Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

nomorefog ***************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

den_quixote 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."

Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman) 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.

BigCombo I don't really feel like writing this up, but I'll spend a few moments doing just that. Mazursky can be one of the most painfully self-indulgent filmmakers of the last 30 years, though admittedly I love a few of his films (especially HARRY AND TONTO). But more of his films are chores to get through, and pretentious ones at that. BLUME IN LOVE comes nowhere near the tedium that marks ALEX IN WONDERLAND as one of the worst studio films of the '70s, but it's still pretty lousy. Yeah, George Segal is great, and Kris Kristofferson and Susan Anspach hold up well...and actually Marsha Mason is pretty impressive, but, well, that's about it. The story is flimsy, the screenplay is mediocre...there's just not too much going on.Thematically, the film is rich and it's interesting to see that Stanley Kubrick featured it in EYES WIDE SHUT (look close - Alice is watching it on television while she talks to Bill on the phone), especially considering the slight similarities between the protagonists of the two films...but who knows if Kubrick featured it for this reason or because he knew Mazursky from way back when (Paul appears in Stanley's first film, FEAR AND DESIRE).BLUME IN LOVE could've been great, but Mazursky...well, it's another one of his "almost-good" films...I really think the majority of his work fails from half-assed screenplays and poor pre-planning (how else can you account for the aforementioned ALEX IN WONDERLAND)? And, oh yeah, there's that little matter of his phony art film sensibility. Stop trying so hard, Paul, you really don't need to include Fellini and Jeanne Moreau in your films (ALEX...) to show us you're above the Hollywood bulls**t. Frankly, sometimes a little Hollywood bulls**t (like a story) can work wonders.