CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

MartinHafer Despite the very, very positive reviews for this film and a very high score of 7.9, this film is NOT for everyone. I think had the film been shown to a hundred people and they reviewed and scored it, it would have been a lot lower--and with a WIDELY skewed distribution. People would either love it or hate it. However, the average person also would not just pick up a film directed by John Cassavetes. They might love him in "The Dirty Dozen" or "Rosemary's Baby"--but these are his commercial projects and ones in which he only acted. His own films are very personal and don't even attempt to be commercial but are artsy and often about topics that aren't all that marketable. The bottom line is that he did films he loved to make and didn't seem to care if the public embraced them--at least that's the perception most people 'in the know' have of his movies.As for "Opening Night", it's clearly not intended as a crowd pleaser! Like many of his film, it stars his wife, Gena Rowlands, and is VERY introspective and non-traditional in style. In many ways, it plays like an Ingmar Bergman film as made by an American. And so, if you love Bergman, you'll probably love this film--and if you think Bergman is dull, then you'll DEFINITELY think this film is as well.The film also stars Ben Gazzara--another actor frequently used by Cassavetes. A couple other very interesting choices for major roles are Paul Stewart (a great heavy from the 1940s and 50s) and Joan Blondell (a star from the 1930s). It's nice to see these familiar faces late in their careers--as Hollywood seemed to have no interest in these veteran actors--yet Cassavetes just didn't seem to care about marketability."Opening Night" is a film that is about an opening night of a play. Unexpectedly, one of the star's fans VERY obsessed fans is killed outside the theater--and the star (Rowlands) begins to suffer what appears to be a nervous breakdown through the course of the movie. As far as the film's structure goes, it was VERY unconventional--with long scenes from the play interspersed throughout the movie. Also, like many Cassavetes films, it features odd camera work and occasionally use of a deliberately bad focus. Fans of Cassavetes will eat this up but the average person (if they even see the film) will be confused and probably very bored by the whole thing. I am not a typical film viewer and like a lot of artsy films--yet I must admit I did not enjoy this film. Perhaps if I see a few more of his films, then I will find myself a fan (this has happened on a few occasions with other beloved film makers). What I did like and appreciate is that at least the film took some risks and was not conventional. I really wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did.

sdave7596 "Opening Night" released in 1977, tries to be an ambitious production. It succeeds only in the truly stunning performance of Gena Rowlands. Her character of theatre actress Myrtle is not necessarily someone we would love in real life. She is self-absorbed, often obnoxious, and makes life miserable for those around her - in other words, not unlike some actresses! Myrtle is also a woman on the edge of collapse - we are not quite sure if the demons she is fighting are real or imagined, although we are let in on the secret early. Rowlands is obviously well directed with love by her gifted husband, actor/director John Cassavettes, who has a role in the film as well. This film is not without flaws - it is overly long, and the last part of the film where Myrtle goes on stage while very drunk seems almost cruel. The "improvising" in some of the dialogue - at least while on stage - goes on way too long. Some of the supporting characters give good performances, especially from Ben Gazarra, playing Myrtle's sleazy producer. Joan Blondell's character is never fully developed, and I never could figure out why she was in the film, except to placate Myrtle. See this film for Rowlands alone - she is fascinating throughout - and it is tough to take your eyes off her, although you will want to at times.

jzappa I was absolutely blown away by John Cassavetes's Opening Night. It's the first movie of his that I've seen that seems to be on a bigger scale, thus it feels more mainstream, but it still doesn't feel as if he grounded himself any more than he has in his previous films. That is perhaps what makes it so intense. There is also something undoubtedly cathartic about watching this movie.It's about what in fact Cassavetes has made a staple of his career, an ideal that he has expressed behind the camera throughout his career as a director and is here expressing it in front. Rowlands's character, middle-aged stage actress Myrtle Gordon, cannot bring herself to play her role in the upcoming production as written so she uncalculatedly follows impulse after impulse, resulting in what appears to be chaos on stage, until she finds the right one. It's a daringly abstract premise.This is a movie that does not fail to capture the innate steering that one goes through during an emotional cleansing. No one understands why Myrtle does many of the things she does, and it is seen and even portrayed as something destructive, yet it just might be the best thing for her. It may be a cleansing rather than a breakdown. A withdrawal, a cocoon, a rebellion, it all culminates into a meltdown. Cassavetes gives her character a brutally real touch, which is that early on, she is ardently arguing that she has nothing in common with her character, yet she is in quiet but emotionally corroding fear that the opposite is true.The last scene, the climactic performance that Myrtle shares with a character painfully estranged from her who is acting with her, is one of the most interesting, hilarious, hard-hitting, enlightening, and enjoyable moments I've ever seen in a movie.

desperateliving It was once suggested by Pauline Kael, never a fan, that Cassavetes thought not like a director, but like an actor. What Kael meant was his supposed lack of sophistication as a filmmaker; to take that comparison further, to me, it never feels like Cassavetes is directing himself in a film, it feels like Cassavetes implanting himself inside his own creation, like Orson Welles. Cassavetes is just as much of a genius as Welles, but far more important as a true artist (as opposed to a technician or rhetorician). This is like a cross between Italian passion (though Cassavetes was actually Greek) and Scandinavian introversion. Never before have inner demons been so exposed physically.It's about the mystery of becoming, performing, and acting. Like a haunted Skip James record, it's got the echoes of ghosts all around. Rowlands' breakdowns, which are stupefying and almost operatic, surprising coming from Cassavetes, are accompanied by a jumpy, unsettling piano. Who is this dead girl? The metaphysical possibilities are endless, and it's amazing to find this kind of thing in a Cassavetes film, just the overt display of intelligence (there is also a brief bit of voice-over at the beginning). But then, he always was intelligent, he just never flapped it around for easy praise. This is not "Adaptation"; here, the blending of reality and fiction and drama is not to show cleverness but to show the inner turmoil and confusion it creates.There's so much going on. The pure, joyous love when Rowlands greets her doorman; the horror when she beats herself up... The scene where the girl talks about how she devoted her life to art and to music is one of the most effective demonstrations of understanding what it means to be a fan of someone. You can see some roots of this in "A Star Is Born," and Almodovar borrowed from it for "All About My Mother." I think the ending is a little bit of a disappointment because of the laughing fits, but the preparation leading up to it is almost sickening. (You can shoot me, but I think the alcoholism, despite its urgency in many of the scenes, is a relatively small point about the film.)It's a living, breathing thing, and it feels like a process: it could go any direction at any time. Like "Taste of Cherry," we are reminded that "you must never forget this is only a play." Yet it is dangerous: when Rowlands says that line, is it great drama? How will the audience take it? Is she being reflexive or does she just not care? Her (character's) breakdowns are incorporated into the performances, and ultimately the film, in such a way that it's like witnessing a female James Dean. 10/10