I debated writing a review of this film until I read quite a number of others and realized the negative ones generally seem to have come from people who didn't understand it.
When at least many, many guys are pretty young a girl is very typically something very, very exciting, but as the years roll on that kind of feeling steadily diminishes. By the time you are, say, 42, this may have reached the point that, just as you can look at a recent picture and see just how far your hairline has receded in the past two decades (and just how far your belt line has done the opposite), you may get an opportunity to suddenly discover just how far those feelings have declined when unexpectedly you see somebody that suddenly reawakens that excitement. For the first time in literally ages, you instantly feel not just better, but vastly better, the best you have since you graduated from college. That's what happens to George Webber (Dudley Moore) in this movie, and what others dismiss simplistically as an "obsession" or "middle-aged lust" (whatever that could possibly be) is the simple fact that he suddenly feels a lot more alive again than he has in many, many years.
So, naturally he pursues this. In reality, it's not about lust, but one character's Ponce de Leon story, where in fact, as far as he feels, he has actually discovered a fountain of youth. But alas, just as with Ponce de Leon, there is no such thing. Reality rears its ugly head when the awesome power of the imagination is overwhelmed by the plain reality of actual life, and as soon as the starry image inspired by the pretty form of his supposed object is dissolved by the stark fact of an actual encounter, the whole thing is revealed as an illusion in his mind, and he is left to deal with what he has rather than what his imagination had briefly teased him with instead.
The good news is that somehow out of this he emerges at least rejuvenated enough to make amends with his real life and get back to more promising personal business, as I suppose anyone would do who doesn't wind up doing themselves to death with drink or worse.
The tale is a Blake Edwards one which means it has to be told as a "bedroom" farce, with plenty of the usual kind humor you would expect from that source, and from Dudley Moore himself, as well. Being as it was made in 1979, Edwards probably had little choice but to push the envelope further than he would have in OPERATION PETTICOAT (his first such venture, in 1959), lest too large a chunk of the self-styled and only allegedly "cool" people in the late 70's audience pan it as old-fashioned. In this vein he and his leading lady and own wife Julie Andrews were expected to aggressively shed her Mary Poppins image, however ridiculous that effort might seem 40 years later. But the viewer has to remember those days to understand the impetus for this; even theretofore gentle sweetheart singer Olivia Newton-John was doing the same thing in the same time frame as a gushing entertainment press exalted her "new image". Against that backdrop the modern viewer needs to cut Edwards, et al., some slack.
This movie has a lot of very funny humor, both situational and physical, and if I had any complaint about it, it was that the dialog seemed somewhat lazy, not at all as witty as what was needed to get a really first-class effort (this again seems an attempt to employ what was "with it" for the times, ignoring the fact that practically nothing about what was with-it in 1979 was either very good or the least bit memorable). But unlike a pure comedy, it also had a very serious side that can wear on a viewer if you can identify with it too well. In that regard, in some ways it is not far from a tragedy at times. And as at least one other perceptive reviewer here has noted, the pacing is a bit leisurely, something that becomes more prominent with repeat viewings. And finally, I guess it would be out of place not to mention that if the movie is about a "10", then they found the ideal figure to play her in Bo Derek, who was a rare, even unique, knockout among women seen on the screen in the Hollywood of that era. Her physical appearance lent an ethereal quality necessary to make her believable as George Webber's fantasy woman that the average beautiful actress normally does not have. The bottom line is, given all these considerations I gave it a 7/10, meaning that if you get a chance to see it, I don't recommend passing it up.
When at least many, many guys are pretty young a girl is very typically something very, very exciting, but as the years roll on that kind of feeling steadily diminishes. By the time you are, say, 42, this may have reached the point that, just as you can look at a recent picture and see just how far your hairline has receded in the past two decades (and just how far your belt line has done the opposite), you may get an opportunity to suddenly discover just how far those feelings have declined when unexpectedly you see somebody that suddenly reawakens that excitement. For the first time in literally ages, you instantly feel not just better, but vastly better, the best you have since you graduated from college. That's what happens to George Webber (Dudley Moore) in this movie, and what others dismiss simplistically as an "obsession" or "middle-aged lust" (whatever that could possibly be) is the simple fact that he suddenly feels a lot more alive again than he has in many, many years.
So, naturally he pursues this. In reality, it's not about lust, but one character's Ponce de Leon story, where in fact, as far as he feels, he has actually discovered a fountain of youth. But alas, just as with Ponce de Leon, there is no such thing. Reality rears its ugly head when the awesome power of the imagination is overwhelmed by the plain reality of actual life, and as soon as the starry image inspired by the pretty form of his supposed object is dissolved by the stark fact of an actual encounter, the whole thing is revealed as an illusion in his mind, and he is left to deal with what he has rather than what his imagination had briefly teased him with instead.
The good news is that somehow out of this he emerges at least rejuvenated enough to make amends with his real life and get back to more promising personal business, as I suppose anyone would do who doesn't wind up doing themselves to death with drink or worse.
The tale is a Blake Edwards one which means it has to be told as a "bedroom" farce, with plenty of the usual kind humor you would expect from that source, and from Dudley Moore himself, as well. Being as it was made in 1979, Edwards probably had little choice but to push the envelope further than he would have in OPERATION PETTICOAT (his first such venture, in 1959), lest too large a chunk of the self-styled and only allegedly "cool" people in the late 70's audience pan it as old-fashioned. In this vein he and his leading lady and own wife Julie Andrews were expected to aggressively shed her Mary Poppins image, however ridiculous that effort might seem 40 years later. But the viewer has to remember those days to understand the impetus for this; even theretofore gentle sweetheart singer Olivia Newton-John was doing the same thing in the same time frame as a gushing entertainment press exalted her "new image". Against that backdrop the modern viewer needs to cut Edwards, et al., some slack.
This movie has a lot of very funny humor, both situational and physical, and if I had any complaint about it, it was that the dialog seemed somewhat lazy, not at all as witty as what was needed to get a really first-class effort (this again seems an attempt to employ what was "with it" for the times, ignoring the fact that practically nothing about what was with-it in 1979 was either very good or the least bit memorable). But unlike a pure comedy, it also had a very serious side that can wear on a viewer if you can identify with it too well. In that regard, in some ways it is not far from a tragedy at times. And as at least one other perceptive reviewer here has noted, the pacing is a bit leisurely, something that becomes more prominent with repeat viewings. And finally, I guess it would be out of place not to mention that if the movie is about a "10", then they found the ideal figure to play her in Bo Derek, who was a rare, even unique, knockout among women seen on the screen in the Hollywood of that era. Her physical appearance lent an ethereal quality necessary to make her believable as George Webber's fantasy woman that the average beautiful actress normally does not have. The bottom line is, given all these considerations I gave it a 7/10, meaning that if you get a chance to see it, I don't recommend passing it up.