NOTE IMDb
6,0/10
1,5 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAn amnesiac (James Garner) wanders the streets of Manhattan trying to figure out who he is.An amnesiac (James Garner) wanders the streets of Manhattan trying to figure out who he is.An amnesiac (James Garner) wanders the streets of Manhattan trying to figure out who he is.
- Nommé pour 2 Oscars
- 2 nominations au total
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn his memoirs "The Garner Files" (2011), James Garner rated this as his worst movie. His comment about it: "I'd summarize the plot, but to this day, I have no clue what it is. Worst picture I ever made. What where they thinking? What was I thinking?" (page 256).
- GaffesAt about the 0:46:00 mark a woman walking by stops and points at James Garner, recognizing him as he goes into the drugstore.
- Citations
Mister Buddwing: I don't know where I was last night. I woke up in Central Park. As God is my witness, that's all I know.
- ConnexionsEdited into Voskovec & Werich - paralelní osudy (2012)
Commentaire à la une
"Mister Buddwing" has an interesting start. Seen from the POV of the protagonist, we find ourselves in Central Park. Searching our pockets for clues to our identity--because already it is clear that we have amnesia--we find a train schedule, 2 pills, a phone number and a ring with an inscription. As a jazz track plays in the background, we make our way out of the park and into a hotel where we see our reflection. We are James Garner!
Already we know this is a very stylish film. Most of the remainder of the film is shot third-person, but the camera does use POV for dramatic effects later.
Garner, now knowing what he looks like, calls the mysterious phone number and a woman answers. He is clever enough to get an invitation to meet the woman. He hopes to find clues to his identity. He stumbles outside the hotel and the New York streets are impossibly uncrowded and quiet, contributing a feeling of loneliness. He cobbles together a temporary name for himself (Sam Buddwing) using pieces of visual clues outside. Up until the naming, the film is dead-on mysterious and interesting. Why does he construct the name? It seems pointless. And his response to his temporary name is not authentic and only distracts.
According to a trivia note on this site, this was James Garner's least favorite among his films. I imagine it was embarrassing for him. What is frustrating is that the film had potential. If only the stylish photography and music were not undercut by useless scenes and bad dialogue.
The cast is fun to watch. Angela Lansbury, Jean Simmons, Suzanne Pheshette, Katharine Ross! And most of the acting is excellent. Garner himself has some dicey moments, but I wonder if that was due to the direction. Angela Lansbury shows her range again, playing a low-class, fading housewife who can still manage a motherly feeling or a tender moment. Katharine Ross is a student at NYU, who is suspicious of Buddwing's intent. Suzanne Pleshette is an adventurous actress who falls for Buddwing's charms almost immediately. Jean Simmons is a well-to-do woman on a scavenger hunt, but willing to change course on a whim or a premonition, in search of thrills.
When Buddwing meets these women, he enters a dream state that seems to have clues to his identity. Are they flashbacks? Eventually, the stories seem to overlap. It should makes things even more confusing, but somehow this conceit is fathomable. By the end of the story, all is clear.
Fans of NYC will probably enjoy the many identifiable locations (e.g. Washington Square and Shubert Alley).
One has the feeling that if some annoying items were excised, this film could be a classic. Some dialogue is inappropriate to the moment in the story. Some scenes were totally without value and, therefore, distracting. There are moments when the background music does not fit the action. Mostly small things.
After all the mystery, the ending is rather flat, a disappointment.
Already we know this is a very stylish film. Most of the remainder of the film is shot third-person, but the camera does use POV for dramatic effects later.
Garner, now knowing what he looks like, calls the mysterious phone number and a woman answers. He is clever enough to get an invitation to meet the woman. He hopes to find clues to his identity. He stumbles outside the hotel and the New York streets are impossibly uncrowded and quiet, contributing a feeling of loneliness. He cobbles together a temporary name for himself (Sam Buddwing) using pieces of visual clues outside. Up until the naming, the film is dead-on mysterious and interesting. Why does he construct the name? It seems pointless. And his response to his temporary name is not authentic and only distracts.
According to a trivia note on this site, this was James Garner's least favorite among his films. I imagine it was embarrassing for him. What is frustrating is that the film had potential. If only the stylish photography and music were not undercut by useless scenes and bad dialogue.
The cast is fun to watch. Angela Lansbury, Jean Simmons, Suzanne Pheshette, Katharine Ross! And most of the acting is excellent. Garner himself has some dicey moments, but I wonder if that was due to the direction. Angela Lansbury shows her range again, playing a low-class, fading housewife who can still manage a motherly feeling or a tender moment. Katharine Ross is a student at NYU, who is suspicious of Buddwing's intent. Suzanne Pleshette is an adventurous actress who falls for Buddwing's charms almost immediately. Jean Simmons is a well-to-do woman on a scavenger hunt, but willing to change course on a whim or a premonition, in search of thrills.
When Buddwing meets these women, he enters a dream state that seems to have clues to his identity. Are they flashbacks? Eventually, the stories seem to overlap. It should makes things even more confusing, but somehow this conceit is fathomable. By the end of the story, all is clear.
Fans of NYC will probably enjoy the many identifiable locations (e.g. Washington Square and Shubert Alley).
One has the feeling that if some annoying items were excised, this film could be a classic. Some dialogue is inappropriate to the moment in the story. Some scenes were totally without value and, therefore, distracting. There are moments when the background music does not fit the action. Mostly small things.
After all the mystery, the ending is rather flat, a disappointment.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Mister Buddwing?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Mister Buddwing
- Lieux de tournage
- Ville de New York, New York, États-Unis(New York University)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure 40 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Énigme à 4 inconnues (1966) officially released in India in English?
Répondre