Konterr Brilliant and touching

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

rodrig58 Unique roles for Jack Lemmon and Lee Remick, usually they act in comedies but this is a solid drama. Together with Charles Bickford, they give three high-acting performances. Especially Lee Remick, she is unrecognizable as a perpetual drunkard. Simple, convincing, credible, realistic, like in real life. But again, watch out, because it's very sad, specially the ending...

frankwiener This movie owes its powerful impact to the skillful direction of Blake Edwards (the "Pink Panther" series, "Breakfast at Tiffany's"), a very fine screenplay by J.P. Miller ("The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case", "Helter Skelter", "The Young Savages"), and the exceptional performances of three native Bostonians, Jack Lemon, Lee Remick, and Charles Bickford. Add a Philadelphian named Jack Klugman to complete the nearly flawless portrait of the heartbreaking pain of alcoholism or, for that matter, any battle against the life destroying abuse of substance.Immediately following his huge success only a year earlier with "Breakfast at Tiffany's", Mr. Edwards returns with what I personally feel is his greatest achievement as a director. The atmosphere created with every scene still captivates me even after several viewings.As to the acting, I have seen Jack Lemon in many movies, but, for me, this was his most unforgettable role. I enjoyed Lee Remick in just about every one of her movies that I have seen, going all the way back to her introduction as the young cheerleader in "Face in the Crowd", a movie that I didn't like very much. This performance was close to the top, if not at the very peak, for her as well, and I even include her exceptional work in "Anatomy of a Murder", which would not have been as good a movie without her magnetic presence. Charles Bickford was perfect as her silent, stoic father, who deeply suffered beneath the surface. Accolades must also go to Ken Lynch, a grossly under-rated but very familiar actor who appeared in as many as 200 movies and television productions, for the cruel, even satanic "pouring scene" that will remain in my mind forever.I won't mention the ending other than that it was very bold and innovative especially for 1962 standards, thanks mostly to Jack Lemon's determination not to change it under any circumstances. The haunting and very moving musical score of Henry Mancini also contributed significantly to an excellent, nearly perfect film.

Martin Bradley It starts like some kind of sophisticated sex comedy, and a beautifully written and acted one at that, before turning into what is possibly the American cinema's most harrowing study of what it's like to be an alcoholic. When he directed "Days of Wine and Roses" Blake Edwards had already established a reputation as a fine director of comedy but this was an altogether different ball-game.Fundamentally it was an actor's piece and Edwards had two of the best. As the young couple who become totally dependent on booze Jack Lemmon and Lee Remick turned in Oscar-worthy performances, (they were nominated), and the film was brave enough not to have an entirely happy ending, (nor does it ever slip entirely into melodrama). It has also stood the test of time better than many other American pictures of the time. Superb.

Andrew Ray Most of us think of Blake Edwards as a director of comedies. After all, his "Pink Panther" series provided us with some of the funniest movies ever made, and his Dudley Moore comedies ("Micki And Maude," and particularly "10") are classics too. But Edwards was also capable of churning out more serious fare. The best of these films was a hit in 1962, but has long since been forgotten."Days Of Wine And Roses" begins innocently enough, as young public relations director Joe Clay goes on a first date with Kirsten Arnesen. While Kirsten is young and innocent, Joe makes his living in post-war corporate America. When my dad first began his sales career, during this same time period, his best friend warned him he had joined a "drinking fraternity." Sure enough, Joe introduces Kirsten to social drinking, they have lots of fun, get married, and have a daughter.As the Clay's casual drinking descends into a life of full-blown alcoholic despair, both Jack Lemmon (as Joe) and Lee Remick (as Kirsten) turn in the best performances of their careers. Joe eventually loses his top-notch sales position, then bounces around from job to job, before reluctantly going to work in his father-in-law's landscaping business. Joe and Kirsten manage sobriety for a while, but the lure of readily-available alcohol is simply too strong. Joe eventually gets sober through the then fledgling organization Alcoholics Anonymous, while Kirsten (a teetotaler at the film's outset) does not.Simply put, this is a film about alcoholism. Not the "closet" alcoholism portrayed by Ray Milland in "The Lost Weekend," nor the "death wish" alcoholism of Nicholas Cage in "Leaving Las Vegas." No, this is a warning-shot about the fine line between social drinking and disease. This may not sound like entertainment, per se; but consider it a very well-acted and well-written monition. While certain time-and-place aspects of "Days Of Wine And Roses" are dated, its message carries as much heft today as it did over a half-century ago.Lemmon should have won a Best Actor Oscar, if for no other reason than his scene of futile anguish when he breaks into his father-in-law's greenhouse one night for a hidden bottle of alcohol. The personal torment he conveys here is a heartbreaking plea for help – to no one in particular, save for himself and his creator. As a side note, Gregory Peck won that year's Best Actor Oscar for "To Kill A Mockingbird." It was one of those "congratulatory" Oscars, where the academy honors a longtime great, more for his or her body of work than the specific performance in question. Ironically, Lemmon himself would win such an Oscar eleven years later for the less-impressive "Save The Tiger." Screenwriter J.P. Miller adapted "Days Of Wine And Roses" from his own Playhouse 90 teleplay of 1958. Miller added some new material, Jack Lemmon in the title role, and voila! A classic was born.One of the enduring ramifications of this picture was the explosion in popularity of Alcoholics Anonymous. Founded in 1935, AA was still in its germinating state when Blake Edwards released "Days Of Wine And Roses." The timing couldn't have been better. The end of prohibition in 1933, coupled with the return of the often hard-drinking WWII soldiers in 1945, and a new economic and cultural prosperity in America in the 1950s, resulted in an outbreak of alcoholism never before witnessed. Many Americans searched for a cure, yet coveted anonymity due to the social norms of the day. Because of its relevance, and again because of Jack Lemmon's masterful acting accomplishment, I believe "Days Of Wine And Roses" should have won the Best Picture Oscar for 1962 – rather than David Lean's beautiful, yet long and somewhat draggy, "Lawrence Of Arabia." As our local newscasts never tire of reminding us, alcoholism (and drunk driving, in particular) is still a problem over 50 years after the release of "Days Of Wine And Roses." Even if you've seen it before, it certainly deserves another look. And that's why it's this month's Buried Treasure.