Reviews (7)

This is a film for theatre people!!!
In the same way that Waiting for Guffman is truly appreciated by theatre people by the simple fact that we've known and worked with people in our lives like the characters in the movie.

This film also exemplifies how the love that is spurned from creating art with people is strong enough to withstand life's trials. A truly inspiring film. This film is also very similar to "Peter's Friends" starring a cast of amazing British acotrs including Kenneth Branaugh (sp?) and Emma Thompson.

This is a movie for theatre people!!!
I understand that most people wouldn't understand or like this movie becuase you have to be a true theatre person to be able to relate to this dysfuntional family dynamic. The love that is spurned from creating art together is something that can cause a lot of the dysfuntion explored in this film, but that love is also strong enough to withstand the hardships. I think theatre people relate to this movie the same way they relate and understand Waiting for Guffman.

but it is a great movie!
I rarely take the time to sit and write movie or book reviews, but having seen all these negative reviews for "Last Summer in the Hamptons" I feel compelled to speak my piece.

What is so powerful here is not the dysfunctionality of the family portrayed within, but what is at the core of this dysfunctionality: it is the inability of its members to walk away from its greatness, its fame within the highest circles of the artistic world. This movie is, in a way, a modern "Buddenbrooks", but it delves much more deeply into the reasons for the family's implosion. From the teenager who is pathologically rebellious because, as she explains to her cousins, it is the only way she can find to establish her independence from this great theatrical institution which is her family; to the brilliant director who, in order to create, has renounced, monk-like fashion, all sexual contact; to the most deeply studied pair of characters: the brother and sister pair who are so caught up in the web of their family, that their own sexual passions are trapped within the family, self-directed in an incestuous relationship.

This is the saga of a family which is admired, coveted, and idolized from outside, yet whose members are suffocating under the weight and tremendous magnet of its fame. It is a family which is the embodiment of Blake's sick rose.

This is a great movie, or a great play; it is a very powerful piece which will stay with you for a long time.

This movie is just plain bad.
Thinking it was an updated Big Chill-type flick with a spectacular cast, I looked hi and low for this movie so my wife & I could enjoy it. All I can say is what a complete waste of time and money - and nothing like the Big Chill! If this movie was one of the year's 10 best (LA Times), a recipient of 4 stars (NY Post, LA Times), brilliant, enchanting & exquisite (60 Second Preview), & finally Two Thumbs Up, than I must have no idea what a good movie is. This was one of most ridiculous films we've ever seen.

I don't live in a big market city and I do realize that some think I lead a sheltered life, but give me a break! What kind of characters are in this flop? Well, there was a gay guy that somehow was able to seduce a guy who wasn't gay. If fact, this confused guy had just slept with the gay guy's sister and she revealed how jealous she was of him because he always winds up taking her boyfriends. HUH? Then come to find out the sister of the gay guy had sexual feelings for him and even acted on those feelings.

There was an actress that had to 'act' as a baby seal at one point and a perform as a leopard to 'deal' with issues in her life.

The only thing the reviewers and I could agree upon is this sentence: 'Perhaps the world's most dysfunctional family.' And how.

If Henry Jaglom is 'the definitive Hollywood filmmaker,' and this film was 'his best yet,' I think we'll heed that advice and never watch another of his films. I'd rather be locked in a room and be subjected to 'Dumb & Dumber' for 108 straight hours than watch this 108 minutes again.

Blah!
I like to read movie reviews in the newspaper, in magazines, and on the internet to find out about movies that I otherwise might never find out about. Over the years, this has led to many wonderful films that I otherwise never would have known about. So, when this movie was releaed, I read several reviews from critics, and I noticed that this movie had gotten quite a few very positive reviews. So I went to the theater and I saw it. Boy was I ever disappointed! This movie is nothing more than a bunch of people siting around talking. Now, if the characters and their conversations are interesting, then that can make for a fine movie. For example, I loved the movie "Smoke" with Harvey Keitel. That movie had lots of interesting characters with plenty of interesting things to say. But "Last Summer in the Hamptons" lacks those good things. The characters in this movie are boring, their conversations are boring, and their lives are boring. And what makes it even worse is that the characters are not aware of the fact that they are boring. Instead, they all think that they are just oh so important. Simply put, this movie is the very definiton of the phrase "artsy fartsy." I think that there must be some kind of a clause in movie critics' employment contracts that requires them to give this movie a positive review and a high rating. Or, perhaps the critics are just trying to pretend that they can see something that the ordinary "common man" cannot see. Well, whatever the reason, the critics are wrong about this one. This movie is boring and dull and the characters are pretentious and boring and dull. And the movie is bad and I didn't like it. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

This movie is like a good friend!
I first saw this move eight or ten years ago, and it has since become a favorite that I "visit" with every year on New Year's Day. The themes of life transitions, new beginnings, and finding one's place in the world are especially resonant on New Year's Day when so many people take stock of the past year and make resolutions for the future. The characters are no more or less perfect than anyone's circle of friends, which makes them all the more loveable. Watching this movie has become a beloved annual ritual.

A different side of Duchovny (!)
If you buy this tape for any other reason than David Duchovny's presence in the film, you're in for a disappointment. Take my word for it--the story and acting are truly forgettable. Duchovny's 'appearance', however, is definitely worth the price....

All I can say is "WOW"

One of my all time favorites.
Yes, I really liked this one. Released in '90 in Vancouver, Canada, I was intrigued by the review in the Vancouver Sun and went to see it one night in a rather packed and small cinema that no longer exists...and it remains not only the best film of 1990, but one of my all time faves. Is this Henry's shining moment? I don't know, I've seen Eating and one other whose title I don't recall but the writing here is superb, and that goes for the acting too. Milos Forman and Maggie Jakobson - among others - shine here. One of the more memorable scenes is when the character Winona is asking advice from her older brother. Truly warming. And there's the moment when Maggie first shows up in sunglasses as she approaches the breakfast table. Another is Maggie, with a smile, imitating a dolphin's screeching. Then the party grows and grows...Winona finally finding Mr Right. Maggie conversation with her shrink. 'You're listening to the wrong voices.' I still remember Henry's parting speech near the end of film. And that song by Cris Williamson, A circle of friends. And that last scene or Henry watching a video playback of Maggie with a dolphin capped the film excellent. Along with Goodfellas, this shared the #1 spot for my fave film of 1990. And I have the poster somewhere!

'Past - present - future. It all depends on which star you're standing on.' Live on.

Good - if you like this kind of movie
This is a quiet, unusual, independant film. If you like movies with car chases and things that "blowed up - blowed up real good", this one isn't for you. It takes place on New Year's day in NYC when three women are giving up their apartment to the new tenant. Maggie Jakobson is a stand-out in the movie. The scenes with her and director/star Henry Jaglom (falling in love) make the film.

Buy it for David Duchovny's performance
The storyline is pretty awful. Jaglom is simply terrible as a screenwriter, actor and director.

But I give it four stars for the David Duchovny eye candy. Here he is as a young man in ALL his glory. He's absolutely gorgeous in this and he does a good job with his character, a real scoundrel and ladies' man. Warning, this movie contains male frontal nudity. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

GREAT
How interesting can it be to film people's responses to loneliness, loss of love and women's liberation? New York filmmaker Henry Jaglom ("New Year's Day," "Eating") has taken the route of doing just that - filming people's responses to those subjects, and the result is one of the most profound, exciting and personal films of the 1980's. Henry Jaglom plays a film director named Danny who is shaken and perplexed by his girlfriend, Helen (remarkably played by Andrea Marcovicci) who wants to be left alone, much to Danny's chagrin, when she sleeps. After she brushes her teeth, Danny has to leave so she can sleep in peace. On that note, Danny flies to Santa Monica to see his brother (Michael Emil) who is in the real estate business, and who deplores Danny's profession insisting it isn't work, it is "play." His brother is co-owner of an antique theater that is about to be demolished after having sold it. Danny gets the creative idea to stage and film his old friends and acquaintances in the theater, and so he makes invitations to all who are lonely on Valentine's Day to attend. A surprising number of people show up including his emotional companion Helen, a singer; Dave Frishberg who plays the piano in a beautiful montage sequence; Sally Kellerman as a distraught, popular movie star who all the men flirt with; Kathryn Harrold as an actress who wants to have a family; Steven Bishop who gets to play the guitar; and even the sage Orson Welles, in his last role, as a film director who delivers profound insights on women's liberation, loneliness and filmmaking. And for avid film buffs, Oja Kodar makes a pleasing guest appearance as a Yugoslavian woman who admires Danny for his truth and honesty (Oja was Welles's longtime collaborator and companion and appeared with him in "F for Fake"). "Someone to Love" is an eye-opening pseudo-documentary of relationships and what it means to have a companion, and the benefits and hazards of being lonely. It is the only film from the 80's to deal honestly, and with startling candor, on such issues. The question of Danny's credibility as a filmmaker is brought up at one point when he films Helen while dancing with her and she gets visibly upset. To quote Michael Powell, is all this filmmaking healthy? Is Danny asking questions that are too personal, or does he really want his brother to mingle and meet people at this offbeat party? Could it be that Danny is the only miserable person at this party? "Someone to Love" has no real ending but it does have a stirring conclusion with Welles smoking a cigar and cracking up as he expounds on what Jaglom may or may not have accomplished in his film. "Your films are very different from mine," says Welles. "You like happy endings because you are a sentimentalist." "Someone to Love" is never sentimental but it is a love letter to all artists (and people) who are miserable, happy or unhappy about life and love, and to those who consider loneliness a virtue. Are women better off without a male companion or a marriage? Are men also plagued by the same questions? These may be questions you ask yourself everyday but rarely are these questions ever explored in a film. "Someone to Love" is a sad, passionate, funny, messy film of great magnitude by a great director. And yes, his films are very different from anyone else's.

Not worth the money
Orson Welles' contributions are fairly interesting but the rest of this rambling, quirky film is pretty weak. If it had been purely fictional or non-fictional it might've worked, but by trying to be both it plays like a mediocre acting workshop. None of the issues raised come anywhere close to being resolved, the main one being "Why are all my friends alone?" Could it possibly be because they are all megalomaniacal ...My advice is to pass.

A Moderately Successful Return To Form For Jaglom
"Always" (1985) is Henry Jaglom's masterpiece, and his most commercial and accessible work; "Someone To Love" (1987) represents a return to form for the iconoclastic filmmaker, where Jaglom (playing "Danny," a caricature of himself) invites his real-life, unmarried friends to a party and films conversations at the event in cinema-verite mode. "Danny" asks his friends a series of questions about why they have chosen to spend their lives alone. Guests include lyricist Dave Frishberg, actresses Kathryn Harrold and Ronnee Blakely, and singer/songwriter Stephen Bishop. As Leonard Maltin notes, some of the "actors'" thoughts are interesting, others dull. The film, however, becomes a gem because lengthy commentaries by the late Orson Welles (on the subject of... what else?... relationships) precede and follow the party. From moment to moment, Welles is completely stunning, the views he espouses intriguing and controversial (at one point, Orson raises the question of whether or not slavery is wrong!!!). Moreover, Jaglom frequently splices gorgeous musical interludes (by Frishberg, Bishop, and Andrea Marcovicci) in-between his guests' thoughts. Near the end of the picture, Jaglom (either intentionally or unintentionally) raises the question of whether or not his method of filmmaking entails an invasion of privacy. These elements alone make the picture a must-see. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

So glad to have finally found it on video!
I saw this film back in 1986 (during a Fourth of July weekend no less) and it instantly hit an emotional cord that has rarely been touched since. The home movie-like setting makes this life "tale" so much more realistic! To rate the acting is almost unfair as the turmoil of a couple coming of age is so brilliantly portrayed by REAL life ex-spouses Townsend and Jaglon; one word however comes to mind: Poignant. EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE GETTING MARRIED...OR DIVORCED.

Always (not forever)
"Always" is Henry Jaglom's insightful retrospective take on his divorce. Combining poignancy with hilarity, the movie is more in the spirit of Woody Allen than Ingmar Bergman. It begins after a two year separation, with David, (played by Henry Jaglom) and Judy, (played by Jaglom's real life ex-wife Patrice Townsend), sharing their last dinner together as a married couple. The notary (delightfully portrayed by Amnon Meskin), arrives with the necessary divorce documents. He is moved by the obvious affection the couple share for each other. His professional objectivity slips and he refuses to notarize the documents, asking them, "why get divorced?" He insists they think it over, and then leaves David and Judy to spend the July 4th weekend to examine what went wrong in their marriage. They are joined by friends and family, whose relationships are also in various stages of turmoil. The DVD includes an introduction by the director. In every respect, this movie is a joy to watch!

Sadly beautiful!
Since watching this film, I have recommended it to everyone I know. It involves one of the most honest discussions about love I have ever witnessed anywhere. It also does not lack a comical element. Watching Henry Jaglom films makes one want to be a better person, to create better relationships with people. See them all!

Jaglom at his best--DON'T MISS THIS
Henry Jaglom was an independent filmmaker long before it became trendy. His films, which are conversational, have their own rhythm and style. "Always" is one of the best.

Basically, it's about relationships and is centered on his own relationship with Patrice Townsend which went sour BEFORE the movie was made. It's a token to their relationship that she agreed to make this film AFTER their divorce.

Some of what we see during a strange Fourth of July weekend is uncomfortable to watch because the feelings are very real. In two hours, we get to understand what made their very close relationship tick, and why love wasn't enough to keep them together forever.

Add in a wonderful soundtrack of oldies and you have a film about people who could be your close friends. As an another bonus, you get to see a VERY young Melissa Leo (of Homicide fame) making her debut.

Jaglom's films haven't been cheap on videotape so you'd better grab this while you can! ... Read more

Reviews (4)

So glad to have finally found it on video!
I saw this film back in 1986 (during a Fourth of July weekend no less) and it instantly hit an emotional cord that has rarely been touched since. The home movie-like setting makes this life "tale" so much more realistic! To rate the acting is almost unfair as the turmoil of a couple coming of age is so brilliantly portrayed by REAL life ex-spouses Townsend and Jaglon; one word however comes to mind: Poignant. EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE GETTING MARRIED...OR DIVORCED.

Always (not forever)
"Always" is Henry Jaglom's insightful retrospective take on his divorce. Combining poignancy with hilarity, the movie is more in the spirit of Woody Allen than Ingmar Bergman. It begins after a two year separation, with David, (played by Henry Jaglom) and Judy, (played by Jaglom's real life ex-wife Patrice Townsend), sharing their last dinner together as a married couple. The notary (delightfully portrayed by Amnon Meskin), arrives with the necessary divorce documents. He is moved by the obvious affection the couple share for each other. His professional objectivity slips and he refuses to notarize the documents, asking them, "why get divorced?" He insists they think it over, and then leaves David and Judy to spend the July 4th weekend to examine what went wrong in their marriage. They are joined by friends and family, whose relationships are also in various stages of turmoil. The DVD includes an introduction by the director. In every respect, this movie is a joy to watch!

Sadly beautiful!
Since watching this film, I have recommended it to everyone I know. It involves one of the most honest discussions about love I have ever witnessed anywhere. It also does not lack a comical element. Watching Henry Jaglom films makes one want to be a better person, to create better relationships with people. See them all!

Jaglom at his best--DON'T MISS THIS
Henry Jaglom was an independent filmmaker long before it became trendy. His films, which are conversational, have their own rhythm and style. "Always" is one of the best.

Basically, it's about relationships and is centered on his own relationship with Patrice Townsend which went sour BEFORE the movie was made. It's a token to their relationship that she agreed to make this film AFTER their divorce.

Some of what we see during a strange Fourth of July weekend is uncomfortable to watch because the feelings are very real. In two hours, we get to understand what made their very close relationship tick, and why love wasn't enough to keep them together forever.

Add in a wonderful soundtrack of oldies and you have a film about people who could be your close friends. As an another bonus, you get to see a VERY young Melissa Leo (of Homicide fame) making her debut.

Jaglom's films haven't been cheap on videotape so you'd better grab this while you can! ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The best "scam" movie ever!
One slick-tongued oily hustler (Zack Norman) plus one twitchy, neurotic accountant (Michael Emil) hook up to pull an ultimate scam: stealing from the thieves. Of COURSE it becomes an out-of-control run for the border, with a mix of wonderfully goofy characters, all of whom have their OWN scams working. Jaglom gets magnificent performances out of his cast, so much so that at times it feels more like a documentary than a "movie". There's not a moment in this film I don't enjoy, and it made me aware of Jaglom in a way I've never been aware of a director before. Alas, none of his other films seem to live up to this one in my mind, and Zack Norman's cool-but-slimy persona gets unbelievably tiresome in his other Jaglom films. This is a great one, though, for everyone involved. I have watched it over and over and enjoy it every time. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

"Happily Ever After" in a nutshell
Wow - this is the first Henry Jaglom movie that I have seen, but you can bet I'll be seeing more. His interviews with the women and how the movies influenced their perceptions of how relationships "should be" was incredible. In almost every single interview segment, I had a little, "yup, that sounds right" experience. Yes, the romance was wonderful, as was the duality of the Venice, Italy life with the Venice, California life. And I had my own "wouldn't it be wonderful to be floating around on a canal in Venice" point of view. So I was doing exactly what he shows us the movies do! ;) Anyway, a wonderful film, I plan to buy it, and replay it whenever I feel the urge to run after that "perfect man who will sweep me away and solve all my problems."

sometimes even self-absorbed dilletantes hit home runs : )
the only other jagfilms i've seen are hamptons & babyfever,neither of which are NEARLY so good. dualities (man/woman,movies/life, italy/l.a. etc.) resonated through this one poetically,accompanied as they were by that exQUISite music which i pray is released someday (both the score and the marshall barer/david colin ross song halfway thru)! a woman i showed this to remarked, "henry's a jerk, but he's a cool jerk." to which i'd add, "his flick may be bull#$@$, but it's marvelous, transporting bull@#$$." btw, v/v's washed-out light & color palette makes it ideal viewing on a sunny winter afternoon :) vt

Jaglom 101
This film allows the first time Jaglom viewer access to some of the director's best work, w/o the guessing usually involved in exporing an artist for the firsts time. A must for anyone serious about film.

the man has the consistency and essence of vomit
I just saw this movie and would only buy the book if 80 million dollars was at stake. I am a woman, an attractive and intelligent woman and I am completely alienated from his "vision". He portrays only the Cathy Guisewite view of womankind and all woman should chase him down and put wasabi on his oily, phony, grotesquely malformed testicles. I have never been so repulsed by another human.I imagine htis review is not suitable in that I did not suffer it in book form but I feel the need to warn the inoccent. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

So glad to have finally found it on video!
I saw this film back in 1986 (during a Fourth of July weekend no less) and it instantly hit an emotional cord that has rarely been touched since. The home movie-like setting makes this life "tale" so much more realistic! To rate the acting is almost unfair as the turmoil of a couple coming of age is so brilliantly portrayed by REAL life ex-spouses Townsend and Jaglon; one word however comes to mind: Poignant. EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE GETTING MARRIED...OR DIVORCED.

Always (not forever)
"Always" is Henry Jaglom's insightful retrospective take on his divorce. Combining poignancy with hilarity, the movie is more in the spirit of Woody Allen than Ingmar Bergman. It begins after a two year separation, with David, (played by Henry Jaglom) and Judy, (played by Jaglom's real life ex-wife Patrice Townsend), sharing their last dinner together as a married couple. The notary (delightfully portrayed by Amnon Meskin), arrives with the necessary divorce documents. He is moved by the obvious affection the couple share for each other. His professional objectivity slips and he refuses to notarize the documents, asking them, "why get divorced?" He insists they think it over, and then leaves David and Judy to spend the July 4th weekend to examine what went wrong in their marriage. They are joined by friends and family, whose relationships are also in various stages of turmoil. The DVD includes an introduction by the director. In every respect, this movie is a joy to watch!

Sadly beautiful!
Since watching this film, I have recommended it to everyone I know. It involves one of the most honest discussions about love I have ever witnessed anywhere. It also does not lack a comical element. Watching Henry Jaglom films makes one want to be a better person, to create better relationships with people. See them all!

Jaglom at his best--DON'T MISS THIS
Henry Jaglom was an independent filmmaker long before it became trendy. His films, which are conversational, have their own rhythm and style. "Always" is one of the best.

Basically, it's about relationships and is centered on his own relationship with Patrice Townsend which went sour BEFORE the movie was made. It's a token to their relationship that she agreed to make this film AFTER their divorce.

Some of what we see during a strange Fourth of July weekend is uncomfortable to watch because the feelings are very real. In two hours, we get to understand what made their very close relationship tick, and why love wasn't enough to keep them together forever.

Add in a wonderful soundtrack of oldies and you have a film about people who could be your close friends. As an another bonus, you get to see a VERY young Melissa Leo (of Homicide fame) making her debut.

Jaglom's films haven't been cheap on videotape so you'd better grab this while you can! ... Read more

Amazon.com

The mercurial film director Henry Jaglom is examined in this documentary, which features a number of people he has worked with explaining in frequently hilarious terms why Jaglom is both a fascinating friend and an incredibly annoying person to be around. Jaglom himself appears throughout in the documentary, commenting on what others say and explaining his eccentric method of improvising movies by claiming, "I'll fit the script later to what the actors give me." Actress and singer Andrea Marcovicci relates how supportive Jaglom has been of her efforts, but at other times she seems ready to throttle him. Candice Bergen speaks insightfully about him, calling him "confrontational" and a "kamikaze intellectual." And Jaglom's own brother, filmed on a New York City subway train, states that Henry is suited to be a filmmaker as he "wants to control people." After a torrent of criticism delivered with comical aplomb, Jaglom's brother says, "I'm totally amazed he hasn't gotten beaten up." Jaglom is seen in brief clips with interviewers including Charlie Rose and Bob Costas, and a critic who calls Jaglom the "world's worst director" appears to explain why. --Robert J. McNamara ... Read more

Reviews (1)

not someone to love, they say
The French auteur theory aligns the film director with his film. Although not allowing for workmanlike directors who are able to genre jump, the theory maintains that each product has an imposed and recognisably singular vision. As an independent film maker who produces cinema verite style work, Henry Jaglom is described in this doco by Alex Rubin and Jeremy Workman as individual as Godard or John Cassavetes, however their portrait of Jaglom focuses more on the man than his films. Since Rubin and Workman show behind the scenes footage of Jaglom berating his actors, we assume that Jaglom hasn't imposed any restriction on them. If he lets himself be seen like this ... However there is little of Jaglom's film work here. We get Jaglom's home movies, TV interviews, and comments about him by various actors and critics, with more negative than positive input. There is the sense that the makers of the doco assume an audience's knowledge of Jaglom, which gives the title an exasperated clinical tone, from the lack of depth given to his oeuvre, and from the inclusion of negative comments, since how can you appreciate an insult about something you are ignorant of? The footage of Jaglom in tantrum is shown to counter Jaglom's claim of unscripted improvisation as the ultimate freedom for the actor, which he rationalises by stating that it is a technique to help the actor deliver a performance. However it's clear that Rubin and Workman don't buy this defence otherwise they would present the takes that resulted, as evidence. Clearly they are out to do a hatchet job, from the opening credits featuring a steadicam wearing a Jaglom signature hat, Jaglom's taping conversations with Orson Welles without his approval (which Jaglom denies), and his willingness to help up and comer's as being motivationally suspicious. Occasionally the negativity is funny - with his brother Michael Emil revealing a sibling rivalry, and Andrea Marcovicci doing an impression of Jaglom's sociopathic form of concerned questioning. However Candice Bergen's comment that "if she had Henry as her father or husband she could have taken Poland" is evidence of his sustained motivation, which comes across in spite of the supposed resistance of his actors, some of whom have given him their best screen work. It's fun to see Henry on TV's Gidget as a beatnic, and one laughs at how Bob Rafelson dismisses Jaglom when he was at the Actors Studio. As an admirer of Jaglom, I was disatisfied with this coverage. It seems aimed to drive a viewer away from his films, rather than want to explore them, which left me sad. The French auteurs may be right about the singular vision of a director, but I don't think that should also include his personal behaviour. I may not want to be Henry Jaglom's friend, but that doesn't mean his work is not worth a look. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

a dumb movie
This is a dumb,poorly acted movie.However,it does capture the flower power era and Susan Strasberg is lovely.Jack Nicholson seems out of place as a hippie,his short hair with a pony tail glued on doesnt make a convincing hippie.The soundtrack isnt bad,although the rip-off of "purple haze" with jack playing one chord is silly.

Funny how time changes perspectives ( & alters history)...
I saw this when it first came out. At a midnight showing in Oakland California. I thought it an abomination at the time. Hollywood got it, typically, ALL WRONG, wrong look, wrong dialog, wrong clothes, wrong attitudes. Contrary to a previous review, this movie was not filmed "on location" (unless you consider Culver City an annex of San Francisco). Of all the actors, only Bruce Dern had an authentic aura about him, but the guy was born a bohemian/hippie. I had never seen Jack Nicholson before but I left the theater thinking I'd never see him again, so lousy was his acting. (How wrong could I be!) He was the antithesis of people in & around the Haight. All that said, let me confess that I think Nicholson is one of the outstanding actors of film history (though not in this movie). I also find that time has mitigated my sense of indignation with the accuracy of the Psych-Out. While still not a realistic representation of Haight in the 1960s (except maybe at the end of its dynasty), it is a pretty accurate view of Hollywood's take on & imitation of its Northern neighbors. Psych-Out is what Sunset Strip & its environs became in the 1970s.

Psych Out will psych you up!
Perhaps no 1960's hippie "exploitation" flick has more realism than 1968's AIC feature: "Psych-Out". With it's filming on location during the height of 1967's Haight Ashbury scene, this fictional account of Susan Strasberg as Jenny, a 17 year old runaway who arrives in the Haight looking for her dropped out acid-head guru brother excels as an unintentional documentary of the time. Along Jenny's way she runs into the trio of Jack Nicholson as Stoney, and 2 sidekick charactors played by Adam Roarke and Max Julien. With very explicit scenes of drug use and drug-induced, trippy "hippie revelations", as well as a scene of a bad LSD trip in progress, the film does not take either side of the establishment/anti-establishment debate of the time. The film is both an exceptional period piece of life as it really was in the Haight's heyday, as well as an excellent study of the dissillusionment of the dropped out youth of the Vietnam era. With the one exception of Jack Nicholson being poorly cast as Stoney, the remaining performances by the others in the cast are all excellent. A must see film for any 1960's countercultural buff. It would make a great DVD release.

God is Alive & Well & Living In a Sugar Cube...
Director Richard Rush (The Stuntman) throws deaf 17 year old runaway Susan Strasberg into the Height Ashbury scene in search of her long lost brother played by Bruce Dern. She meets up with muscians Jack Nicholson, Adam Rourke and Max Julian who look after her and help scour San Fransisco in search of her acid-addled brother. During their search they promote their band, calm down a flipped-out friend with a circular saw, play some tunes with the Strawberry Alarm Clock, fight a bunch of hard-hat types and indulge in some downright hillarious dialogue.

While wallowing in a pile of cliches, this film (unlike many of its era) is more realistic than some and the performances are uniformly excellent. Dean Stockwell playing a groovy guru, Jack Nicholson looking hillarious with a ponytail as he belts out a version of 'Purple Haze', Max Julian conveying an all too realistic chemical state of mind and Bruce Dern as the brother who calls himself 'The Seeker' and lives in a garbage dump. The film also benfits from the cinematography by Lazlo Kovaks and would make a great double feature with Roger Corman's "The Trip".
*** 1/2

Classic film of the late 1960's
This film reveals all that was (and still is) wrong with American society, filmed in 1968 in Haight-Ashbury in California, at the time of the hippie explosion. It shows the horrors of both drug abuse, and the unintended results of the abuse society heaps upon its own citizens. Its really a horror film from American International Pictures, disguised as a hippy movie. Like High Noon with Gary Cooper from 1953, this film merely uses the background of "contemporary" society to play out its moralistic tale. I first saw this film on TV in the mid 1970's. ... Read more

Description

A deaf runaway comes to Haight-Ashbury in search of her brother, and is helped by three hippies who convince her to change from "square" to "more hip." ... Read more

Reviews (7)

a dumb movie
This is a dumb,poorly acted movie.However,it does capture the flower power era and Susan Strasberg is lovely.Jack Nicholson seems out of place as a hippie,his short hair with a pony tail glued on doesnt make a convincing hippie.The soundtrack isnt bad,although the rip-off of "purple haze" with jack playing one chord is silly.

Funny how time changes perspectives ( & alters history)...
I saw this when it first came out. At a midnight showing in Oakland California. I thought it an abomination at the time. Hollywood got it, typically, ALL WRONG, wrong look, wrong dialog, wrong clothes, wrong attitudes. Contrary to a previous review, this movie was not filmed "on location" (unless you consider Culver City an annex of San Francisco). Of all the actors, only Bruce Dern had an authentic aura about him, but the guy was born a bohemian/hippie. I had never seen Jack Nicholson before but I left the theater thinking I'd never see him again, so lousy was his acting. (How wrong could I be!) He was the antithesis of people in & around the Haight. All that said, let me confess that I think Nicholson is one of the outstanding actors of film history (though not in this movie). I also find that time has mitigated my sense of indignation with the accuracy of the Psych-Out. While still not a realistic representation of Haight in the 1960s (except maybe at the end of its dynasty), it is a pretty accurate view of Hollywood's take on & imitation of its Northern neighbors. Psych-Out is what Sunset Strip & its environs became in the 1970s.

Psych Out will psych you up!
Perhaps no 1960's hippie "exploitation" flick has more realism than 1968's AIC feature: "Psych-Out". With it's filming on location during the height of 1967's Haight Ashbury scene, this fictional account of Susan Strasberg as Jenny, a 17 year old runaway who arrives in the Haight looking for her dropped out acid-head guru brother excels as an unintentional documentary of the time. Along Jenny's way she runs into the trio of Jack Nicholson as Stoney, and 2 sidekick charactors played by Adam Roarke and Max Julien. With very explicit scenes of drug use and drug-induced, trippy "hippie revelations", as well as a scene of a bad LSD trip in progress, the film does not take either side of the establishment/anti-establishment debate of the time. The film is both an exceptional period piece of life as it really was in the Haight's heyday, as well as an excellent study of the dissillusionment of the dropped out youth of the Vietnam era. With the one exception of Jack Nicholson being poorly cast as Stoney, the remaining performances by the others in the cast are all excellent. A must see film for any 1960's countercultural buff. It would make a great DVD release.

God is Alive & Well & Living In a Sugar Cube...
Director Richard Rush (The Stuntman) throws deaf 17 year old runaway Susan Strasberg into the Height Ashbury scene in search of her long lost brother played by Bruce Dern. She meets up with muscians Jack Nicholson, Adam Rourke and Max Julian who look after her and help scour San Fransisco in search of her acid-addled brother. During their search they promote their band, calm down a flipped-out friend with a circular saw, play some tunes with the Strawberry Alarm Clock, fight a bunch of hard-hat types and indulge in some downright hillarious dialogue.

While wallowing in a pile of cliches, this film (unlike many of its era) is more realistic than some and the performances are uniformly excellent. Dean Stockwell playing a groovy guru, Jack Nicholson looking hillarious with a ponytail as he belts out a version of 'Purple Haze', Max Julian conveying an all too realistic chemical state of mind and Bruce Dern as the brother who calls himself 'The Seeker' and lives in a garbage dump. The film also benfits from the cinematography by Lazlo Kovaks and would make a great double feature with Roger Corman's "The Trip".
*** 1/2

Classic film of the late 1960's
This film reveals all that was (and still is) wrong with American society, filmed in 1968 in Haight-Ashbury in California, at the time of the hippie explosion. It shows the horrors of both drug abuse, and the unintended results of the abuse society heaps upon its own citizens. Its really a horror film from American International Pictures, disguised as a hippy movie. Like High Noon with Gary Cooper from 1953, this film merely uses the background of "contemporary" society to play out its moralistic tale. I first saw this film on TV in the mid 1970's. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

So glad to have finally found it on video!
I saw this film back in 1986 (during a Fourth of July weekend no less) and it instantly hit an emotional cord that has rarely been touched since. The home movie-like setting makes this life "tale" so much more realistic! To rate the acting is almost unfair as the turmoil of a couple coming of age is so brilliantly portrayed by REAL life ex-spouses Townsend and Jaglon; one word however comes to mind: Poignant. EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE GETTING MARRIED...OR DIVORCED.

Always (not forever)
"Always" is Henry Jaglom's insightful retrospective take on his divorce. Combining poignancy with hilarity, the movie is more in the spirit of Woody Allen than Ingmar Bergman. It begins after a two year separation, with David, (played by Henry Jaglom) and Judy, (played by Jaglom's real life ex-wife Patrice Townsend), sharing their last dinner together as a married couple. The notary (delightfully portrayed by Amnon Meskin), arrives with the necessary divorce documents. He is moved by the obvious affection the couple share for each other. His professional objectivity slips and he refuses to notarize the documents, asking them, "why get divorced?" He insists they think it over, and then leaves David and Judy to spend the July 4th weekend to examine what went wrong in their marriage. They are joined by friends and family, whose relationships are also in various stages of turmoil. The DVD includes an introduction by the director. In every respect, this movie is a joy to watch!

Sadly beautiful!
Since watching this film, I have recommended it to everyone I know. It involves one of the most honest discussions about love I have ever witnessed anywhere. It also does not lack a comical element. Watching Henry Jaglom films makes one want to be a better person, to create better relationships with people. See them all!

Jaglom at his best--DON'T MISS THIS
Henry Jaglom was an independent filmmaker long before it became trendy. His films, which are conversational, have their own rhythm and style. "Always" is one of the best.

Basically, it's about relationships and is centered on his own relationship with Patrice Townsend which went sour BEFORE the movie was made. It's a token to their relationship that she agreed to make this film AFTER their divorce.

Some of what we see during a strange Fourth of July weekend is uncomfortable to watch because the feelings are very real. In two hours, we get to understand what made their very close relationship tick, and why love wasn't enough to keep them together forever.

Add in a wonderful soundtrack of oldies and you have a film about people who could be your close friends. As an another bonus, you get to see a VERY young Melissa Leo (of Homicide fame) making her debut.

Jaglom's films haven't been cheap on videotape so you'd better grab this while you can! ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The best "scam" movie ever!
One slick-tongued oily hustler (Zack Norman) plus one twitchy, neurotic accountant (Michael Emil) hook up to pull an ultimate scam: stealing from the thieves. Of COURSE it becomes an out-of-control run for the border, with a mix of wonderfully goofy characters, all of whom have their OWN scams working. Jaglom gets magnificent performances out of his cast, so much so that at times it feels more like a documentary than a "movie". There's not a moment in this film I don't enjoy, and it made me aware of Jaglom in a way I've never been aware of a director before. Alas, none of his other films seem to live up to this one in my mind, and Zack Norman's cool-but-slimy persona gets unbelievably tiresome in his other Jaglom films. This is a great one, though, for everyone involved. I have watched it over and over and enjoy it every time. ... Read more