lap of luxury? Please. Post-divorce, women were (and are) the ones most likely to have financial struggles, due to the continuing inequities in society, but they have also proved themselves much less dependent than the women in this movie, going to heroic heights in trying to support themselves and their children. Of course, this movie never acknowledges that maybe a divorced woman could get a job! Actually, for all its melodrama (which is enjoyable in itself), 1945's Mildred Pierce is more realistic in this regard--after Mildred and her husband split up, she goes to work as a waitress and then (you go, girl!) opens her own restaurant. At least filmmakers Lear and Yorkin dealt more intelligently with social issues a few years later in All in the Family. This movie does have an excellent cast, down to the supporting players, but they deserve better. Sitcom great Dick Van Dyke never had much luck with movies, and Jean Simmons, a wonderful actress, made few films that were worthy of her talents. Debbie Reynolds and Jason Robards, happily, were in many better movies.
AD
