Blume in Love (1973) User Reviews

Scruffy, frequently engaging oddity...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 18 March 2006]

George Segal (on a roll at this period in his career) gives his usual solid, likable performance as a Beverly Hills divorce lawyer who soon finds himself divorced as well--from working-girl Susan Anspach; he quickly tries winning her back, despite the fact she has taken up with a hippie musician (Kris Kristofferson). Paul Mazursky wrote and directed this quirky comedy-drama about love and heartbreak, and he only strikes some sour notes in the last portion of the plot (which is saddled with an ending that just doesn't take off). Otherwise, a well-cast, well-written picture for grown-ups, a hidden gem. Bruce Surtees' cinematography is very expressive, supporting performances by Kristofferson and Marsha Mason are first-rate. Worth finding! *** from ****

Much to like, much to make one squirm on a repeat viewing.

[wisewebwoman · 7/10 · 2 May 2005]

This was a fairly ground breaking movie when it came out first. I saw it in the theatre and we talked about it for days afterwards, especially the character of Nina Blume, here played by Susan Anspach. She was complex, feminist, independent and strong and also very likable. That is what I remember, that and the closing scene in Venice with Tristan Und Isolde played by the orchestra and the camera panning upwards, leaving all the conversations taking place in the piazza still ringing in our ears until the last freeze frame. **Warning***Spoiler*** However, and it is a big however, the rape scene, watched anew is sickening and repulsive and had me disliking Steven Blume, played by Gerge Segal, intensely. This does not bode well for the remaining quarter of the movie which demands that I applaud his compulsive obsessive efforts to woo his ex-wife back into his life. I am surprised none of the other reviewers addressed this truly nasty scene on which so much hinges thereafter. ****spoiler over**** Kris Kristofferson gives one of his standard hazy pot-filled performances, all charmy, twinkly eyed and gravelly voiced. So charmy in fact that Steven Blume along with Nina falls for him too. Marsha Mason gives a multi-layered characterization, whatever happened to her, I believe she married Neil Simon, the playwright. A fine performance. Susan steals the show, her beauty at times is breathtaking. One scene has Steven looking at her across a room and she is ethereal, all blonde curly hair and soulful eyes. 7 out of 10, short on plot, long on talent.

70's love

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 20 December 2020]

Beverly Hills divorce lawyer Stephen Blume (George Segal) sabotages his marriage by bringing home his secretary and getting caught by his wife Nina (Susan Anspach). He reflects on his self-destructive womanizing love life. He begins a fling with Arlene (Marsha Mason) while Nina starts dating Elmo Cole (Kris Kristofferson).

The 70's had a bunch of these womanizing protagonist and the audience is supposed to be sympathetic. It's probably a response to the free love 60's. Non of these characters are appealing. At best, they are interesting and that's only in moments. I don't know if these characters actually love each other or that they are narcissists loving themselves and their partners only as an accessory to their selves. I certainly don't see this as a social comedy since non of this is actually funny to me. It's a little sad but mostly frustrating. These are not happy people.

Over-Stretched and Monotonous

[dougdoepke · 19 November 2017]

Plot (or what there is of it)—Husband Blume is divorced by wife Nina after she catches him philandering. Trouble is he still loves her and spends the rest of the time trying to get her back. So how is true love distinguished from true obsession.

Critic Leonard Maltin calls the movie "self-indulgent" and he's right. It's like writer-director Mazurski has gone off on his own personal tangent and made a movie of it. Segal does manage a role in low-key style that could have easily gone over the top. Too bad there's no hint of his very real comedic skills, which I somehow kept expecting. Also, he may get more close-ups than my favorite puppy. As Nina, Anspach has a different look with her long thin face and cloud of platinum hair. Hers is the more interesting character as she struggles with middle-class conventions like marriage. But what's with Shelley Winters' tacked on role as a grieving divorcée. Perhaps Mazurski was reminding casting directors what an inimitable presence she is.

Arguably, the film's best parts are those reflecting political (the farm workers) and youth culture (the "swingers" meeting place) of the early 1970's. It seems Nina is groping for a life outside the conventional but is emotionally stuck halfway. Anyway, her character is the more interesting of the two. At the same time, Elmo (Kristofferson) appears more like a rootless hippie, while Nina connects with that unconventional side. Even Blume seems attracted when a kind of unconventional threesome forms.

Nonetheless, such deeper themes remain conjectural, while the movie itself over-stretches into a barely entertaining two hours that a graphic rape scene doesn't help. All in all, Mazurski's screenplay may be based on a personal experience that somehow got carried away.

very enjoyable film

[den_quixote · 7/10 · 21 July 2005]

i disagree with those who were so put off by the rape scene that they cannot give the movie a positive review. remember this movie was made over 30 years ago at the height of the sexual revolution (i'm not excusing it). mazursky is a very interesting and unique writer/director who is responsible for some really excellent films, to wit: moscow on the hudson, down and out in beverly hills, an unfinished woman and next stop greenwich village. to me this movie has it all, great music, excellent acting and one of the funniest scenes i have ever seen in a movie when george segal, as a divorce attorney tries to calm his client, shelly winters. you'll enjoy it, trust me. p.s. the key word in some of those other reviews is "self-indulgent."

Fool in Bloom

[nomorefog · 7/10 · 17 April 2011]

***************WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**************

Made in the seventies by director Paul Masursky with George Segal Kris Kristofferson, Susan Anspach and Shelley Winters. I first saw this on ex-rental video and was surprised that it was (and still is), a good film. I'm not a big Masursky fan but he was modish for a period and his work rose to prominence with the romantic comedy Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, which I have never seen because it was considered too risqué for children. (Definitely showing my age here, folks).

As a follow-up, 'Blume in Love' is another thoughtful and funny meditation about relationships, seen from the point of view of Segal (as Blume) trying to win back his ex-wife who has left him and made a life of her own that, unfortunately, no longer includes him. Blume's wife has shacked up with a musician and dropped out of the middle class rat race. Since he is a lawyer, Blume believes that his wife is being unfair by comparing his uptight lifestyle with that of her boyfriend. As a result, he takes action of a drastic nature which only serves to alienate his wife even further.

Blume appears to be a loser in love and Segal gives us a sympathetic portrayal of a romantic who is confused, but lovable. His wife may not love him but the audience is meant to. There are some amusing situations and interesting observations about the 70's singles scenes when women were supposedly liberated. That did not mean however, that they were necessarily happy. There is an excellent dream sequence later on in the film, shot outdoors in Venice as Segal imagines that he has successfully retrieved his wife from the hands of the hippie wastrel Elmo (as played by Kris Kristofferson). The sequence is set against a backdrop of classical music and a lot of flying birds in a beautiful looking Venetian square densely populated with many Italian people sipping on their cappuccinos. It serves to illustrate the Hollywood belief (or is it cliché?) of the eternal nature of romantic love and Blume's foolish hopefulness that his wife will reject Elmo and return to him.

Susan Anspach plays Blume's ex-wife, (she was also Woody Allen's ex-wife in Play it Again, Sam) and Shelley Winters has a single scene as a client of Segal's (if I haven't already mentioned Blume is surprise! a divorce lawyer) which is quite funny but seems irrelevant to what is going on in the rest of the movie. Maybe its meant to illustrate how neurotic divorced women are supposed to be, who knows?

'Blume in Love' is the type of film that will leave cynics to protest about how warm and fuzzy it makes them feel while the rest of us will have no reason to complain. 'Blume in Love' is delightfully wry and observant and I hope this review reveals my fondness for it

Blume in Venice

[bondom-163-503490 · 7/10 · 29 March 2019]

I haven't been able to read anything about this movie that comments about the handsome young man played by Ian Linhart who is seen several times in the Venice scenes. He looks like the young actor, only a few years older, who played the boy Tadzio in 1971 in Visconti's "Death in Venice" who becomes the obsession of an older man. Ian Linhart 's only other role was in Visconti's "Ludwig " in 1973-- the same year as "Blume". He's obviously in this movie for a reason but I can't see the significance

A plot appears to be an afterthought.

[jaybsigel · 3/10 · 12 January 2021]

You've probably read other reviews. I was quite disappointed watching this. Fortunately it was while I was ironing, so at least I found out that I didn't care for this movie while doing something more meaningful. I watched the 1931 movie, "Consolation Marriage" with Irene Dunn, Pat O'Brien and Myrna Loy on TCM next. The acting there is tremendous it that one, with dialogue almost being unnecessary; when 2 different people lose the ones they love to others, they meet by coincidence in a cafe and decide to get married on a whim with an arrangement that there would be no promise of a lasting commitment. When their old lovers try to come back, they realize that they really do love each other and for each of them, there was no going back to their previous lives and loves. It was powerful and believable.

"Blume in Love," however, is 2 hours of cinéma vérité. The plot is basically that Blume brings home his secretary one time and his wife finds them in their bedroom after apparently having had sex. The movie does give new meaning to the term "bringing your work home." His wife promptly walks out and demands a divorce. She refuses to forgive him, even though this is, apparently, his first and only time that he cheated on her. Ironically, Blume is a divorce lawyer. Blume then spends the rest of the movie with a stupid grin on his face obsessed with getting his ex-wife back. He explains the reason he wants his ex-wife back is because he can't think of anyone else when he's having sex with everyone else. The dialogue, such that it is, is often drowned out by background noises. We are also made to believe that Venice, Italy, has some kind of intrinsic magic that heals relationships. His wife, who works at a state unemployment office doing intakes, ends up shacking up with one of her clients in the form of Kristofferson, who plays the part of a musician who never plans to work while waiting for the world to come knocking on his door. One gets the impression that the dialogue was mostly ad libbed when KK's character starts talking about growing up in Brownsville, TX (and he was really from there).

There is nothing that makes you care for any of the characters and there is nothing to indicate that Blume and is wife have anything in common other than possibly sex and alcohol. Why they didn't have children is not explained, but one can assume that it was due to an unstated lack of commitment. Their relationship only substantially improves after Blume forces himself on his ex-wife and she subsequently becomes pregnant, also resulting in KK's character leaving her.

This movie, made in 1973, probably appeared to be pushing the acceptable boundaries of sex in movies for that time. When you get to see Marsha Mason's breasts, you realize that most people look better with their clothes on. And the sex is pointless to the extent that the plot doesn't justify it. I guess it was there to help sell movie tickets. Cliches abound, including the classic, weird-looking psychiatrist who says nothing until Blume suggests ending the therapy sessions. I was disappointed when he didn't say, "Sorry, our time is up." Even the ending with the apparent reconciliation between Blume and his ex-wife coming together in the plaza in Venice was a rip-off, done so many times in much, much better reconciliation movies, the best being "A Man and a Woman." There's no 360 degree camera rotation around them at the train station, nor is the music as memorable. Like the ending of "The Graduate," it is so preposterous as to question if it could even actually happen. A lot of things can keep a marriage together, but mutual respect and commitment are probably the most important. None of that was shown here, only Segal's stupid grin that you would like to knock off his face.

Probably Mazursky's best

[bob998 · 8/10 · 17 April 2005]

Paul Mazursky gave us three fine films: Blume in Love, Harry & Tonto and Moscow On the Hudson, and a host of lesser works that we can still enjoy. I can't think of many American directors of the last half-century with a record like his. Blume In Love is obviously influenced by Truffaut's Jules and Jim, but is funnier, faster and not indebted to literary models as Truffaut's film was.

The triangle of Blume, Nina and Elmo works so well because of Kris Kristofferson's easy charm and rock star charisma. The story would have foundered on Blume's obsessiveness and Nina's Puritan desire to do good ("I haven't done much for the farmworkers, but I boycott the supermarkets") had Elmo not been around to keep things light. The story he tells of the bust in Franklin, Tenn. is wonderfully funny, although a little scary, and the trio's singing Chester the Goat is a delight.

I became a George Segal fan when I first saw this movie, and I can't help but lament the lack of intelligence and depth in today's actors when I see what he does with this difficult character. Marsha Mason is his equal in talent, playing Arlene, Blume's vulnerable lover who knows her days are numbered. The smaller roles are ably filled, particularly Shelley Winters as the woman whose husband left her.

The flowers of the 70's show the blume off the rose.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 14 January 2022]

A definite product of its time, this 70's comedy drama is interesting for its view of male and female relationships from the point of view of the man George Segal who ruins a marriage through a one night stand and can't let go of his ex, Susan Anspach, after their divorce. She's moved on, interestingly enough, with a client at her social security office play by Kris Kristofferson. He ends up in an affair with one of their best friends, Marsha Mason in one of her early film roles, and his neurotic manner also threatens to ruin that relationship even though it is not based on love. For a man who makes a living as a divorce lawyer, he sure is messed up in his own relationships.

Today, a movie like this might be turn on cable TV rather than released in the theater, but movies of this nature, slice-of-life mixes of drama and comedy, were very popular especially with a whole new crop of young actors popping up and becoming stars. This is written and directed by Paul Mazursky, so it's a darker side of human relationships where are the exes still remain part of each other's lives, and even the new love interest are friendly with their current partner's exes. There's no fighting between the men, Segal and Kristofferson, and no cat fights between Anspach and Mason. In other words, they may act like children in their breakups, but they act like adults and many other aspects. It's very Neil Simon in nature, ironic that it features Marsha Mason who married Simon that year.

Keeping honest with its liberal seventies attitude, seagull is seeing having an affair with his black secretary which has an interesting twist while they are in bed. Shelley Winters has nothing more than a recurring cameo in the film has one of Segal's clients, a woman going through a divorce who suddenly ends her plans but of course later returns. Very glamorous in the way she dresses, she still never left Shelley Winters playing Shelley Winters, not that that is a bad thing. One of the clients at the welfare office is none other than Shelley Morrison of "Will & Grace". The film switches between Los Angeles and Venice Italy, it's opening showing how romantic Italy brings out the Romantic side of everybody regardless of age, even hintingat an older man's desire to a younger man. It's done quickly but in good taste. So for a nice seventies slice of Life, this is an interesting character study, nicely acted, but a film where writing and directing is King.

Stereotypical of the films made in the 70's by those responsible for this blasé overrated junk

[Ed-Shullivan · 1/10 · 12 March 2022]

I have always liked George Segal but put him together with director Paul Mazursky and what you get is not the beginning, but the continuation from the 1920's of male dominance in the film industry where women are still being treated like second class citizens. Mazursky takes liberties with the women showing a little bit of titty, and erroneously tries to portray the average looking George Segal as a Burt Reynolds stud type that all women would feign over. PUHHHLeeese!!

I am a plus 65 year old heterosexual male but even without considering the 2020's "ME TOO" movement how were filmgoers not offended by the way Nina Blume (Susan Anspach) was portrayed in this film, and what makes George Segal's performance as the divorced husband Stephen Blume even remotely acceptable?

What you have reflected in this film is a bunch of pretentious Warner Brothers producers continuing to show men as flesh mongers and women as objects of pleasure and the director and leading male actors accepting their TOO LONG accepted rightful roles as the male studs that use women, and then just throw them aside.

It is a slippery slope when sexual abuse such as is reflected in this film is accepted as the norm. I am going to assume that my review may be pulled by the IMDb censors and if so, I ask a simple question? Who censors films such as Blume In Love that depict women as nothing more than livestock no less for men to take full advantage of without consequence. No wonder producers that followed such as Harvey Weinstein, Andrew Kreisberg, and Brett Ratner thought they could follow in suit such as this 1970's film.

I give this film a 1 out of 10 rating and I recommend it be pulled from all film libraries and placed in the cell of Harvey Weinstein to be used as a training tool for all sexual offenders.

Best use of music in a film that I have ever seen.

[sailjenk · 10/10 · 27 November 2002]

I have never forgotten the scene where Susan Anspach glides gracefully across the screen towards George Segal to the accompaniment of Wagner's Liebestod from Tristan and Isolde. The glorious climax of the music was timed to coincide with the exact moment of their meeting and was, for me, the highlight of the film. Three thumbs up to whomever decided on it's use!

Love- the most dangerous word of all

[videorama-759-859391 · 7/10 · 2 September 2021]

Here is pleasurable entertainment, a sort of neurotic farce, full of irony, but better yet. George Segal, the best thing here in a sort of a mess of a film. A jumbled comedy which never quite reaches it's peak, it's intentions not entirely clear, where the story kind of strays off path. There seems to be too much going on here. Segal is a womanizer, a swinger, and has another real dilemma of a problem. He's still in love with his ex wife, the delightful Anspach (Montenegro) who now shacked up with hippie, ex con (Kristofferson) adequate, The film too kind of drags a little towards the end. Shelly Winters as one of Divorce Lawyer (Segal's clients) and Marsha Mason as a swinger, lend fine support, and there's a real funny tracking shot of our three leads in a vee dub. I liked it how Kristofferen and Segal form a buddy friendship, inrrespectful of their love, Anspach, who's such a delight to watch. I love watching these 70's films of a by gone era, you just love to revisit, but BIL. Doesn't fully bloom, and just comes off as a bit bland a comedy/drama. Definitely worth a view, but more than that, a great, unmissable, engaging performance from Segal.

Typical Mazursky, I suppose

[tedr0113 · 5/10 · 4 March 2007]

I have to admit right off the bat I have no fondness for Paul Mazursky's films. I remember reading, somewhere, that he was a West Coast Woody Allen. If that is true, then he is Woody Allen without humor, or more importantly, without soul. This film follows George Segal (whom I've always liked) through his marriage, divorce and re-attachment with Susan Anspach. There is nothing innately offensive in this film. In fact, it strikes me as though it should be stuck in a time capsule of 70's film-making. And kept there. This is one of those films where you can't exactly pinpoint what is wrong with it but simply leaves you unsatisfied, unless you are a 70's film historian, I suppose. There is no connection with Blume, unless you are of his milieu. While (being NJ bound) I have affection for LA and the 70s, this film struck me as ingrown, meant for cognoscenti. A smart "ha-ha" that shows no outreach. And little comedy.

This is not as smug as "An Unmarried Woman" But at the end of 1:55, you will have shrugged your shoulders and gone "huh?" Maybe it was potent in 1973. But today, that just means its dated.

An intelligent screenplay ends in travesty.

[movieman9 · 14 February 1999]

I have enjoyed Paul Mazursky's direction on a few occasions, notably in Harry and Tonto. I like his work in Blume in Love as well, but am close to being disgusted with the repulsive ending. George Segal plays Blume, an obnoxious ex-husband of Susan Anspach. He has an overactive libido that gets him in trouble in this film in more ways than one. He spends the majority of the movie pining over the loss of his wife while comprehending why he can't perform sexually the way he wants to. The end of the story really got my goat (and yes, there is another goat in this picture I won't comment on here). Rape is no laughing matter, committed by anyone no matter what the situation. This film made light of the whole occurrence, and made Kris Kristofferson (Anspach's live-in boyfriend) look like a putz. To top it all off, the film ends happily, with the wrong people (immorally) getting back together. I would have been more content if the film stayed on its obsessive keel, maybe even if it went into a screwball comedy. Unfortunately, it traverses into absurdity and non-sensical behavior. I enjoyed the first half of this, had a bit of a titter or two, but was most displeased in Blume in Love's finish. Rating: Two stars.

ahhh... the seventies.

[ksf-2 · 6/10 · 12 February 2021]

George Segal is Blume, a couple years after his big role in Virginia Woolf. Blume is a divorce lawyer, and is getting divorced himself. he slept with his secretary, but still loves his wife. it's kind of a 1970 relationships, psychology thinker film. and there's the racial aspect... Blume is white, his secretary is black, and now fired (What?). so Blume takes his doc's advice and starts shagging everything in sight. while his ex wife bunks with Cole (Kris Kristofferson, a couple years before A Star is Born. Kris had started as a musician. and who knew he was married to Rita Coolidge?? ) co-stars Shelley Winters and Marsha Mason. i was never a big fan of Winters, but thankfully she has a pretty small role. LOVE Shelley Morrison (Rosie the maid!!) but she also has a smallish part. Blume hangs out with Cole.. and eventually his ex-wife allows Blume to hang with the two of them. swearing, nudity, sex, drug use. serious violence. the film is okay... moves pretty slowly. pretty heavy stuff right near the end. Written and directed by Paul Mazursky. he had just done Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice... another relationships thinker film.

Liked the film Did not like the rape

[eagle-89410 · 6/10 · 1 March 2022]

While I liked the movie (I just saw it on TCM) I did not like the rape of the woman with whom Blume is in love. I do not believe that such behavior was ever acceptable/justifiable even such a long time ago. But anyway, the film is iconic despite this shortcoming and insensitivity. And Mazursky.was a cinematic great who earned his accomplishments.

It was not as good as remembered.

[bcrd500 · 7/10 · 2 March 2022]

The plot of the film is thrown off by the casting of the three major characters. The ex-wife (Anspach) hooks up with a musician (Kristofferson) who is twelve years her junior. Problem is Kristofferson is six years older than Anspach and it shows making the film unbelievable. Another problem is this version of Kristofferson is a paunchy look not the thirty pounds lighter, chiseled look in "A Star is Born".

I watched it again because I like Kris Kristofferson and he turns in a good performance.

The movie failed to keep my attention because it seemed Segal and Anspach mailed their performances, which made the movie seem flat.

Embarrassingly bad, self-indulgent tripe!

[hemisphere65-1 · 2/10 · 24 October 2021]

George Segal is solid, as usual, but Susan Anspach and Kris Kristofferson seem like high school play actors. They are both incredibly poor performers in this movie, made worse by the terrible script. Mazursky was definitely a legend in his own mind and it shows here. The VO narration is horrible, as is the plot. Marsha Mason is the best in the film, as is the location scenery in Venice.

Don't waste your time on this! Watch Harry & Tonto instead!

One of Mazursky's best

[mjkh · 10/10 · 3 July 2014]

Blume in Love is honestly one of Paul Mazursky's best films. George Segal is fantastic as the charismatic, yet deeply pathetic protagonist Stephen Blume and Kris Kristofferson bounces off of him enjoyably in one of his early film roles. The script creates an engrossing, believable portrait of romantic relationships in the 1970s, while also having several laugh-out-loud moments. Additionally, Mazursky makes great use out of both Los Angeles and Venice, Italy as locations. Dramatically effective and boasting several memorable characters, Blume in Love is in the same league as An Unmarried Woman and is a a must-see for Mazursky fans.

Really shows its age

[evening1 · 4/10 · 4 July 2022]

Though it has its strong points, this film is hard to enjoy because of the unmitigated unlikability of its main character.

George Segal plays the time-traveling Blume, hopscotching between present and past experiences with his wife, Nina (Susan Anspatch), whom he claims to adore but treats anywhere on the spectrum between callously and criminally. He's obnoxious, and we don't buy it when she takes the jerk back, despite the romantic backdrop of Piazza San Marco in Venice.

There are other aspects of this film that make it a chestnut. Blume's sexual harassment of his secretary is off-the-charts, and Nina also breaks professional boundaries by bedding Elmo, her client from down at the welfare office, played, admittedly, with great charm by Kris Kristofferson. He's the best thing about this turkey, but gets way too little screen time.

This movie is too long by half, and shows us that even in 1973, virtue signaling was a thing. How else to explain the appearance of United Farm Workers singing a union song? The scene has no discernible connection with anything else in the film.

The scenes between Blume and his psychiatrist are stultifyingly dull and do nothing to move the story along. More time is wasted with an overemoting Shelley Winters, Marsha Mason, and some hippie types who swing.

I realized too late that I had this glorified soap confused with "The Public Eye" of the year before, which shares some thematic elements. Now that's one I'll watch for on TCM...

Not the ending I was hoping for

[timcurryisgod · 8/10 · 18 November 2018]

I really liked this movie but then I enjoy many of the romantic comedies from the late 1960's and early 1970's that sort of explore relationships and challenge sexual and social mores. This is one of those but very easy to watch and enjoy, until a particular scene that is. And I'm not sure I'd watch it again.

I especially enjoyed watch Kris Kristofferson play Elmo Cole, Nina's adorable love interest following her divorce from Blume. Blume attempts to triangulate himself with Elmo to gain access to his ex wife, a super gross move that is very real life and kind of scary, too.

For the viewer it's satisfying to see the triangulation because Kristofferson is just gorgeous and adorable as Cole, but it's also a bit ominous the way Cole is being used; I'm not sure viewers who haven't been through that personally would recognize it- I don't think Blume is so smitten by Cole in an innocent way; he's using him for access to Nina.

Maybe it's good that this wasn't just a "light-hearted" look at a couple post divorce; it transcends much other similar fare in that way. . .

Throughout the movie we may see Blume as lovelorn, remorseful, etc. we may see Elmo as just a cute guy who doesn't take anything too seriously, and see Nina as a woman whose independence is budding, until one scene which picks up on the ickyness of Blume's forced triangulation and reveals to the viewer, yeah; it's just not that Elmo Cole is so likable; Blume really is that controlling and predatory.

Following that scene we can see Elmo is more than just a pretty face and that he really loved and cared for Nina.

Don't want to give too much away, but I'd have preferred a different ending. I think this film successfully relays that: women's movement or not, women still don't really have power over our own lives in the way men do.

If you're a woman who has been abused or stalked by an ex lover, which really isn't "funny" at all, you may not find this to your liking- not that it focuses so much on that, but it's just a lot of the film is Blume trying to regain access to Nina through Cole and there is a point where it goes from light-hearted to something more dark.

It's hard to care about Blume...a major problem for me.

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 23 August 2022]

WARNING: Despite the film being billed as a comedy, it features a rather graphic rape scene! Folks might want to think about this before watching the picture.

Sometimes you see a film that many loved and you find yourself wondering WHAT they saw in the movie. Such is the case with "Blume in Love"...a film that I really wanted to like but really hated.

Much of the problem is that I really did NOT like the title character. He was creepy, annoying and a real jerk....and it's hard to build a film around such a guy. But much of it also was the script...which seemed confusing and poorly organized. It also, near the end, becomes VERY serious and sick.

Blume (George Segal) is seemingly happily married to Nina (Susan Anspach). Despite this, he cheats on her and she divorces him. However, Blume is a guy who wants everything....so he begins sleeping around AND wanting his wife back! And, although divorces, Blume keeps bothering his ex...sort of like a stalker. Ultimately, he ends up raping her. And, apparently it's supposed to be a comedy!

Times sure have changed. Back in 1973, this was supposed to be a funny film...one of director/writer Paul Mazursky's best. But having a rapist for a title character is sure a hard sell for me...and I really, really hated the script.

Nothin' To It.

[Mike-696 · 21 May 1999]

"Blume In Love" (1973) begins in Venice, Italy as Blume (George Segal) talks about how this most romantic place changes the way couples think of sex and love while they are visiting. As the movie pushes along Blume talks about his divorce from his ex-wife Nina Blume (Susan Anspach) and his regret from having an extra-marital affair. We also see images of Nina and Blume's honeymoon to Venice. But now Blume is back in Venice on his own after Nina had asked him to leave for a couple of weeks so she could work things out. The rest of the movie contains flashbacks of before and after the divorce.

I have seen one other film by Paul Mazursky [Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)], which was a film that dealt with two couples experimenting in sexual freedom. "Blume In Love" is about a divorce-lawyer named Blume (Segal) who suffers from impotence and despair after he is divorced from his beloved Nina (Anspach). He "can not live without her" he exclaims, and "would rather die if he can't have her back." And dying is something Blume doesn't want, so he has to win her back. He eventually wins her back in an ending that is either ambivalent to the viewer, joyous or they are repulsed by it as was the reviewer before me. It was a very romantic and happy ending, but it was far from realistic

"Blume In Love" is a well-directed film by writer and director Paul Mazursky. The performances by Susan Anspach, George Segal and Kris Kristofferson as Elmo are all wonderful. Kris Kristofferson's Elmo is a very likeable character. His easy-going, laid back "Nothin' To It" look on life is a sharp contrast to the emotional conflict between Nina and Blume. Elmo is a traveling musician who moves in with Nina after she divorces Blume. He enjoys playing his music and having a good time. Blume ends up liking him too, and uses him as a reason to come and visit Nina to win her back.

In the end this was a story about a man desperately trying to win his ex-wife back. He will do everything possible to do so. Along the way we follow him through his despair and sometimes we laugh at it and sometimes we cry.

Directed and written by Paul Mazursky. (Mazursky himself plays Segal's law partner.)

Guys, it was once a Top 100 Film!

[richrhea5 · 8/10 · 22 November 2018]

Many years ago this poignant film found its way onto several Top 100 films of all time...how times have changed! BTW Gunga Din has fallen off these lists as well...sad but true.

Paul M. Is considered to be one of America's finest filmmakers so be careful criticizing him...(try writing a romantic comedy and you'll see what I mean).