Tender Is the Night (1962)

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Absolutely Fantastic

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

I first saw this film in 1981 because I was and remain a Jill St. John fan. I loved Jason Robard's performance very much, and enjoyed that his character was from Glens Falls (where I lived from 1983 to 1985).This film is no perfect adaptation of the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and that is reflected in how David O. Selznick reacted to its release back in 1962. But it is a respectable film made more likable by the performances by Mr. Robards, Jennifer Jones, Tom Ewell and Jill St. John.Beyond the usual, this is a film of transitions. Jennifer Jones' career, though restarting here, was really winding down, as she only made three more films before retiring in 1974. Tom Ewell is beginning to look more haggard here, compared to when he was acting opposite Marilyn Monroe some years earlier.On the other hand, Jason Robards would see his career progress further, continuing until his death in 2000. Jill St. John not only progresses from childhood to adulthood in this film, but did so in real life; she would turn 21 during the general time of the film shoot. This is also the film where she would change her hairstyle to the bob that she would wear during the 1960s.And speaking of which … Even looking at the titles of this film, one gets the feeling that, despite the 1961 filming and 1962 release, this is very much a Fifties film, and with some sense of restraint. That may be where the downfall of the film may be, but I cannot say for certain. Remember, this is the early 1960s.And if there were limits, might "Cleopatra," with its studio overruns, have made an impact? Possibly. Anyway, give this movie a chance. It is rewarding to watch! 8/10.

**spoiler alert**This movie does not have the greatest reputation in the world. I'd read that Jennifer Jones was too old to play Nicole, that she overacts, that she has no chemistry with Jason Robards, that it was too long, etc.Well don't believe it!It DID take me several attempts to watch the whole thing, but that nothing to do with the movie, that had to do with something else. WhenI finally saw the whole thing all the way through, I enjoyed it very much and questioned why it does not have more admirers.It explores many themes, thoughtfully and without exploitation. Should a doctor romance his patient? When does the patient stop being a patient, exactly, and start being a person? Nicole meets Dick in a sanitarium. She's there for a variety of reasons, none of which sister Joan Fontaine really care to discuss. It has something to do with their father. Nicole eventually is released and runs into Dick years later, and they get married. They have a wonderful life and two children but it starts to fall apart. Not because of Nicole's mental state - actually, as it turns out, she becomes the stable one. But a friend of theirs (Tom Ewell, making a fool of himself as a chronic drunk) dies, their daughter almost dies from alcohol poisoning, and Dick is see with an actress (Jill St. John) at a brawl in a café and their picture makes all the front pages.Jennifer Jones is prone to be very mannered. In spite of them she's still a favorite, but here she's really very good, she's not too old to play the part, and her chemistry with Robards is believable. Fontaine doesn't do much but enjoy her own wardrobe. As I mentioned, Ewell is a drunk but his death scene (or, rather, the circumstances surrounding it) are the worse thing in the movie. Jill St. John is first seen as a youngster but she matures as the movie progresses..unfortunately, her acting does not improve. At over 2 1/2 hours, its an investment, but worth your time. Now I want to watch it again. 8/10.

This movie was a flop at the time and has been pretty much forgotten, which is a shame. It's a faithful adaptation of F.Scott Fitzgerald's moving story which is a touch lifeless, but still worthwhile.The plot is ofcourse very good, a love story which is intriguing and very sad. There is perhaps not quite enough emotion throughout most of the film, but by the time the end comes the film has become pretty moving. Jason Robards was definately miscast as Dick Dyver [a good name for a porn star!]but Jennifer Jones shows what a good actress she sometimes could be ,especially when she is displaying her character's 'madness' ,if that's not too strong a word. None of the supporting characters are as interesting as they should be except Jill St John's aspiring actress and there is somehow little feel for the period, but the strength of the story just about carries one through. Mention should be made of Bernard Herrmann's often touching [if a bit self derivative!]music, but having the film's theme song [which he did not write] played endlessly on the piano by one character gets a bit annoying.Despite it's flaws ,this is a fairly solid romantic drama that probably seemed old fashioned even in 1962, but deserves some reappraisal.

Neither F. Scott Fitzgerald nor Ernest Hemingway ever have much luck in having their novels transferred to the screen with any degree of success. 'Tender in the Night' suffers from several things: the casting of leads (Jennifer Jones, Jason Robards, Jr.) and a weak script that never manages to make us believe the story's tragic overtones. And at 146 minutes, the film is rambling and overlong.Jennifer Jones is alienating in the principal feminine role as a neurotic and never manages to make us feel any sympathy for her character. Jason Robards, Jr. is physically miscast as Dick Diver and does not add to his reputation as a fine actor. Jones gives an odd, uneven performance with critics claiming that age was one of the factors for her failure to be convincing in the role--although Time magazine was impressed enough to give her a rather left-handed compliment: "She is well cast as a neurotic and does her best work in a decade." But the majority of critics were not favorably impressed.Whatever, the film did not reinforce her prestige as a box-office star as Selznick hoped. Joan Fontaine does fairly well as a sophisticated woman in a rather peripheral role that does not warrant star billing.And oddly enough, despite some lush location photography, everything about the "look" of the film seems artificial and stage bound. This artificial streak runs through the script too.