mrb1980
I guess "The Arrangement" has some merit-after all, it showcases late 1960s southern California quite well-but overall the movie is an all-star disaster due to its confusing structure and its incredibly muddled story.Los Angeles advertising executive Eddie Anderson (Kirk Douglas) has a nervous breakdown and tries to commit suicide by driving his sports car under a semi. The rest of the film flashes back to Anderson's childhood, his relationship with his dying father (Richard Boone, who was actually YOUNGER than Douglas), his deteriorating marriage with his wife (Deborah Kerr), and his torrid affair with a co-worker (Faye Dunaway). Along the way the flashbacks were very difficult to track and even harder to understand. Boone's character doesn't do much besides lie in bed, and Deborah Kerr chews the scenery as the cheated wife.I lost track of how many times the story flashed back, and I never did understand what the point of the movie was. The late 1960s time period touches were great, but otherwise I didn't really gain any understanding of the characters. Hume Cronyn, as Anderson's attorney, had about the only decent role in the whole film. If you decide to watch this mess of a film, be prepared for a lesson in confusion and expect to feel pretty empty afterward.
HotToastyRag
Did you watch Strangers When We Meet? Kirk Douglas plays a married man, with no real reason to stray, who has an affair with Kim Novak. If you haven't, and you're thinking of watching The Arrangement, just watch the Kim Novak one instead. It's much better, and you'll get your Kirk Douglas fix. In this one, Kirk is married to Deborah Kerr, and just like before, he's successful in business, has lots of friends, a nice looking wife, and a beautiful house. And yet, in a mid-life crisis, or boredom, or whatever, he has an affair with Faye Dunaway.I don't really know why Faye Dunaway was continually cast in sex symbol roles; she's nice looking, but not particularly attractive. She always seems very untrustworthy to me, which is not an attractive quality-especially if you're going to have an affair with her and hope your wife doesn't find out! Anyway, since this film was made nine years after its competitor, there are more raunchy sex and nude scenes included, rather than just a few steamy kisses with Kim Novak. I don't like this movie, in part because the story is overdone, and in part because Elia Kazan's directing is purposely strange and outlandish, like he was trying to prepare the audience for the craziness of the 1970s. There are countless other infidelity movies for you to choose from, and I suggest you do so.DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not your friend. The camera often tilts, swirls, or zooms without warning, and it will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"
fragagou
This is a movie that helped me make personal decisions..And i feel i should pay back by writing 2 or 3 words...This is a movie talking about the middle life crisis of a man who wasn't man enough to do what his heart was telling him, until one day..... OK....I could admit that the movie itself may not deserve that much for the directing or for the acting...It deserves it thought, for it's truthfulness..I feel the agony of Kazan,i feel his weakness, his cowardice,his lust for another chance...I really do..If not in real life, he achieved, through his Art,what his Hero is struggling for, through the whole movie,and says in a beautiful scene to a non listening ear...SELF RESPECT. So,if not for anything else, my respects for that.....
moonspinner55
Old-fashioned melodrama longing to be flashy and modern. Director Elia Kazan, adapting his own bestseller, has assembled a terrific cast in story of a 44-year-old married advertising executive with a mistress who attempts suicide. Cold and detached, the film wants us to sympathize with a lot of people we might normally recoil from: the rich and privileged who live in a well-heeled vacuum. As Kirk Douglas' other woman, Faye Dunaway, who was featured in a slew of pictures from 1967-1969, was perilously at risk of being overexposed. She's gorgeously coiffed and manicured here, but her impassive face and personality don't involve the audience--and all of Douglas' striding up and down over her seems like a wasting disease. Kazan wants us to see the unsavory nature of these people, the office sharks and their suffering wives at the mercy of their whims, but the bitter 'truth' behind his portrait is heightened--just as it was in pictures like "Peyton Place"--and after a while it all begins to seem like a rancid put-on. ** from ****
AD
