CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

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.

calvinnme I had never seen this side of Jack Lemmon before. He was a very gifted and versatile performer. In this film, Lemmon, an alcoholic, but at first fooling himself that he is just a two martini lunch businessman, meets the very sober Remick. He ends up taking her out on a date and asks if she wants a drink. Remick states that she would rather eat chocolate than drink. Lemmon tells her he has just the drink for her and mixes her up a Brandy Alexander that contains creme de cacao--basically making Remick a chocolate flavored cocktail. This is the beginning of the end for Remick.Lemmon and Remick fall in love and marry. They spend their days drinking and drinking. Lemmon's alcoholism spirals out of control and he ends up being demoted and is sent away on business. Bored, Remick's alcoholism gets worse as she fills her empty time drinking. Lemmon is later fired due to his alcoholism and spends the next few years drifting from job to job.Lemmon and Remick realize that they have a problem and try to sober up together. For awhile, they are sober and working together in Remick's father's landscaping business. That all ends later however, when Lemmon ends up destroying Remick's father's greenhouse looking for stashed booze. The scene of Lemmon crawling around on the ground in the rain is particularly sad and pathetic and shows just how bad he and Remick's problem has gotten. Lemmon ends up joining AA in an effort to sober up. Jack Klugman plays Lemmon's sponsor.Lemmon appeals to Remick to join AA with him, but she won't. She doesn't feel she has a problem and feels that she can handle it herself when she wants to. Her father later tells Lemmon that his daughter has started disappearing for long stretches of time and is even picking up strangers in bars. This is a great scene between Jack Lemmon, and, by that time, old pro Charles Bickford in a very late performance in his career.The most bittersweet moment of the film is at the very end. Remick returns to Lemmon and appeals to him to make things the way they were. Lemmon says that he doesn't want things the way they were, he wants to be sober. Remick states that she likes her life better when she's drinking than when she's not. Lemmon is essentially forced to choose between his sobriety and being with her. He lets her go and Remick walks out the door, leaving her daughter and husband behind. Their daughter, seeing her mom leaving asks her father: "Will mommy ever get well?" Lemmon responds "I did, didn't I?" He looks out the window to watch Remick walk down the street - right toward a lit neon "Bar" sign.This film was so tragic and so sad, but it was also very compelling. Lemmon and Remick did an excellent job portraying two alcoholics and I liked that the film ended on a somewhat uncertain note. It seems that Lemmon will be okay, but what will become of Remick? Based on her actions in the film, things don't look rosy for her. You get the feeling that drinking is helping her hide from the fact that she IS an alcoholic, and the buzz helps her forget.

PimpinAinttEasy Dear Alcoholics, Days of Wine and Roses (1962) is yet another film that portrays us in really bad light. The moronic ex- alcoholic protagonist (played by the great Jack Lemmon) gives up alcohol and goes back to being a square while his intelligent alcoholic wife (the achingly beautiful Lee Remick) does the right thing and walks out on him to continue being an alcoholic.How predictable right? Whats so great about the world that you need to stay sober? Parties without alcohol are the most boring on earth.Most humans are boring or vicious people.Alcohol on the other hand is a nice person. Alcohol never lets you down. Alcohol is always there. Alcohol does not have bad days. Alcohol does not switch off. Alcohol is my best friend. It can be yours too. Mans best friend - alcohol and not smelly dogs. Though dogs are OK. If you want a friend buy a bottle of JD - Godron Geeko.There aren't enough alcoholics in the world.Movies and religious fools portray alcoholics as people who need help. No. It is the non-alcoholics who need help - you with your stupid agendas and your careers and your religions and your stinking rules.How about prohibiting religion and not alcohol? Alcoholics never flew a plane into a building.Alcoholics never dropped nuclear bombs on anyone.If anything, the world needs more alcohol.Many a life has been rendered dull and meaningless due to lack of alcohol.Those dull and hot nights. Those Monday mornings. Those Sunday evenings.Those boring jobs. Those horrible people. All those bad movies.All of this can be endured with a little alcohol.So repeat after me.Alcohol for the whole of humanity.Coming back to the movie, it is not too bad. They do get some things right. Like how the corrupt jobs that decent people have to do attracts them to the bottle. Lee Remick's short speech at the end also hits the spot.It is definitely a flawed film. There are some serious plot holes. Like what happened to their kid while mom and dad were drinking. Lol! Who brought up that kid? Or did they slip some whiskey into her milk too? Hohoho! They did not show that part.Anyway, I love movies about alcoholics, whatever the message at the end might be.Best Regards, Pimpin.(7/10)

gudpaljoey-677-715384 For the 1960s, this was a courageous ending to a tragic picture. How many viewers were wishing for Ms Remick to return from the street into the arms of Mr. Lemmon with a vow never to drink again. But rather we see an ending where the husband character knows that the only way to save his own life,and in a sense hers, is to watch her walk across the street from his window. Love is not diminished with the ending, it is enhanced. The picture deals with the alcoholic differently that most movies before it. More realistically, the drinker in older movies is shown as a loner outside society drinking for only one reason to get soused. Here we have two codependents in a marriage,drinking because they find it exhilarating, great sport and an escape from the dismal world they both find themselves in. I did think that the giddy swinging of bottles in the air was way overdone and more should have been made of their compatability as drunks by showing more affection for each other during these scenes. However, he scene of Mr Lemmon tearing up the green house was startling, although his alcholic rages were also taken a little too far.