Loving (1970)

Powerful

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Who needs blood and guts when you can watch more interesting destructive behavior? George Segal embodies studied amorality perfectly. There is no God, no religion, no moral sensibility, only what I do and what I can get away with. But it's not just George. All the men in the film are just in it for themselves, down to the kvetching neighbor complaining about George's crab-grass. We are a long way from Puritan New England in this cold portrayal of suburban hustle set in Westport, CT. Some of the women, especially Eve Marie-Saint, still think the old rules - middle-class conventions - still have meaning, value, and valor, but not the men and certainly not two of the women (Mistress and Fling for discussion purposes herein). We get no inner life of George, he just communicates his superiority as an artist, his ability to hustle accounts (in a bizarre cameo by Sterling Hayden, who plays an embodiment of Lincoln), and his ability to have a wife, a mistress, and whatever Fling stirs him at the moment, which becomes the essential plot device of this otherwise aimless movie, aimless if you don't see the trainwreck coming at breakneck speed, despite the movie's studied languor. We would have no movie, however, if only George was amoral - and you know George is amoral, that the part was a cakewalk for him, because that is who he is. Yuk! I will certainly research any movie that stars George Segal before deciding how much degradation and loss of tradition I want to experience.Of course, to him and his ilk, there is no other reality. Life is to be lived through their gimlet eyes, and my job is to identify these types early, and thence to avoid them. I am not even going to look up the name of the "party-host husband" who casually schtupes a drunken guest (that would be Fling #2 for George, but he doesn't get to her) while his wife vainly tries to keep the party upscale, only to have her husband tee up live-pornography for his guests. As my secretary says, you can't make this stuff up, and this movie perfectly illustrates what happens when you believe in nothing other than the primacy of your own sexual prowess.Thoroughly distasteful but an essential watch for those who need to understand why we have a new religion in this land, one whose commandments consist of micro-aggression "Shalt-nots," identity politics, and a belief that government must make laws enforcing all this BS, and must take care of us from cradle-to-grave. For those rejecting the traditions of our ancestors, it is George jungle out there unless we abide by our new religion. It's an easy choice for me (the ol' time religion), but not for most, with their obsession with "truth," and hence our new religion. In this religion, all that matters is your posturing, and your obeisances to the identity politic gods (and police), even if the world is falling down around you. I'll take the old-time religion always.Performances are excellent throughout. The children - the poor children: their suffering isn't shown, but it is forboded - are superb. The hard-bitten Mistress, angling for George to divorce, is perfect in her callous disregard for other's feelings. And the two Flings are the cynical embodiment of George - they are also just in it for the momentary pleasure George is living for. In fact, the only moral judgment ever passed in this movie is when Fling #1 (Fling #2 having passed out upstairs where the host gets her) accuses George of being middle-class for wanting his pants back before going back into the house to get food and drink for their outside tryst. Double yuk.But powerful. After traditional religion but before our new Neo-Victorian secular religion enforced by the state (and its high priests), this movie is a must-see for American cultural history.

I just finished watch this movie and it was one of the worst 1.5 hrs. I've spent in my life.Let me work backwards on this; when the final credits ran I was so confused by the abrupt ending that I had to rewind just to make sure that the movie didn't cut off the ending. It made no sense whatsoever. Immediately after the fight scene, the redhead just walks away. You'd think she would have said something and wouldn't it have been better if Brooks had seen her standing there?There is no relationship between the viewing audience and the actors, you end up not caring at all about the characters. Oh and don't let me forget the biggest mystery of them all, and this really kills me. The part where the guy goes into the room with the drunk girl -- you know he's going to take advantage of her but there are no repercussions and no one ever knows! Why did they put this in there if the hidden TV cam didn't even catch him?!?!?I beg of you all, don't watch this. The only reason I rated it a 4 rather than a 1 is because of the groovy 70's music and fashion.

In the wake of Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice came a string of similar sex comedy/dramas including Loving. George Segal was on a role in the late 60's/early 70's, but this is one of his lesser known efforts from the period. And seeing how few votes this movie has gotten here on IMDb, it's still quite unknown despite being available on DVD since 2003.The film has a typical plot of it's time: successful man throwing away his perfect life with wife and kids with his unfaithfulness. Eva Marie Saint who plays his wife is far more attractive than the woman he's seeing on the side, so it was hard for me to feel any sympathy at all for this guy. A young Sherry Lansing (the future Paramount producer) shows up in a small but memorable role, looking like the twin sister of Raquel Welch. She should of played the "other woman" instead, we would of understood why he was cheating on his wife a whole lot more. Not only did Lansing's career end not long after Loving, but the actress who played the other woman, Janice Young, vanished completely after Loving, as did the other major actress in the movie, Nancie Phillips. Neither of their IMDb listings list them as being deceased, so i'm definitely curious as to their whereabouts.One major reason why this movie deserves more attention is that it now possesses more historical importance than ever before. As noted in the trivia section, there's a scene that takes place at a construction site, and that scene was shot on location at none other than the World Trade Center construction site, of all places.

LOVING is a film for the patient movie buff. It is not a film for those who want to see murders or car crashes every five minutes. It is a maturely-told, sensitively-acted, -written and -directed film about a commercial artist's marital (and extra-marital) entanglements. It relies on character rather than plot to convey its points. All the actors are spotless in their portrayals, especially George Segal and Eva Marie Saint as the artist and his harried wife. It is a film that slowly builds interest in the characters which is amply rewarded for the audience by the film's conclusion. LOVING is a film that will leave you silent at the end, and thinking about it for days afterward.